#1
Posted: 11/5/08 at 11:15am
Will all the same sex marriages in California be null and void now, since Prop 8 passed - keeping "marriage" only between and man and woman?
Prop 8 - will all the gay marriages be null and void now?
#2
Posted: 11/5/08 at 11:21am
I assume any same-sex union/marriage in ANY state can be negated at ANY TIME because it is not federally protected.
It's awful and these damn ballot initiatives keep us suppressed.
It's awful and these damn ballot initiatives keep us suppressed.
#3
Posted: 11/5/08 at 11:25am
Outlaw civil marriage. Leave marriage to the church. Make civil unions availble to two persons, regardless of gender. Problem solved.
#5
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:07pm
SF city attorney Dennis Herrera just announced that as soon as Prop 8 is approved, he will file a case with the CA Supreme Court challenging the validity of the constitutional amendment.
#6
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:20pm
They will be on hold until this goes to the Supreme Court and it gets turned down again.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#7
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:23pm
Talk about regression amending a constitution to remove the rights of people.
#8
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:30pm
It's very trendy. Like Uggs.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#9
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:30pm
This sickens me. On one of the voter breakdowns last night, they said that the majority of African American and Hispanic voters voted in favor of it b/c they are "highly" religious. It's ridiculous that's what!
#10
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:33pm
Which is why it's now time to tax churches.
If they can sit there and preach hate and get away with it, why aren't they paying taxes?
If they can sit there and preach hate and get away with it, why aren't they paying taxes?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#12
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:40pm
I agree, charge the bigots hiding behind a pulpit or the altar or whatever else the preach their crazy and hateful notions from.
#13
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:43pm
Agreed
If we are not going to separate church and state, there is no reason that churches should not be taxed.
If we are not going to separate church and state, there is no reason that churches should not be taxed.
#14
Posted: 11/5/08 at 12:55pm
I don't see why there should be a need to leave 'marriage' to religion From all the sources I can find 'marriage' predates Christianity.
'Marriage dates back several thousand years, emerging as a civil arrangement at the same time as the emergence of private property. Far from fulfilling any religious purpose to unite one man and one woman, anthropologists theorize that most primitive marriages were polygamous. Marriages were entered into in order to expand the land or material goods base of a clan, either through the receipt of a dowry or the merger of two clans' assets. Religious guidelines around marriage are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old, and were first used as a means of preventing different religious groups from losing wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying into other religions.
In Western Europe, it was not until the Middle Ages that marriage in churches began to occur. However, church marriages were not the norm until the 17th century, and then only for the nobility. Marriage was also used as a tool to unite different royal families' bloodlines, creating alliances that were instrumental in enabling the European monarchies to colonize the globe.'
If religions wants to create a new institution exclusively based on the notion of one man and one woman joined under the eyes of god - let them find a word for it and leave 'marriage' as an civil institute for all consenting adults.
'Marriage dates back several thousand years, emerging as a civil arrangement at the same time as the emergence of private property. Far from fulfilling any religious purpose to unite one man and one woman, anthropologists theorize that most primitive marriages were polygamous. Marriages were entered into in order to expand the land or material goods base of a clan, either through the receipt of a dowry or the merger of two clans' assets. Religious guidelines around marriage are not thought to have developed until the practice was several hundred years old, and were first used as a means of preventing different religious groups from losing wealthy followers by restricting them from marrying into other religions.
In Western Europe, it was not until the Middle Ages that marriage in churches began to occur. However, church marriages were not the norm until the 17th century, and then only for the nobility. Marriage was also used as a tool to unite different royal families' bloodlines, creating alliances that were instrumental in enabling the European monarchies to colonize the globe.'
If religions wants to create a new institution exclusively based on the notion of one man and one woman joined under the eyes of god - let them find a word for it and leave 'marriage' as an civil institute for all consenting adults.
"I tend to think if god wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist" Linda Smith
#15
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:03pm
The California Attorney General expressed his view that previous marriages remain valid.
The Yes on Prop 8 Brigade are probably going to challenge those marriages in court.
The Yes on Prop 8 Brigade are probably going to challenge those marriages in court.
#16
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:10pm
And if those marriages stay, Prop 8 will ultimately fail as you can't let some gay people be married and outlaw the rest.
This is just the beginning.
This is just the beginning.
#17
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:13pm
I just don't understand why people are so hateful. I mean WTF.
KFTC!!!!!
#18
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:15pm
Which is why I ran around all day yesterday, paid out the nose, and got married.
Now I will show up at every one of 'their' meetings or protests and shove it in their face.
I'M LEGALLY MARRIED AND THERE'S NOT A THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
DOES IT AFFECT YOUR FAMILY IN ANY WAY?! NO? THEN STFU!
Now I will show up at every one of 'their' meetings or protests and shove it in their face.
I'M LEGALLY MARRIED AND THERE'S NOT A THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
DOES IT AFFECT YOUR FAMILY IN ANY WAY?! NO? THEN STFU!
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#19
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:18pm
Yeah, I didn't understand what they would do there for the people who have already been able to get married. This is just one thing I feel they messed up on. If I did live in one of the states with this on the ballot, I definitely would have voted no.
"I don't want the pretty lights to come and get me."-Homecoming 2005
"You can't pray away the gay."-Callie Torres on Grey's Anatomy.
Ignored Users: suestorm, N2N Nate., Owen22, master bates
#20
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:18pm
That's exactly what I think. I mean, it doesn't have anything to do with them personally......why do they give a crap? If 2 people want to be married, they should be able to be.
(congrats diva, btw on getting married yesterday)
(congrats diva, btw on getting married yesterday)
KFTC!!!!!
#21
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:20pm
Is anyone else having a hard time with the fact that African Americans in California voted to strip a disfavored minority of their civil rights by a margin of 70% to 30%? So even as they were almost all casting their ballots for the first African American president, the vast majority of those same people were simultaneously dealing a huge setback to another civil rights movement? I am aware that the two movements are not perfectly analogous, but I can't help being utterly disgusted at seeing that result.
#22
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:22pm
check out the other Prop 8 thread, Jilani......
KFTC!!!!!
#24
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:26pm
Yeah, I guess so. I just don't see it as a religious issue personally so it's hard for me to get it from that perspective.
I just don't know how you can change minds that are that narrow.
I just don't know how you can change minds that are that narrow.
KFTC!!!!!
#25
Posted: 11/5/08 at 1:26pm
I don't get why religious people who have been taught to love one another and to treat others as you would want to be treated are the ones who are most hateful. I grew up catholic and knew that when Jesus welcomed those that society considered outcasts, he was showing acceptance and tolerance. Now, how different are these "Christians" to those who persecuted Christ himself because of his differing beliefs?
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $139