California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says maybe we will undo Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage)

[IndianaFuzz]

What gets me angry is when some homosexuals chose to throw their sexual preference in front of everyone in the world to see. For example, "They say they're gay and there is nothing we can do about it." Personally, I could care less what their sexual preference is. Frankly, it is none of my business.

What one chooses to do behind closed doors is their own business, quit parading it out in the open for the whole wide world to see. If one wants to hold hands or give another an occasional peck on the cheek or lips, thats fine, I think I can live with that, but knock off the public displays of affection (making out in public), or the effeminate or emasculate behavior. It doesn't belong there. This goes for all homosexuals, and heterosexuals alike.

Are you married? Do you wear a wedding ring? Unless you live in Massachusetts or Connecticut, wearing a wedding ring means that you are straight. When you wear your wedding ring in public, you are announcing to the world what your sexual orientation is. Why do you have to throw your orientation in people's faces like that? (Rhetorical question) When you publicly comment that some woman is hot or tell people about your wife or girlfriend, you also are announcing your orientation. So are doing those things I just mentioned wrong? Hell no! Do those things to your heart's content. But any equivalent thing that a gay person does is also not wrong. If a gay person wears a piece of rainbow jewelry, that's fine (similar to wedding ring). If a gay man talks about his boyfriend the way a straight man talks about his girlfriend of wife, then that's fine.

I agree that PDA's are bad regardless of who is doing it. Anything more intense than hand holding, hugs, pecks is probably going to qualify as a PDA. No one needs to see that regardless of orientation. Period.

As for being effeminate....some men are just naturally effeminate, whether they are gay or straight. I always feel sorry for the straight guys that are naturally effeminate, because they will be labeled as gay even though they aren't. If that is the way a person really is (effeminate) then there's nothing wrong with them being that way. Now, if a man "acts" effeminate because he thinks that is how a gay man is supposed to act (and that's not how he really is), yeah I have issue with that. But sometimes, some of that comes from the steroetypes that straight people have for gay people. Society bombards us with messages that gay men are all queens. Gay characters on TV are almost always effeminate to some degree (even Will from Will and Grace). If you hear that enough, you might believe it, whether you are straight or gay.

But the flip side is that there are plenty of gay men that are just as masculine as any of us in here. The thing is you generally never even know that they are gay when you see them because they seem to be just like everyone else unless you end up hearing that they like guys.

We've again gotten so off topic in this thread, but I think this is a good discussion to have, with plenty of strong opinions all the way around.

Back to the amendment (Prop 8). The voters did vote the amendment in so that is what the law will be until the voters vote to repeal the amendment. The argument about courts getting involved perhaps comes down to if people view this as a civil rights issue or not.

In law enforcement we understand how in the C.J. system, there is a balance between individual rights and societal interests/protections. And the debate of laws like this comes from differing definitions of which side of the scale you think is more important to consider on whether gay marriage should be legalized/banned. One side views banning gay marriage as an infringement on gays' rights, and thus considers constitutional bans as discrimination. The other side views such bans as necessary to protect societal/biblical traditions. If a state supreme court views the amendment as something that infringes upon the civil rights of citizens enough, can they then override even the vote of the people, citing that preserving the individual rights is more important than the societal/biblical traditions/protections?

I do doubt that anything would end up going down in court like that. I think that anyone that supports gay marriage, instead of worrying about a court, should instead just keep trying to garner support and try to get another vote whenever it would be eligible to be voted on again. The vote was close this time, so who knows how it would go down in a year or two? But that is the way to go, not bringing it to court at this point. I mean you know that if Prop 8 had lost this time, that someone would have brought it back for a vote again in the future. I do agree to let the people decide. But in our country, no decision is ever really final.

[MacLean]

If a state supreme court views the amendment as something that infringes upon the civil rights of citizens enough, can they then override even the vote of the people, citing that preserving the individual rights is more important than the societal/biblical traditions/protections?

On what basis could a court overturn such a decision, since the court is limited to interpreting the basis of a law in regards to the Constitution of that State?

1. Courts interpret laws in regards to the constitution which empowers them.

2. If that holds true, what basis would they have to rule upon?

[Willowdared]

14th Amendment?

[countybear]

14th Amendment?

Although I've searched all over, I haven't been able to find any "14th Amendment" in the California Constitution. Can you find it and share it with us?

[MacLean]

14th Amendment?

SCOTUS already ruled on the issue, and left it with the 10th Amendment.

[IndianaFuzz]

On what basis could a court overturn such a decision, since the court is limited to interpreting the basis of a law in regards to the Constitution of that State?

1. Courts interpret laws in regards to the constitution which empowers them.

2. If that holds true, what basis would they have to rule upon?

Thanks for correcting me. I should have said the US Supreme Court, instead of state. The U.S. Supreme Court operates by the U.S. constitution, in which gay marriage is not unconstitutional yet. So they could render the CA amendment impotent, since federal law supersedes state law. But for that to happen they would have to feel so compelled to hear a case on the issue from CA to change the previous stance of letting it be decided at the state level. And we know that is not going to happen unless new justices make it onto the Court.

[MacLean]

Thanks for correcting me. I should have said the US Supreme Court, instead of state. The U.S. Supreme Court operates by the U.S. constitution, in which gay marriage is not unconstitutional yet. So they could render the CA amendment impotent, since federal law supersedes state law. But for that to happen they would have to feel so compelled to hear a case on the issue from CA to change the previous stance of letting it be decided at the state level. And we know that is not going to happen unless new justices make it onto the Court.

Well, actually - they already did rule on the subject. They said it was a State issue, or more precisely that such a case "lacks a Federal question."

As you pointed out, I would find it unusual for the Court - even with new justices - to reverse itself. It happens, but rarely.

Also, it is a misnomer that Federal law supercedes State law. It is more accurate to say that the United States Constitution can supercede a State law, if it is held that the 14th amendment applies to the issue.

To date, the 14th Amendment has not been completely explored as to how much it deprives the States of their individual will.

[IndianaFuzz]

Once we open marriage to redefinition in the political sphere we will open it to polygamy and other forms of perversion.

Just like the "perversion" of inter-racial marriages opened the door for polygamy and other forms of perversion? Not too long ago, that was illegal too. Marriage had been redefined in the past. In that sense, allowing gay marriages wouldn't be unprecedented, as far as redefining marriage goes. Its just that YOU (and about 52% of CA voters) don't believe it should be redefined to include gays.

[Xiphos]

Just like the "perversion" of inter-racial marriages opened the door for polygamy and other forms of perversion? Not too long ago, that was illegal too. Marriage had been redefined in the past. In that sense, allowing gay marriages wouldn't be unprecedented, as far as redefining marriage goes. Its just that YOU (and about 52% of CA voters) don't believe it should be redefined to include gays.

Inter-racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage as held by my church and my beliefs.

Did you actually read anything I wrote in this thread?

[IndianaFuzz]

Well, actually - they already did rule on the subject. They said it was a State issue, or more precisely that such a case "lacks a Federal question."

As you pointed out, I would find it unusual for the Court - even with new justices - to reverse itself. It happens, but rarely.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen. That's why I added that if anyone really wants it changed, they need to do it the old fashioned way, and get enough support rallied then work to get the issue brought to a vote again to try to repeal the amendment.

Is there any kind of rules that state how much time, if any, has to pass before a vote can be brought up to repeal a new amendment?

[MacLean]

Just like the "perversion" of inter-racial marriages opened the door for polygamy and other forms of perversion? Not too long ago, that was illegal too. Marriage had been redefined in the past. In that sense, allowing gay marriages wouldn't be unprecedented, as far as redefining marriage goes. Its just that YOU (and about 52% of CA voters) don't believe it should be redefined to include gays.

So far, I haven't seen any of us actually tell you what our opinion is - and none of us live in California.

The exercise in question is legal and theoretical, not personal.

[MacLean]

Is there any kind of rules that state how much time, if any, has to pass before a vote can be brought up to repeal a new amendment?

Excellent question - maybe one of our California officers can answer.

[IndianaFuzz]

Inter-racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage as held by my church and my beliefs.

Did you actually read anything I wrote in this thread?

I never said that YOU thought inter-racial marriage was a perversion. But when inter-racial marriage was illegal, the religious argument was the main strength behind the arguments of those against it. To many people (according to their religious beliefs) it was a perversion.

I was merely equating the idea of your saying that opening up marriage to include gays would open it up to polygamy and the like.... to the idea that back then, many thought that inter-racial marriages were a perversion, and that opening marriage up to those couples would open up a Pandora's Box to other perversions. Therein lies the connection to your statement. I was just comparing another idea to yours to show that redefining marriage in this case is similar to back then. I actually was reading at least a couple of words from the thread.

By the way, kudos to your church for not being anti-inter-racial back then. Many people equate religiousness to close-mindedness, and that is simply not the case as much as some would want to think it.

[Xiphos]

I never said that YOU thought inter-racial marriage was a perversion. But when inter-racial marriage was illegal, the religious argument was the main strength behind the arguments of those against it. To many people (according to their religious beliefs) it was a perversion.

I was merely equating the idea of your saying that opening up marriage to include gays would open it up to polygamy and the like.... to the idea that back then, many thought that inter-racial marriages were a perversion, and that opening marriage up to those couples would open up a Pandora's Box to other perversions. Therein lies the connection to your statement. I was just comparing another idea to yours to show that redefining marriage in this case is similar to back then. I actually was reading at least a couple of words from the thread.

By the way, kudos to your church for not being anti-inter-racial back then. Many people equate religiousness to close-mindedness, and that is simply not the case as much as some would want to think it.

I've posted several references to the driving element behind gay marriages that really want to destroy the entire concept of marriage and family. It is not unreasonable to conclude that opening the door further to gay marriage will open the door to other perversions. They even admit that is their goal.

I posted what I believe is a reasonable legal solution to granting everyone the same legal rights and protection while also protecting the religious beliefs of most of this country.

[IndianaFuzz]

So far, I haven't seen any of us actually tell you what our opinion is - and none of us live in California.

The exercise in question is legal and theoretical, not personal.

The YOU in my last sentence of that post meant Xiphos (I used the caps to try to emphasize him, guess it didn't work as intended), since he was the one that expressed that he felt that opening up marriage to gays would open the door to other perversions. I'd be hard pressed to believe that Xiphos was pro-gay marriage for stating a belief like that. Also when he said that, he basically expressed that he thought being gay was a perversion, since he worded it that way. If he didn't mean to say that was his own opinion, a different wording would have helped, like saying that "some people think...", etc.

[IndianaFuzz]

I posted what I believe is a reasonable legal solution to granting everyone the same legal rights and protection while also protecting the religious beliefs of most of this country.

We could start a whole other discussion just on if civil unions are better, equitable, or worse than marriage. The word marriage is a very powerful word, for all sides of the argument.

[Xiphos]

We could start a whole other discussion just on if civil unions are better, equitable, or worse than marriage. The word marriage is a very powerful word, for all sides of the argument.

My solution is equitable because it applies to everyone.

[IndianaFuzz]

I've posted several references to the driving element behind gay marriages that really want to destroy the entire concept of marriage and family. They even admit that is their goal.

I think you are giving extremist gay groups a little too high of a percentage of the "driving element" concept. And any gay group that seeks to destroy marriage and families is extremist. Far more of the driving element is gay people that want to be treated fairly and equally, and want their relationships to have the same recognition by government, the same rights, the same privileges, and the same responsibilities as straight people. Of course an extremist group is going to be the more visible and more vocal entity. But that does not mean that they are representative of as much of a portion of the driving element behind passing gay marriages as you seem to think.

I'm not saying that there aren't the idiot gay extremists out there, that really just want to mess things up. But they are the vast minority.

[Willowdared]

Excellent question - maybe one of our California officers can answer.

I think it's a matter of collecting enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may
amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared
and submitted that it can be voted on separately.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at
a general election the question whether to call a convention to
revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question,
within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention.
Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from
districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

[Xiphos]

I think you are giving extremist gay groups a little too high of a percentage of the "driving element" concept. And any gay group that seeks to destroy marriage and families is extremist. Far more of the driving element is gay people that want to be treated fairly and equally, and want their relationships to have the same recognition by government, the same rights, the same privileges, and the same responsibilities as straight people. Of course an extremist groups is going to be the more visible and more vocal entity. But that does not mean that they are representative of as much of a portion of the driving element behind passing gay marriages as you seem to think.

I'm not saying that there aren't the idiot gay extremists out there, that really just want to mess things up. But they are the vast minority.

I've already addressed all of this and my solution addresses it as well. Those "extremists" are writing for "mainstream" magazines and there is no outrage in that community about it. That extremism is a lot more common than I think you give it credit for. Either way I think my solution is elegant because it gives everyone equal rights but it prevents the extremists from having their way and it protects religious beliefs. I don't see any other solution out there that can do this.