Should California Pass Prop 8?

The California Supreme Court abolished the state’s same-sex marriage ban in May, sparking public celebration in some places and angry protest in others. Now some critics of same-sex marriage are fighting back with an initiative to reinstate the ban, leaving voters once again divided. Should marriage remain between a man and a woman, or is it time to widen the aisle for same-sex couples? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.)

Next question in Politics

You are seeing 4 Comments. See all 93 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Comment

Since when has a cat had the same rights as a human?

"Christian issue"

No, not at all! Look up the definition of "pervert" (the verb, not the noun) or "perversion" Then go do some sociological and psychological research (that you(plural) obviously have not done) on the developmental and childhood causes of most homosexuals, and then take of your "myopic rose colored glasses." I do not stand against homosexuals being as they are, anymore than it is that no one is perfect or without blemish. I have had homosexual roomates and dear friends. I do not at all have a problem with them living their lifestyle as they choose. -as so may of you put it, "they are not hurting anyone" But when we start to ourselves, as a society, pervert the truth about the issue(pervert the truth about perversion), and THEN TAKE IT AN UNACCEPTABLE STEP FARTHER, by saying it is ok, and promoting or advocating it through the legalizing of the sanctity of marriage, is a totally different issue from with which should be protected from. Society should not be able to legislate the advocation of homosexuality to children or anyone else. That is the issue. Homosexual's were given protection from discrimination and same rights as married couples (which is discrimination, by the way) yet, it is never enough and are not satisfied. It is a lie to say it is about rights and equality. It is about cramming the advocation and acceptance of that lifestyle down the throats of society. Please, practice what you aree preaching, "leave society in peace!" -But you will not do it; because you refuse to see anything other than how it suits your own desires or your own agenda. I once realized, and accepted the idea that I can not always have things the way i want them; or always force or have people give in to my preferences and my perspectives. Why can you(plural) not do the same?
More importantly, that same argument, then exist for almost any other group, or person, with an unusual, or seemingly distasteful, illegal or perverted preference or lifestyle. Stop lying!

- smurph December 16, 2008 3:08PM

Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Discrimination?
  
  Your comment above states:
  
  "Homosexual's were given protection from discrimination and same rights as married couples (which is discrimination, by the way)"
  
  First, how is this discrimination? How is giving someone equal rights discrimination? Who is being discriminated against?
  
  Second, if Homosexuals have been given protection from discrimination and the same rights as married couples, then why can't they be married?
  
  Have you really given much thought to your opinion? Give me a legitimate argument for banning same sex marriage. I think we both agree that marriage is a good thing. It helps to stabilize society and is an enriching experience for the couple and their family. So, if we agree that marriage is good, how can marriage also be bad? How can including more people in a good thing be bad?
  
  I know, it is morally wrong to allow same sex couples to marry... Right? Well, as I said before, that was the same argument used against inter-racial marriage just a few years ago. It's an empty argument and it won't hold up to the Constitution. So you'd better come up with something else.
  
  - csmith December 17, 2008 10:39PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The Sanctity?
  
  I believe that was ruined long ago.
  
  Furthermore, marriage sucks. I'm not kidding. Unless you think it acceptable and sanctimonious to sell you daughter? Or unless you believe that women are merely property of men?
  
  That's the original intent of marriage and for thousands of years, that's how it went. Calling a hideous tradition a sanctimonious act is like calling slavery sanctimonious. Simply because this has changed to marriage being an actual choice between two consenting adults who love each other doesn't change the history of the act, does it? Nor was the "sanctity" of marriage any less sanctimonious when it was illegal for inter-racial couples to tie the knot.
  
  And just how has the sanctity of marriage been preserved and protected from heterosexual couples? Britney Spears? Drew Barrymore? A 17 hour marriage? Drive-thru chapels? Sanctimonious enough for you?
  
  What is UNACCEPTABLE is for one brainwashed group of people to say that homosexuality is not okay. What is UNACCEPTABLE is for one brainwashed group of people to use democracy to discriminate against another group simply because it "suits your own desires or your own agenda."
  
  You do not have to like homosexuality anymore than I like the fact that some people will continue to wear crosses around their necks and carry guns in their hands and march off into war because it's their duty for country. As if the laws they say they live their by are superseded by their love country. (Which, you don't have to say anything about that, I'm using it as an example of what I have to accept.) What you cannot and should not do is to support laws that intentionally leave out a group of people simply because they are in the minority.
  Unless, of course, you thought it was perfectly acceptable for laws to be made that discriminated against black people simply because black people were in the minority.
  
  Stop lying to yourself.
  
  - SocialistBetty December 30, 2008 9:00AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- "Same Rights" As Married Couples
  
  I don't need to run through the 1,183 reasons why that's wrong.
  
  As the Supreme Court stated in Loving v. Virginia:
  
  "Because we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959).... In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the state from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race."
  
  In other words, miscegenation laws were not "equal protection" even though both races were punished equally for entering an interracial marriage. Similarly, DOMAs are not "equal protection" even though both genders are punished equally for entering a same-sex marriage because there can be said to be an invidious gender-based discrimination. The test, then, is whether there is a "rational" basis for same-sex couples not to get married, which I contend that there is not.
  
  Or perhaps people wanting to engage in same-sex marriages should just put up and shut up with how they are already treated? Perhaps miscegenation laws were also Constitutional?
  
  - QuinceyQuick February 7, 2009 12:23AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.