Marriage Equality ~ Repeal of Proposition 8

[Reason]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Repeal_of_Proposition_8_(2010)#Filed.2C _active (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Repeal_of_Proposition_8_%282010%29#File d.2C_active)
09-0042: Marriage Equality. This was filed on September 24, 2009. Those filing it were Geoff Farrow, Jo Hoenninger, Thomas Watson, Ange-Marie Hancock, Jordan Krueger, John Henning, Andrew Klayman, Peter Nguyen, and Edwin Rivera of the group Love, Honor, Cherish. Measure 09-0042 was approved for circulation in mid-November. Its proponents have until April 12, 2010 to collect signatures to qualify it for the November 2010 ballot.[22] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Repeal_of_Proposition_8_%282010%29#cite _note-21)[23] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Repeal_of_Proposition_8_%282010%29#cite _note-22)

It includes a religious exemption and is worded as follows:


Section 1:

"To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution."

Section 2:

"To provide for fairness in the government's issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion."

[MelissaWV]

Why limit it to two people?

Yet another example of why the Gov should butt out of marriage.

[Reason]

Why limit it to two people?

I would say that it looks like the wording is being done in a way to completely dismiss all the bullshit propaganda fear tactics that the proponents of prop 8 used to get prop 8 passed.


Yet another example of why the Gov should butt out of marriage.

I'll vote yea on a prop to take govt. out of marriage but until then the govt. should provide it equally imo.

[0zzy]

Why limit it to two people?

Yet another example of why the Gov should butt out of marriage.

interested in polygamy there?
CAUSE I AM! :D


i kid i kid. i can't even get my monogamy going on let alone polygamy.

[klamath]

..

[MelissaWV]

Actually a good question. There is more polygamy in the world than homosexuallism. Why are they being discriminated against?

For a variety of reasons... first off, it makes taxes even more complicated. Second, it's an immoral thing, don't you know? It's way more moral to get married, divorced, married, divorced, and married again, all while having kids along the way. Our country's a wee bit backwards ;)

If the Government got out of the marriage business, of course, then it would just be a religious/spiritual/contractual service of some sort. You could marry twenty people if you wanted. You could enter into contracts with them that say you're going to love, honor, and cherish them... and if you don't, you owe them a portion of your income. If they forget to uphold their vows, then they owe you. You could just be married "in name only" and really live together or not as you see fit, and break up with no redistribution of anything. You could marry whomever or whatever can consent to the marriage. Hell, you could marry your television for all I care at that point ;)

[dannno]

Hell, you could marry your television for all I care at that point ;)

Hell ya, right now I want to marry my computer screen ;)

[klamath]

..

[slothman]

The gov't should be out of marriage but until it is gay and polygamious marriages should be allowed.
It's an all or none.
It's a, "I don't the gov't in marriage but until it is out of regular marriage it will have to be in gay as well."
Not a, "Gov't should be out so I will vote against all gov't inclusion measures; even if that means it is still only a man and a woman."

[Free Moral Agent]

I will be voting NO on this prop, strictly based on the definition of the word "marriage" This will be the least significant proposition in CA, yet the one in which people will be talking about the most. I just think of all the money and activism that has gone to waste on an effort to beg the state government to view one group's definition of a term as the legitimate one.

That being said, I agree that government should have nothing to do with marriage.

[Bman]

YouTube - pee_wee's_playhouse-fruit salad wedding.avi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs81piYG2G8)

[Kludge]

Hell ya, right now I want to marry my computer screen ;)

Oh you sly dog, you!