California proposition 8 poll

[SeanEdwards]

This is a poll of opinions on California proposition 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)) - an initative that would amend the state Constitution to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry".

What do you think?

[Apparition]

Not a California voter, and I support the concept.

[dannno]

Well ultimately banning gay marriage is akin to destroying free speech, so I say "No". I agree with Ron Paul's stance that marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the state, anyways. The state should uphold marriage contracts that have already been made and that is IT. The government can't tell you what words to put on the contract, though I understand the government will only uphold certain types of conditions in contracts.

On the other hand, there are threats that if gay marriage remains legal, that many churches will have to forfeit their tax exempt status for not marrying gay couples.

The Catholic Church in MA had to shut down their adoption program because they refused to adopt to gay couples.

I think these may be scare tactics. I just hope that in the end churches can choose who they want to marry, and gay people have just as many rights as non-gay people. Not more, just equal.

[Mini-Me]

I'm not a California voter, but I'm absolutely opposed to such a measure. It would only further entrench the state in the social, cultural, and/or religious affair of marriage. Besides, Constitutions are made to restrain the government, NOT to restrain the people.

I don't believe the state should be involved in marriage at ALL, but if it is going to be, it should not be permitted to pick and choose which marriages are "acceptable" to be subsidized and which should be banned entirely. If the government isn't going to butt out, it should at least avoid taking sides.

(Besides, it's not like gay people are hurting anyone by wanting to get married. Hell, it might just help them clean up their "reputation" and prove that being gay isn't all about promiscuity and walking down the street in assless chaps. Of course, people on moral high-horses would hate to lose an excuse to hate on gays, I'm sure...)

[ceakins]

I don't live in California, and I apposed any measure that would make fascism legal.

[v00513]

I am not a Ca voter and I don't support *****s getting married anywhere, not in this country, not in the one above us, not on this planet, not in this solar system, and not in this galaxy, at least as long as I am alive. But what bloody difference is my opinion on this matter going to make? I don't live in California, and if I did, I doubt that I (that is, one individual) would make a difference or even change someone's mind in a state where the vast majority of the population sees the sky green and the grass blue.

[ceakins]

Not a California voter, and I support the concept.

So you support fascism? You don't believe in liberty or equality. Only liberty and equality for yourself.

[Apparition]

No.. I'm a real Patriot. =)
With a capital P.

[Chiznaddy]

I'm voting against it for two reasons:

1)
I don't believe in the principle of propositions: submit to the will of the (often uniformed) majority.

2)
Whether one personally believes in gay marriage, the government has no right to legislate the definition of marriage. This should be left to churches.

[v00513]

So you support fascism? You don't believe in liberty or equality. Only liberty and equality for yourself.

Are you saying law, order, freedom, patriotism, nationalism and justice are all bad things?

[Mini-Me]

Are you saying law, order, freedom, patriotism, nationalism and justice are all bad things?

How does support for this proposition have anything more to do with maintaining law or order than opposition to it?
How does this have anything to do with patriotism or nationalism? If you say it's about maintaining an American cultural identity by government force, then yes, that's a bad thing. (And in most contexts, nationalism usually is a bad thing, so long as we're distinguishing it from national sovereignty, an entirely different concept.)
How does support for this proposition have anything more to do with justice than opposition to it? Actually, I could argue that opposition to the proposal would be more just.

In any case, freedom would imply the freedom for anyone to get married to whomever they want. Saying a government ban on gay marriage is "freedom" is akin to Orwellian doublespeak, a la, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

[ClockwiseSpark]

Are you saying law, order, freedom, patriotism, nationalism and justice are all bad things?

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

[dannno]

Are you saying law, order, freedom, patriotism, nationalism and justice are all bad things?

What does somebody else getting married in a place that isn't on your property have anything to do with any of the things you listed??

[v00513]

What does somebody else getting married in a place that isn't on your property have anything to do with any of the things you listed??

Absolutely nothing -- it has to do with fascism. Read the post again.

[Mini-Me]

Absolutely nothing -- it has to do with fascism. Read the post again.

Freedom and justice are the antithesis of fascism, sooo...

[v00513]

Freedom and justice are the antithesis of fascism, sooo...

Yep, and it is also to blame for the dinosaur's extinction as well as these "progressive" past 7 or so decades. Stop watching MTV, you won't learn shit from it, other than learning to roll "dat joint."

[dr. hfn]

government has absolutely no place in hell in marriage. Marriage is a personal and religious function and gov't has no right to regulate it. Thats what it is, regulation of your personal life!

[nate895]

I oppose the government interfering with marriage, but as long as it recognizes marriage, I won't stand to see it sanction the abomination of that institution.

[v00513]

government has absolutely no place in hell in marriage. Marriage is a personal and religious function and gov't has no right to regulate it. Thats what it is, regulation of your personal life!

Maybe some of us want a religious (ie moral) government and the closest thing is RP/Baldwin?

[Knightskye]

I don't live in California, but I oppose the concept.

[dannno]

Yep, and it is also to blame for the dinosaur's extinction as well as these "progressive" past 7 or so decades. Stop watching MTV, you won't learn shit from it, other than learning to roll "dat joint."

So you think regulating other people's lives will promote liberty??

Why do you think anybody here watches MTV? I started smoking herb years after I stopped watching MTV.

Sounds like you need to learn how to roll dat joint and get some perspective in life.

[dannno]

Maybe some of us want a religious (ie moral) government and the closest thing is RP/Baldwin?

What does a moral government have to do with that government forcing it's chosen morality on others?

Isn't a minimal government who protects people, ensures contracts are honored and ensures justice a moral government? What does that have to do with gay marriage?

[Mini-Me]

Yep, and it is also to blame for the dinosaur's extinction as well as these "progressive" past 7 or so decades. Stop watching MTV, you won't learn shit from it, other than learning to roll "dat joint."

Huh? The dinosaurs' extinction? Seriously, who's smoking what here? In any case, growing support for gay marriage is entirely unrelated to the socialist and fascist directions in which the country has been heading.

[Liberty4Free]

I live in CA and have already voted against it. I hope it doesn't pass but it's going to be close it seems: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-gaymarriage23-2008oct23,0,65703.story

[Dorfsmith]

I completely 100% support gay marriage. So NO to prop 8. We have something like that on the AZ ballot too.

[Micah Dardar]

One question, is this a theocracy or a republic?

[v00513]

Huh? The dinosaurs' extinction? Seriously, who's smoking what here? In any case, growing support for gay marriage is entirely unrelated to the socialist and fascist directions in which the country has been heading.

(M)TV blames fascism for everything, but then again, how the hell would you know? You just put socialism and fascism in the same sentence.

[dannno]

(M)TV blames fascism for everything, but then again, how the hell would you know? You just put socialism and fascism in the same sentence.

There isn't much difference.

[RP4EVER]

One question....what does it take to create a human life....one man and one woman. If nature/God/Buddah/etc had intended for Gay marriages to happen dont you think it would have made us all asexual. But what do I care if it passes...I dont live in California.

[nate895]

(M)TV blames fascism for everything, but then again, how the hell would you know? You just put socialism and fascism in the same sentence.

There isn't much of a difference between socialism and fascism. The difference between socialism and fascism is that socialism let's the poor and powerless be corrupt too.

[Deborah K]

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. While I am all for gays having the same lawful rights as a married couple, I don't think they have the right re-define an institution that is thousands of years old. That isn't equal rights - it's preferential treatment. Call it a civil union or domestic partnership or whatever. It should be distinguished from traditional marriage by definition. To me it's a win-win as long as gays are given the same rights to the law. How f'king greedy can you be to want to CHANGE the definition of marriage???

And one other thing - why in THEEE HELL would ANYONE want a marriage license in the first place??? All that does is create a state-sanctioned union between you, your spouse and the state.

[v00513]

So you think regulating other people's lives will promote liberty??

Why do you think anybody here watches MTV? I started smoking herb years after I stopped watching MTV.

Sounds like you need to learn how to roll dat joint and get some perspective in life.

You just contradicted yourself. And nowhere did I indicate I was for any kind of freedom, democracy, liberty or any of the other synonyms for horse shit. No thank you, I never asked for it, and I don't want it. Never did.

[Dorfsmith]

One question....what does it take to create a human life....one man and one woman. If nature/God/Buddah/etc had intended for Gay marriages to happen dont you think it would have made us all asexual. But what do I care if it passes...I dont live in California.

I don't know but nature is changing :D :p

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4990VA20081010

[Mini-Me]

(M)TV blames fascism for everything, but then again, how the hell would you know? You just put socialism and fascism in the same sentence.

Most expressions of fascism are a form of socialism called national socialism. National socialism is pretty inherent to fascism, and if you were less arrogant, you may have avoided the mistake of insulting my intelligence out of your own ignorance.


You just contradicted yourself. And nowhere did I indicate I was for any kind of freedom, democracy, liberty or any of the other synonyms for horse shit. No thank you, I never asked for it, and I don't want it. Never did.

Okay, you've established that you are openly opposed to both freedom and liberty. Why the hell are you here again?

[dannno]

You just contradicted yourself. And nowhere did I indicate I was for any kind of freedom, democracy, liberty or any of the other synonyms for horse shit. No thank you, I never asked for it, and I don't want it. Never did.

Maybe you could explain how I contradicted myself. It sounds like you got your tenses mixed up. Is english your first language?

Oh ya, then maybe you could explain why you support Ron Paul. I don't think you do.

[dannno]

One question....what does it take to create a human life....one man and one woman. If nature/God/Buddah/etc had intended for Gay marriages to happen dont you think it would have made us all asexual. But what do I care if it passes...I dont live in California.

What does marriage have to do with having children? There are plenty of married couples who never have children.

[v00513]

Most expressions of fascism are a form of socialism called national socialism. National socialism is pretty inherent to fascism, and if you were less arrogant, you may have avoided the mistake of insulting my intelligence out of your own ignorance.

Socialism and national socialism have almost nothing in common.


Okay, you've established that you are openly opposed to both freedom and liberty. Why the hell are you here again?

If the majority of your views were represented, wouldn't you be as well?

[forsmant]

In Nebraska same sex marriage is banned. I think that the state should stay out of marriage all together. The state has regulated the family structure way too much in an attempt to encourage an ideal family structure. This has caused way to many problems with custody of children and tax benefit relationships and a myriad of other distortions.

[v00513]

Maybe you could explain how I contradicted myself. It sounds like you got your tenses mixed up. Is english your first language?

Oh ya, then maybe you could explain why you support Ron Paul. I don't think you do.

You stated you watched MTV, idiot. You also stated you did drugs. And no, English is just another one of the languages I know.

I support RP for most of the same reasons you do.

[ClockwiseSpark]

You just contradicted yourself. And nowhere did I indicate I was for any kind of freedom, democracy, liberty or any of the other synonyms for horse shit. No thank you, I never asked for it, and I don't want it. Never did.

Seriously. Do they not have some kind of trolling school for you guys? You do realize what forums you're on right? This isn't Hannity's Amerika.

[Mini-Me]

Socialism and national socialism have almost nothing in common.

You can say it as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it true. They have a whole lot more commonalities than differences, such as the totalitarian authority of the state over whatever aspects of the economy and people's lives that it so chooses. Along with Communism, both are statist ideologies in which the state controls and directs the economy of the nation to a greater or lesser extent, blatantly violating the individual rights of people for a "greater good" collectivist purpose. Any differences any such ideologies have with each other in terms of their methods and goals are trivial compared to this common thread.

Anyway, I originally mentioned them both in the same sentence because they're the two directions our "leaders" are taking us. The two wings of the establishment party have an overarching big government platform in common with each other, and their differences mainly revolve around the details: Whereas the Republicans are generally taking us in the direction of national socialism, the Democrats are generally taking us in the direction of vanilla socialism. Both rely on a pervasive government.



If the majority of your views were represented, wouldn't you be as well?
Ron Paul's entire platform is about liberty and freedom from government coercion, abuse, and tyranny. Since you've demonstrated such contempt for liberty and freedom, you either don't understand many of your own views, or your support for Ron Paul is contradictory to those views.

[RevolutionSD]

I live in California but I gave up voting after the RP primary.
We shouldn't be begging our masters for crap like this. Let the free market decide everything, not some damn bureaucrats!

[mport1]

Why would any liberty loving person support this? The poll results are very scary.

[Kludge]

Marriage should not be recognized nor subsidized by the government.

[v00513]

Ron Paul's entire platform is about liberty and freedom from government coercion, abuse, and tyranny. Since you've demonstrated such contempt for liberty and freedom, you either don't understand many of your own views, or your support for Ron Paul is contradictory to those views.

So says the idiot that tried to compare socialism and national socialism. You're clearly even dumber than I thought, but please, by all means, go on to explain it with what you've learned from today's pop culture and MTV -- you're awfully good at it, in fact, you will probably even convince someone with an average/below average IQ that you indeed are correct (ie socialism and national socialism are like apples and oranges -- they're both fruits). Idiot.

I understand my views, it is you I am not too sure of.

[TruthAtLast]

I DO live in California and I've asked lots of friends of mine about this Prop. Most are FOR it!

Some are for Prop 8 because of religious beliefs, but many are for it NOT because they are against same-sex people having equal rights, but rather that they don't want to give power to the State to indoctrinate their children even in kindergarten about gay marriage.

Their argument (and I agree) is that it is a parent's responsibility and duty to choose the appropriate time to talk about the subject.

This has already happened in MA. Because same sex "marriage" is now legal in MA and no longer defined as a union between a man and woman, the school has a right to teach the children whatever they want at whatever age they want and don't have to notify the parents.

Some of my friends and co-workers are freaking out that the Government is going to start teaching their children about morality principles at an age when they are too young to fully understand it.

These are people that I know that are supporting this Prop for this reason alone EVEN THOUGH they are ok with same-sex civil unions and legal benefits. They are for Liberty and Equality and yet this fear about indoctrination of their children overrides everything.

Here is one video a friend of mine emailed to me:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

I'd like to get everyone's response to this as I've been talking with a lot of people I know about both sides of the argument.

[Mini-Me]

So says the idiot that tried to compare socialism and national socialism. You're clearly even dumber than I thought, but please, by all means, go on to explain it with what you've learned from today's pop culture and MTV -- you're awfully good at it, in fact, you will probably even convince someone with an average/below average IQ that you indeed are correct (ie socialism and national socialism are like apples and oranges -- they're both fruits). Idiot.

I understand my views, it is you I am not too sure of.

If socialism and national socialism are like apples and oranges, in that they're both fruits, Ron Paul's ideology is much more like a rocket ship in contrast...or whatever else you can think of that's entirely different from a fruit of any kind or even any food whatsoever. Liberty and the decentralization of power - which is the entire basis of Ron Paul's ideology - is infinitely more different from both socialism and national socialism than either of them are from each other, because they both require the centralization of power. Once again, in response to your assertion that socialism and national socialism have little in common:

You can say it as many times as you like, but that doesn't make it true. They have a whole lot more commonalities than differences, such as the totalitarian authority of the state over whatever aspects of the economy and people's lives that it so chooses. Along with Communism, both are statist ideologies in which the state controls and directs the economy of the nation to a greater or lesser extent, blatantly violating the individual rights of people for a "greater good" collectivist purpose. Any differences any such ideologies have with each other in terms of their methods and goals are trivial compared to this common thread.

Anyway, I originally mentioned them both in the same sentence because they're the two directions our "leaders" are taking us. The two wings of the establishment party have an overarching big government platform in common with each other, and their differences mainly revolve around the details: Whereas the Republicans are generally taking us in the direction of national socialism, the Democrats are generally taking us in the direction of vanilla socialism. Both rely on a pervasive government.

Repeatedly calling me an idiot and basing your entire ad hominem argument on the false assumption that I watch MTV is truly a poor way of supporting your assertions, and the sheer banality of your posting style is making me doubt whether you're even capable of counting as high as my IQ. :rolleyes:

[Karsten]

I think this poll shows how Ron Paul supporters are much more independent and Libertarian than conservative and Republican. There were traditional paleo-cons in our movement, but I believe they were the minority. This is why I'm still frustrated RP didn't run 3rd party.

[forsmant]

I am the only one that voted other. I voted other because the government does not need to be involved in the family structure whether that be marriage or custody.

[nbhadja]

Maybe some of us want a religious (ie moral) government and the closest thing is RP/Baldwin?

Religion is NOT moral. Religion is immoral and brainwashes children.

[dannno]

I DO live in California and I've asked lots of friends of mine about this Prop. Most are FOR it!

Some are for Prop 8 because of religious beliefs, but many are for it NOT because they are against same-sex people having equal rights, but rather that they don't want to give power to the State to indoctrinate their children even in kindergarten about gay marriage.

Their argument (and I agree) is that it is a parent's responsibility and duty to choose the appropriate time to talk about the subject.

This has already happened in MA. Because same sex "marriage" is now legal in MA and no longer defined as a union between a man and woman, the school has a right to teach the children whatever they want at whatever age they want and don't have to notify the parents.

Some of my friends and co-workers are freaking out that the Government is going to start teaching their children about morality principles at an age when they are too young to fully understand it.

These are people that I know that are supporting this Prop for this reason alone EVEN THOUGH they are ok with same-sex civil unions and legal benefits. They are for Liberty and Equality and yet this fear about indoctrination of their children overrides everything.

Here is one video a friend of mine emailed to me:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

I'd like to get everyone's response to this as I've been talking with a lot of people I know about both sides of the argument.


Ya this is what I keep trying to explain.

I'm still voting No, but I know that if it doesn't pass I may be having to fight for religious and moral freedom (even though I'm agnostic).

[Mini-Me]

Ya this is what I keep trying to explain.

I'm still voting No, but I know that if it doesn't pass I may be having to fight for religious and moral freedom (even though I'm agnostic).

I'm mostly the same way on this one. Although I'm entirely against the idea of forced schooling, especially when high-level bureaucracies are setting school curriculum and the government wants to teach children its own idea of "morality," "patriotism," etc., I consider that issue to be pretty separate from whether California should define marriage (a social, cultural, and religious construct) in its state Constitution...which in my opinion would only tighten government's grip on marriage and its control over people's lives in general.

[TruthAtLast]

I'm the same way on this one. Although I'm entirely against the idea of forced schooling, especially when high-level bureaucracies are setting school curriculum and the government wants to teach children its own idea of "morality," "patriotism," etc., I see this as pretty separate from whether California should define marriage (a social, cultural, and religious construct) in its state Constitution...which in my opinion would only tighten government's grip on marriage and its control over people's lives in general.

Unfortunately, the Government WILL get some form of added control and power whether you vote for or against this prop.

[Arkris]

I DO live in California and I've asked lots of friends of mine about this Prop. Most are FOR it!

Some are for Prop 8 because of religious beliefs, but many are for it NOT because they are against same-sex people having equal rights, but rather that they don't want to give power to the State to indoctrinate their children even in kindergarten about gay marriage.

Their argument (and I agree) is that it is a parent's responsibility and duty to choose the appropriate time to talk about the subject.

This has already happened in MA. Because same sex "marriage" is now legal in MA and no longer defined as a union between a man and woman, the school has a right to teach the children whatever they want at whatever age they want and don't have to notify the parents.

Some of my friends and co-workers are freaking out that the Government is going to start teaching their children about morality principles at an age when they are too young to fully understand it.

These are people that I know that are supporting this Prop for this reason alone EVEN THOUGH they are ok with same-sex civil unions and legal benefits. They are for Liberty and Equality and yet this fear about indoctrination of their children overrides everything.

Here is one video a friend of mine emailed to me:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

I'd like to get everyone's response to this as I've been talking with a lot of people I know about both sides of the argument.

Very good point, I hadn't thought about that. I heard the ads about it, but I've just been dismissing them. I guess it's another good reason to keep the schools out of the hands of the government. The education system around here seems more like indoctrination centers for liberal schools of thought.

I'm going to vote no on Prop. 8 because marriage is an issue between individuals and their church; government has no business in it. Also, I really don't see the point in it, especially since 3/4 of all CA marriages end in divorce and, it's recently been reported, that over 50% of all children are now born outside wedlock. You can't blame the gays for that. If you really want to help the children and broken families then it would be much more productive if the same people supporting Prop. 8 spent their time addressing these issues in their own households and communities than using the government to attack the scapegoat gays.

[escapinggreatly]

Arkris, out of curiosity, has California ever had any sort of proposition about simply ending the state government's to declare "marriages" entirely?
__________________

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/22/libertariansig.jpg
The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes. (http://www.meltingpotproject.com/)

[Lucille]

Systematic discrimination is wrong.

If people want to protect marriage, they should start by protecting it from state and federal authority.

[Mini-Me]

Unfortunately, the Government WILL get some form of added control and power whether you vote for or against this prop.

How so? Granted, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is just as valid as any other, but I see that as a different interpretation of the government's preexisting powers over marriage rather than an additional power grab. In the case of voting yes, that would sink the government's talons even further into the institution of marriage through the letter of the law itself. In other words, it would be just one more "hook" we'd have to remove if we were ever to get the government entirely out of marriage (I say we, but that said, I'm not a California citizen). In any case, so long as marriage remains a state institution, it seems much more tyrannical to me for the government to pick and choose "democratically" which marriages it's going to allow than it would be for them to say, "Hey, we'll subsidize all of it - straight, gay, polygamous - whatever!" Frankly, I'm kind of saddened how much effort some people put into making sure others can't get married. I feel like asking them whether the circumstances surrounding other people's marriages really affect the "sacredness" of their own marriage or "cheapen" it so much that they have to protect it by codifying semantic games of word definitions into the law itself...and if that actually makes them feel better somehow. If someone's own marriage somehow means less to them because gay people want to get married and call it "marriage," I'd have to say their faith in their own marriage obviously has some serious problems standing on its own. Besides, if they're really so dependent on making sure all other marriages are "sacred" just so they can validate their own, they're already going to have to turn a blind eye to the divorce rate. All in all, I think the "defenders of traditional marriage" are being a bit silly, considering their apparent need to rain on someone else's parade just to feel happy and comfortable in their own marriages. :(

Anyway, is there something else inherent to Proposition 8 that I've overlooked, which would result in the government having more power than before if the proposition was rejected? It doesn't seem to me that failure of the proposition would in any way expand government's power over education or anything else.

[Arkris]

Arkris, out of curiosity, has California ever had any sort of proposition about simply ending the state government's to declare "marriages" entirely?


I don't think so, at least I've never seen any propositions like that in my lifetime. With all the tax and religious issues involved in marriage I think most people would consider marriage too important to not be regulated by the government. I'm just glad that if Prop. 8 fails the state would have less authority to deny a marriage.

[kombayn]

I am a voter in California, and my early mail-in vote was No for that stupid proposition.

[TruthAtLast]

How so? Granted, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is just as valid as any other, but I see that as a different interpretation of the government's preexisting powers over marriage rather than an additional power grab. In the case of voting yes, that would sink the government's talons even further into the institution of marriage through the letter of the law itself. In other words, it would be just one more "hook" we'd have to remove if we were ever to get the government entirely out of marriage (I say we, but that said, I'm not a California citizen). In any case, so long as marriage remains a state institution, it seems much more tyrannical to me for the government to pick and choose "democratically" which marriages it's going to allow than it would be for them to say, "Hey, we'll subsidize all of it - straight, gay, polygamous - whatever!" Frankly, I'm kind of saddened how much effort some people put into making sure others can't get married. I feel like asking them whether the circumstances surrounding other people's marriages really affect the "sacredness" of their own marriage or "cheapen" it so much that they have to protect it by codifying semantic games of word definitions into the law itself...and if that actually makes them feel better somehow. If someone's own marriage somehow means less to them because gay people want to get married and call it "marriage," I'd have to say their faith in their own marriage obviously has some serious problems standing on its own. Besides, if they're really so dependent on making sure all other marriages are "sacred" just so they can validate their own, they're already going to have to turn a blind eye to the divorce rate. All in all, I think the "defenders of traditional marriage" are being a bit silly, considering their apparent need to rain on someone else's parade just to feel happy and comfortable in their own marriages. :(

Anyway, is there something else inherent to Proposition 8 that I've overlooked, which would result in the government having more power than before if the proposition was rejected? It doesn't seem to me that failure of the proposition would in any way expand government's power over education or anything else.

please read my previous post. I agree with just about everything you just said.

However, the argument that many people are using to support this Prop has NOTHING to do with equality. Their concern isn't about their marriage being "cheapened" (though maybe some religious groups are prescribing to this line of thought).

I'm referring to the indoctrinating of children in schools at a very very young age. I'm NOT referring to any argument over whether or not same-sex couples should have the same rights under the law. Most people I've talked to who are FOR the Prop are also FOR gay marriage. They are for this proposal for the reasons of limiting additional power granted that would be granted to the state education system.

[Andrew Ryan]

Opposed.

[Mini-Me]

please read my previous post. I agree with just about everything you just said.

However, the argument that many people are using to support this Prop has NOTHING to do with equality. Their concern isn't about their marriage being "cheapened" (though maybe some religious groups are prescribing to this line of thought).

I'm referring to the indoctrinating of children in schools at a very very young age. I'm NOT referring to any argument over whether or not same-sex couples should have the same rights under the law. Most people I've talked to who are FOR the Prop are also FOR gay marriage. They are for this proposal for the reasons of limiting additional power granted that would be granted to the state education system.

Regardless of whether this proposal passes, California schools will have the same basic powers of indoctrination. Although I noticed your reference to what happened in Massachusetts, it seems to me that California schools are going to teach kids whatever they want, one way or another. In any case, since California schools already have the power to teach kids their idea of marriage, leaving them with that existing power is not an expansion of government power whatsoever. Besides, I'm a hell of a lot more worried about the other things they teach kids. I suppose that if the government takes more power into their own hands on the marriage issue and defines marriage to be between only a man and a woman, that might slightly limit the power of the education system to indoctrinate kids on that particular issue. However, I believe the expansion of government power over marriage that a "yes" vote authorizes is far greater than the limit on government indoctrination power that a "yes" vote might institute.

[fr33domfightr]

I personally believe the State shouldn't be involved in issuing Marriage Licenses.

That being said, is a State required to issue Marriage Licenses? I understand they've used it to discriminate in the past against mixed race marriages. Later, those laws were probably deemed discriminatory.

Legally, there seems to be a separation of a Religious Marriage versus a Civil Marriage (performed by the State). If I were to get married in my church, would I also be required to get married in a court?

Proposition 8, here in California, came about after the California Supreme Court determined it to be discriminatory not to allow gay couples the right to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they say a "Civil Union" wasn't the same as "Marriage?"

This is a very interesting decision.

My follow up question then is, what right then does the state have for disallowing polygamy (multiple partners marrying)? If three consenting adults were to decide to get married, it's probably not legal by the State, but this would be contradictory to the argument the Supreme Court made in regards to gay couples. It would be discrimanatory.

This would seem to support the belief the state shouldn't be involved in determining who gets married and who doesn't. However, should the state NOT be involved in issuing marriage licenses, are churches left to their own morals about who gets married, whether its straight, gay, or polygamus?



FF

[TruthAtLast]

Regardless of whether this proposal passes, California schools will have the same basic powers of indoctrination. Although I noticed your reference to what happened in Massachusetts, it seems to me that California schools are going to teach kids whatever they want, one way or another. In any case, since California schools already have the power to teach kids their idea of marriage, leaving them with that existing power is not an expansion of government power whatsoever. Besides, I'm a hell of a lot more worried about the other things they teach kids. I suppose that if the government takes more power into their own hands on the marriage issue and defines marriage to be between only a man and a woman, that might slightly limit the power of the education system to indoctrinate kids on that particular issue. However, I believe the expansion of government power over marriage that a "yes" vote authorizes is far greater than the limit on government indoctrination power that a "yes" vote might institute.


I respectfully disagree that it wouldn't be an expansion of power. In California, teachers currently CAN NOT teach children that same sex marriage is OK. If this proposition passed, schools very much CAN and in fact MUST teach this as a legal form of marriage. And they can do this at virtually any age and without informing the parents. So it IS an expansion of power in that respect.

Like you, I'm very much worried about the other things already being taught to our kids. It is a big problem but the people I've talked to about this proposition are firmly against giving them MORE power to brainwash our kids further.

I also agree that to vote Yes on the measure opens up many other concerns.

This is the reason why I said that either way there will be problems.

I guess it is up for everyone to decide for themselves which side of the issue is worse.

[SeanEdwards]

Bump for more poll data.

:D

[fr33domfightr]

Can anyone answer any of my questions above? I'd really like an open, honest discussion, without the emotional bias people seem to have on this subject.


FF

[TonySutton]

I feel the need to add some truth to the discussion concerning the subject of mandatory teaching students about gay marriage.


Instead, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ordered Proposition 8 supporters to couch the wording by using terms such as “may” or “could” in describing the measure's effect on same-sex weddings' becoming part of the curriculum.

“Current law does not require school districts to teach anything about marriage or same-sex marriage at any grade level,” the judge noted. “Moreover, for those school districts that choose to include instructions about marriage . . . (the) education code requires that they allow parents to excuse their children from any such instruction conflicting with the parents' religious or moral grounds.”

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081024/news_1n24prop8.html

I do not live in CA and I would vote NO on Prop 8. I do not believe any government should be in the marriage business. Currently there are several churches which support gay marriage and hold special ceremonies for couples in their church. I feel it is a violation of their religious freedom to not allow them to join two adults in marriage. In addition, I know a couple of cases where 3 adults have a stable loving relationship and do not see a reason why they should not be allowed to marry also. I see this as a religious freedom issue.

Personally I have a hard time keeping a relationship going with one person and could not for the life of me see how 3 would work but if it does work for them, who am I to keep adults from making this decision for themselves.

[Bunkerbuilder]

Ditto as the state only gets involved with it because they want control over people.

As I see it if full disclosure is not given at the time of the licence purchase its null and void or at least should be.

I would love to see the state keep their nose out of marriage whether it be a man and woman or any other collection of beings.





Well ultimately banning gay marriage is akin to destroying free speech, so I say "No". I agree with Ron Paul's stance that marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the state, anyways. The state should uphold marriage contracts that have already been made and that is IT. The government can't tell you what words to put on the contract, though I understand the government will only uphold certain types of conditions in contracts.

On the other hand, there are threats that if gay marriage remains legal, that many churches will have to forfeit their tax exempt status for not marrying gay couples.

The Catholic Church in MA had to shut down their adoption program because they refused to adopt to gay couples.

I think these may be scare tactics. I just hope that in the end churches can choose who they want to marry, and gay people have just as many rights as non-gay people. Not more, just equal.

[TruthAtLast]

I personally believe the State shouldn't be involved in issuing Marriage Licenses.

That being said, is a State required to issue Marriage Licenses? I understand they've used it to discriminate in the past against mixed race marriages. Later, those laws were probably deemed discriminatory.

Legally, there seems to be a separation of a Religious Marriage versus a Civil Marriage (performed by the State). If I were to get married in my church, would I also be required to get married in a court?

Proposition 8, here in California, came about after the California Supreme Court determined it to be discriminatory not to allow gay couples the right to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they say a "Civil Union" wasn't the same as "Marriage?"

This is a very interesting decision.

My follow up question then is, what right then does the state have for disallowing polygamy (multiple partners marrying)? If three consenting adults were to decide to get married, it's probably not legal by the State, but this would be contradictory to the argument the Supreme Court made in regards to gay couples. It would be discrimanatory.

This would seem to support the belief the state shouldn't be involved in determining who gets married and who doesn't. However, should the state NOT be involved in issuing marriage licenses, are churches left to their own morals about who gets married, whether its straight, gay, or polygamus?

FF

It would seem to be discriminatory to say that a man and a woman can get married but gays can't. Or that gays can get married but multiple partners can't. Or that two 18 year-olds can get married, but two 14 year-olds can't. These are moral issues that each person must deal with based on their own beliefs. I might believe something different than someone else.

The problem comes with the State's authority to even determine what is "legal" and what benefits those people get. This just makes the entire system of marriage discriminatory.

Since we no longer have our money backed by gold, our debt is now backed by the future labor of the American people and the Government's ability to tax that labor. WE are the collateral that our Government borrows against. So as long as they keep the People under their thumb and working their whole life, they can maintain their power.

Legal definitions and benefits of marriage are already promoting inequality. It is a personal choice to get married or have children, and with that choice comes the fiscal responsibility a person chooses to take.

But that means single people are being discriminated against. Where is their tax break for NOT choosing that lifestyle? Are the taxes of single people helping to pay to support the tax breaks of the families? How does this in any way support equality?

If two people are single but live as if they were married and are devoted to each other, they get SCREWED in taxes and other rights yet they may work just as hard as other people. In many cases, they contribute MORE because of the lack of tax incentives.

THIS is what marriage has become in this country. The Government promotes marriage because it typically produces children, and more children means more slave labor (economic power) and human fodder during war times.

Italy is having a HUGE problem right now because the birth rate is one of the lowest in the western world. It is seriously affecting their economy. Women are much more independent and are focusing on careers and therefore foregoing having children or waiting until much later in life.

Make no mistake about it, there is a reason that tax breaks are given to "working families". I guess single people are not equal under the law. I guess they don't deserve the same tax incentives and rights as married couples.

So I agree that the State shouldn't be involved in issuing marriage licenses or determining who can get married and who can't. The entire system is hypocritical.

But there is such a vested economic interest in maintaining this control that I can't see this ever being relinquished.

[LiQuIdFoRcE]

Apple came out today opposed to it:



No on Prop 8

October 24, 2008

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

[TruthAtLast]

I feel the need to add some truth to the discussion concerning the subject of mandatory teaching students about gay marriage.



Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081024/news_1n24prop8.html



Thank you for sharing this Tony. Certainly gives another perspective which is essential when deciding on any of these propositions.

[kombayn]

I'm glad to see a lot of RPF users are against Prop. 8, I think it's pretty important step in civil rights, while I agree with everyone the government should mind their own business when it comes to marriage but since they don't. I'm a full-fledged supporter of Gay marriage and allowing two people to live in harmony if they so choose. It's really not our business, I have a feeling that Prop. 8 will fail miserably in the State of California. Our state is way too Liberal for them to lose this battle. Already both campaigns have spent over $50 million dollars on commercials, signs, etc.

[Micah Dardar]

I'm very happy to see that a majority of people here are open minded. Don't attack someone else's freedom, or one day they may attack yours.

[Infamouswoodster]

I live in California and will be voting Yes on prop 8. I am also a believer in freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Though we the people have "equal" rights, I as a christian American have certain benefits granted by both institutions. To be married in the traditional use of the word comes from a religious union in the eyes of a Maker/God. Two becoming one, as described in genesis is recognizing that God created an specific opposite/equal. In keeping with the tradition set and modeled by God in his word, Joining/ Marriage is infact, Man and Woman.

Now I'm not happy about the governments involvement in any of this , one way or another. But I'm voting Yes to uphold the correct use of the word/tradition of marriage as viewed by a follower/believer.

As far as state freedoms go, Sure, allow gays, to file jointly(tax) or be recognized as a "couple"(state/housing purposes). We all walk our own paths and suffer or benefit appropriately.

I'm suprised the "freedom" oriented crowd here is quite one sided. Most are so quick to point out a religous right leaning portion of government. Yelling "Seperation of church and state!".

Now where are your loud voices when the State is fingering around in Religious(church) ?

Next i imagine you will say that affirmative action allows for anyone to try out to be a pastor, priest or rabbi? The church CAN discriminate as can you and I. Its called freedom.

If you want to be "Married", you have to take the tradition and the regulations (discrimination) that come with it.

If you want to Joint-file, enter into contract as a "couple" or "partners" etc, By all means, use your constitutional rights.

[nate895]

I live in California and will be voting Yes on prop 8. I am also a believer in freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Though we the people have "equal" rights, I as a christian American have certain benefits granted by both institutions. To be married in the traditional use of the word comes from a religious union in the eyes of a Maker/God. Two becoming one, as described in genesis is recognizing that God created an specific opposite/equal. In keeping with the tradition set and modeled by God in his word, Joining/ Marriage is infact, Man and Woman.

Now I'm not happy about the governments involvement in any of this , one way or another. But I'm voting Yes to uphold the correct use of the word/tradition of marriage as viewed by a follower/believer.

As far as state freedoms go, Sure, allow gays, to file jointly(tax) or be recognized as a "couple"(state/housing purposes). We all walk our own paths and suffer or benefit appropriately.

I'm suprised the "freedom" oriented crowd here is quite one sided. Most are so quick to point out a religous right leaning portion of government. Yelling "Seperation of church and state!".

Now where are your loud voices when the State is fingering around in Religious(church) ?

Next i imagine you will say that affirmative action allows for anyone to try out to be a pastor, priest or rabbi? The church CAN discriminate as can you and I. Its called freedom.

If you want to be "Married", you have to take the tradition and the regulations (discrimination) that come with it.

If you want to Joint-file, enter into contract as a "couple" or "partners" etc, By all means, use your constitutional rights.

This is my belief. I think that the government should be out of marriage, but as long as it is in the business, gay marriage is an oxymoron in most of the World's religions, and the vast majority of American's faiths, and therefore the government cannot inappropriately use the word.

[0zzy]

I'm a CA voter. I will vote against the prop.

I had my midterm exam on this for English. "Write a 6-page paper on why you support it or do not support it" type thing. It sucked cause I had to write it in like an hour.

[intelliot]

Yes on Prop 8. Note that what we're talking about here is same-sex marriage. Gays are already allowed to get married, but only to someone of the other sex.

Paul says these matters should be decided by the states, not the federal government-- so that's what we're doing here.