Proposition 8

[Samoan-Z]

-- Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.
"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.
California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.


"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.
"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."


Opponents filed suit quickly after the November 4 election in which Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent, effectively reversing a California Supreme Court decision that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The vote also prompted a series of protests, some aimed at supporters of the proposition.


The proposition, which added an amendment to the state constitution, defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Opponents argue that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively, but proponents say the amendment is clear on that issue.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," one of the briefs read. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'


" ... Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California."


Opponents are also seeking to have the amendment nullified, arguing that it alters the state's constitution -- meaning the state Supreme Court's May ruling -- and therefore, according to state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention. Proponents of the amendment disagree.
"Petitioners' challenge depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution," their briefs said. " ... But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 -- and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California's history."


California voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 that changed the state's Family Code to formally define marriage in the state between a man and a woman. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in 2004, which were promptly annulled, Newsom and others sought to have the ballot initiative struck down.
The California Supreme Court did so in May, and same-sex marriages were performed legally in California a month later.
The court's ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."
But opponents had already been at work on Proposition 8, seeking to enshrine the marriage definition in the constitution, and the initiative was approved for the November 4 vote.
Proposition 8 supporters also announced the addition of Kenneth Starr to their legal team. Starr will serve as lead counsel and argue their case to the Supreme Court.


Starr, the dean of Pepperdine Law School, investigated the suicide of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater affair. The $70 million investigation turned up evidence of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and led to Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

Personal thoughts and feelings about this before I begin my rant?

 

[Tech]

Christians are a bunch of hate-filled hypocrits who can all go die in a fire.

my two cents.

 

[El Freako]

Christians are a bunch of hate-filled hypocrits who can all go die in a fire.

my two cents.

x2

 

[Duality]

prop 8 = right


i am for affording all gays the legal rights of marriage, but you don't get to call it marriage. marriage is between a man and a woman, call it something else. civil union, butt buddies, i don't care, just not marriage.

Proposition 8, seeking to enshrine the marriage definition in the constitution, and the initiative was approved for the November 4 vote.

ya, putting it in the constitution totally means you have to follow it

if the constitution was ever amended to say this, it would probably be the only thing we actually followed from the constitution.

 

[Braaq]

It is unconstitutional to deny a group of people the same rights as other due to a religious basis. Separation of Church and state is supposed to mean something. The government has no right to intervene on these people's rights, and if this is taken to the Superior Court I hope they follow the constitution as they are supposed to.
The word "Marriage" means nothing, it is a word as any other word and nothing more. If the church's chose to deny them access to get married that is their choice to deny service. But this is wrong in so many ways, and shows how once more religion is as fucked up by their extremist followers.

 

[El Freako]

prop 8 = right


i am for affording all gays the legal rights of marriage, but you don't get to call it marriage. marriage is between a man and a woman, call it something else. civil union, butt buddies, i don't care, just not marriage.





ya, putting it in the constitution totally means you have to follow it

if the constitution was ever amended to say this, it would probably be the only thing we actually followed from the constitution.

 

[Duality]

It is unconstitutional to deny a group of people the same rights as other due to a religious basis. Separation of Church and state is supposed to mean something. The government has no right to intervene on these people's rights, and if this is taken to the Superior Court I hope they follow the constitution as they are supposed to.
The word "Marriage" means nothing, it is a word as any other word and nothing more. If the church's chose to deny them access to get married that is their choice to deny service. But this is wrong in so many ways, and shows how once more religion and "God" is as fucked up as their followers.

you're half right and half wrong. the first part of your post is accurate and i agree. like i said with me it is just the labeling it as marriage that i find to be wrong, and quite honestly just plain inaccurate. marriage is between a man and a woman. so by all means afford them the same rights as the married couple, just call it something else, because quite honestly it is something else.

however you labeling the church as hateful for not allowing gays to be wed under them shows ignorance to the church. it is highly debateable on whether or not homosexuality is a choice or is in fact a natural occurence (i believe it is somewhere in between), however to call the church wrong for viewing it as a choice is close minded. it is a very serious sin in the church because it is viewed largley unnatural and an affront to God because to them, and many others, it is viewed as a choice. can you please explain to me why the church should allow gay marriage when it blatanly contradicts what we as humans are naturaly intended to do? it's not the church being hateful, it's them viewing it as wrong, unnatural, immoral, and disagreeing with it, something under the constitution THEY are ALSO allowed to do.

all you athiests and agnostic people calling the churches hateful for this are just flat out wrong.

 

[Tech]

you're half right and half wrong. the first part of your post is accurate and i agree. like i said with me it is just the labeling it as marriage that i find to be wrong, and quite honestly just plain inaccurate. marriage is between a man and a woman. so by all means afford them the same rights as the married couple, just call it something else, because quite honestly it is something else.

however you labeling the church as hateful for not allowing gays to be wed under them shows ignorance to the church. it is highly debateable on whether or not homosexuality is a choice or is in fact a natural occurence (i believe it is somewhere in between), however to call the church wrong for viewing it as a choice is close minded. it is a very serious sin in the church because it is viewed largley unnatural and an affront to God because to them, and many others, it is viewed as a choice. can you please explain to me why the church should allow gay marriage when it blatanly contradicts what we as humans are naturaly intended to do? it's not the church being hateful, it's them viewing it as wrong, unnatural, immoral, and disagreeing with it, something under the constitution THEY are ALSO allowed to do.

all you athiests and agnostic people calling the churches hateful for this are just flat out wrong.

strangely, I agree with alot of that. Churches should be able to deny service to any customers, just like any business. Gay people should still be able to get married, but if the church doesn't want them then they can find somewhere else.


with that said.....Duality, you said you partly think homosexuality is a choice. so I ask you, when did you choose to be straight?

 

[El Freako]

all you athiests and agnostic people calling the churches hateful for this are just flat out wrong.

 

[El Freako]

with that said.....Duality, you said you partly think homosexuality is a choice. so I ask you, when did you choose to be straight?

Wait... Jase is straight?

Could have fooled me!

 

[Samoan-Z]

Alright I had time to think about this from my usual close minded christian side or my more.... well other side.

Proposition 8 is a direct infringment on these people's rights although perosnally I agree with Duality that it shouldn't be called marriage. But then agian when we thing about homosexuality being disgusting and an act agisnt nature as heterosexual we are the same oh so perfect group of people whom watch and participate in bukkake, scat play, golden showers, fisting and the list goes the hell on.

Many politicans will argue that gay marriage is a danger to the american family of america the same country that built a city where every desire can be fufilled and that is if the price is right "Las Vegas".

but I digress, also to comment that Christians alone are the close minded people whom support Proposition 8 cause I am a christian and when someone says "Christians are a bunch of hate-filled hypocrits who can all go die in a fire."

you are attacking the religion as a whole, there are atheist, mulsims, christians whom support AND oppose this policy. Now Tech within almost every post you post or say soemthign you publiccly let every one know you don't beleive in god, ok great whatever we don't give a shit.

but now as looking through this with fairness and the eyes of the consistution I have to wholeheartedly agree with Braaq. when it is unconsitional to deny the Pursuit of Happiness to these people, yes they are gay so what, they want to get married.

And the possibility to nullify the marriages that have already taken place is ridiculous we are suppose to be the nation of freedom and understanding where you can come and be what you want to be to be happy. And politically we attack the gay community over and over agian.

Many politicans have publically said that gay marriage is a threat to the american people. I mean out of everyone I have ever bumped into I would be pretty sure i'd feel safer next to a gay guy than anyone else. They say this as if homosexuality is a contagious condition.

This is a subject that is never ending economy will pass over, the war will pass over (hopefully), but im always hearing a news story where homosexuality has come into play, where somehow the act of having sex with the same gender was suppose to affect a crime or policy and it's fucking ridiculous.

But now I will speak though my eyes as a christian and my personal opinion but like I said I can see the veiw through many eyes and understand and I would personally support the consistution but as a Christian opinion.

Fuck those faggots.

Which did you prefer lol.

Rant done.

 

[El Freako]

Its discrimination, pure and simple, it shouldn't happen. Its as discriminating as making coloured people sit at the back of the bus, or drink from different taps. Anybody who agrees with it is ignorant, christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.

 

[Duality]

strangely, I agree with alot of that. Churches should be able to deny service to any customers, just like any business. Gay people should still be able to get married, but if the church doesn't want them then they can find somewhere else.


with that said.....Duality, you said you partly think homosexuality is a choice. so I ask you, when did you choose to be straight?

the first time i saw breasts


it has several factors to it (me believing being gay is partially a choice). for example, the young girls who think boys are just jerks and chose to be with one another, or the woman who is sick of men cheating on her and finds another women just like herself at a bar, and then "discovers" she's a lesbian. these are instances of choice. but then they're are also the instances where i find it to be more a genetic short fuse and something they did not chose, these are the occurence where it's just been in them from a very young age to be attracted to the same sex. it has nothing to do with how they've been treated or what they've been through, this is where it's an unnatural "natural" occurence. for this reason i believe they should have the same rights a married couple posses, but under the name of a civil union and it should take place outside the church.

 

[Duality]

Its discrimination, pure and simple, it shouldn't happen. Its as discriminating as making coloured people sit at the back of the bus, or drink from different taps. Anybody who agrees with it is ignorant, christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.

i like how you in now way read my 2nd post and spoke in absolutes that are just flat wrong. please read again, and allow to sink in. repeat as neccesary.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Its discrimination, pure and simple, it shouldn't happen. Its as discriminating as making coloured people sit at the back of the bus, or drink from different taps. Anybody who agrees with it is ignorant, christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.

...... did you seriously say colored people lmao, we prefer african american coolsanta

 

[Tech]

...... did you seriously say colored people lmao, we prefer african american coolsanta

oh, were you born in Africa?

 

[Samoan-Z]

oh, were you born in Africa?

.... no...... my grand father was but not me but sicne I am of African decent I prefer African american, or samoan or even black. colored though ... not so much.

 

[Tech]

.... no...... my grand father was but not me but sicne I am of African decent I prefer African american, or samoan or even black. colored though ... not so much.

other countries still say colored, since I don't think they use politically correct terms like African American (obviously).

 

[Ironslave]

it is highly debateable on whether or not homosexuality is a choice or is in fact a natural occurence (i believe it is somewhere in between),

The etiology of anomalous sexual preferences in men.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:105-17; discussion 144-53.

People discover rather than choose their sexual interests. The process of discovery typically begins before the onset of puberty and is associated with an increase in the secretion of sex hormones from the adrenal glands. However, the determinants of the direction of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex, are earlier. These preferences, although not manifest until much later in development, appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of intrauterine hormonal events. Variations in these hormonal events likely have several causes and two of these appear to have been identified for males. One cause is genetic and the other involves the sensitization of the maternal immune system to some aspect of the male fetus. It is presently unclear how these two causes relate to each other. The most important question for future research is whether preferences for particular-aged partners and parts of the male courtship sequence share causes similar to those of erotic gender orientation.

however to call the church wrong for viewing it as a choice is close minded. it is a very serious sin in the church because it is viewed largley unnatural and an affront to God because to them, and many others, it is viewed as a choice. can you please explain to me why the church should allow gay marriage when it blatanly contradicts what we as humans are naturaly intended to do? it's not the church being hateful, it's them viewing it as wrong, unnatural, immoral, and disagreeing with it, something under the constitution THEY are ALSO allowed to do.
.

The church is the biggest group of hypocrites ever. I've said before, I don't mind those who have faith something exists, but adhering to the doctrine of what someone tells you to in a religion just doesn't make any sense to a critical thinker. How many priests have abused their position and molested young boys? So many things that the church does blatantly contradicts their doctrine. Lets look at what the church says about rape.


Deuteronomy 22:23-24, 28-29 NLT

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
....
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

It's just funny, these kinds of verses almost get (pardon the pun) tucked in the closet when discussing religion.

My thoughts, who gives a shit what they call it? Don't these people have better things to do with their time than retroactively ban gay marriages, like, I dunno, control the government spending and end bullshit wars?

 

[skindnef]

Imo , Christians are scared. Gays are becoming normal. Call it whatever you want, look away if you don't want to see. Some people believe there way is the only way. Land of the free should mean just that, FREE. Free to be gay and get married in a church with satanist and neo nazis and gangsta rappers and all drug users, automatic weapon owning, steroid taking non tax-payers who like to speed.