Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Sbane]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

[??????????]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

[Sbane]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

[Brittain33]

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

Do you know any gay people well? Any gay couples?

I don't know how well you know or understand this interaction, but the more common course of action is for both gay and straight people in friendships to progress through the same process of committing and considering children together. Although, of course, the parenting process is much simpler and easier for most opposite-sex couples.

People tend to mellow as they get older. Opposition to same-sex marriage is the default position that people move away from based on their experience. I think you would be very hard-pressed to find anyone who has moved from supporting same-sex marriage to opposing it, unless they went from a totally secular lifestyle into a conservative church, or someone gay hurt them very personally (by, for example, telling them their marriage is a sham and he's skipping off to New York with this guy from the gym.)

[phk]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

[??????????]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

It's only Democracy when it makes you happy, duh.

[Lunar]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

These protests are so gay.  Like, people are holding massive protests and aren't even like collecting phone numbers and emails so you can actually organize an effective outreach campaign.

For UC Berkeley, maybe going down and talking to some non-White people in the East Bay is more effective than chanting "F*#& Prop 8" again and again in the center of campus?  Maybe taking a road trip to Sacramento suburbs could be more efficient than throwing up posters in our buildings?  You're not convincing anyone, everyone at Berkeley who might be against gay marriage already supports the  No On 8 campaign and everyone who is against it is some sort of unpersuadable  College Republican or whatever.  This useless display of anger and effort is so irrational unless you gain some sort of utility from being an asshole

This No On 8 campaign is such a joke.  They have no concept of why people might not support gay marriage except that these people are "ignorant" or "religious."  They have no concept of how to reach out to people besides themselves (white liberals).  Sigh.

Like, they finally figured it out in the closing days and had Samuel Jackson narrating a commercial, but why not actually show his image?  It took me ten or fifteen views of the commercial before I even figured it out.  You need Spanish-language ads, you need to have ads featuring Black ministers supporting your cause (The Yes on 8 people figured that out).

[Lincoln Republican]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Well welcome to the world of democracy.

The people have already spoken.

These loser protesters are not happy with the outcome, so now they think by their irrational and childish behaviior they can subvert the will of the people.

To the protesters, shut up and go home.   

[??????????]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Well welcome to the world of democracy.

The people have already spoken.

These loser protesters are not happy with the outcome, so now they think by their irrational and childish behaviior they can subvert the will of the people.

To the protesters, shut up and go home.   

Maybe they can go stomp on some more crosses.

[Alcon]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Well welcome to the world of democracy.

The people have already spoken.

These loser protesters are not happy with the outcome, so now they think by their irrational and childish behaviior they can subvert the will of the people.

To the protesters, shut up and go home.   

Is it any more fair that you are blanket-stereotyping them as "irrational" and "childish" than they are blanket-stereotyping gay marriage opponents as bigots?

Peaceful demonstrations may not do so much, but they are an integral part of our democracy.  Many of these are decent people.  You should not call them all "losers."  You're right that some of them are jerks.  But don't be a hypocrite about this.

[Sam Spade]

...you need to have ads featuring Black ministers supporting your cause (The Yes on 8 people figured that out).

Kind of difficult when it doesn't exist.

The amusing thing is that all of these *theatrics* (quite appropriate term) could possibly have a bit of a backlash.

Anyway, we generally agree on this, which is a little odd...

[Lincoln Republican]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Well welcome to the world of democracy.

The people have already spoken.

These loser protesters are not happy with the outcome, so now they think by their irrational and childish behaviior they can subvert the will of the people.

To the protesters, shut up and go home.   

Is it any more fair that you are blanket-stereotyping them as "irrational" and "childish" than they are blanket-stereotyping gay marriage opponents as bigots?

Peaceful demonstrations may not do so much, but they are an integral part of our democracy.  Many of these are decent people.  You should not call them all "losers."  You're right that some of them are jerks.  But don't be a hypocrite about this.

Demonstrations may be an integral part of our democracy, as you say, however, the time to demonstrate is before the people have spoken.

Once the people have spoken, and the people of California (as well as two other states on this issue, in the 2008 election, loud and clear banning gay marriage), then after the people have spoken, the will of the people must be respected, not derided.

After the people have spoken, it is up to those who believe in democracy to accept the result.  Evidently, these protesters do not believe in democracy, therefore, they are protesting the expressed will of the people.  If they truly believed in democracy, they would accept the results, and move on.

I did not support Barack Obama for President, but he won a free election.  I now support him as President, because the people have spoken, and he won the election.  I am not running around protesting the fact that he won the election.  Unlike these protesters, I accept the expressed will of the people.

Barack Obama, by the way, opposes same sex marriage.

I oppose same sex marriage, and I don't care who knows it.  I do, however, support extending full legal rights and financial benefits to same sex couples that heterosexual couples have.

Same sex couples do not have a right, as they put it, to be married.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, a privilege enjoyed by one man and one woman.

The truth is that the radical gay movement has hijacked the civil rights movement, and are trying to manipulate it to achieve their own self serving agenda. 

[Lincoln Republican]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Well welcome to the world of democracy.

The people have already spoken.

These loser protesters are not happy with the outcome, so now they think by their irrational and childish behaviior they can subvert the will of the people.

To the protesters, shut up and go home.   

Maybe they can go stomp on some more crosses.

If they have been doing that, then they truly are low lifes.

[Alcon]

Demonstrations may be an integral part of our democracy, as you say, however, the time to demonstrate is before the people have spoken.

Once the people have spoken, and the people of California (as well as two other states on this issue, in the 2008 election, loud and clear banning gay marriage), then after the people have spoken, the will of the people must be respected, not derided.

After the people have spoken, it is up to those who believe in democracy to accept the result.  Evidently, these protesters do not believe in democracy, therefore, they are protesting the expressed will of the people.  If they truly believed in democracy, they would accept the results, and move on.

I did not support Barack Obama for President, but he won a free election.  I now support him as President, because the people have spoken, and he won the election.  I am not running around protesting the fact that he won the election.  Unlike these protesters, I accept the expressed will of the people.

Considering that there is the possibility of an eventual re-vote, protesting after-the-fact does not seem objectionable to me.  If there were a law that restricted your right to practice your religion, for instance, would you object to people protesting it after the "will of the people" was expressed?

Barack Obama, by the way, opposes same sex marriage.

Which is a shame, as far as I'm concerned.

I oppose same sex marriage, and I don't care who knows it.  I do, however, support extending full legal rights and financial benefits to same sex couples that heterosexual couples have.

Same sex couples do not have a right, as they put it, to be married.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, a privilege enjoyed by one man and one woman.

The truth is that the radical gay movement has hijacked the civil rights movement, and are trying to manipulate it to achieve their own self serving agenda. 

If you would like to actually debate this with me instead of providing talking points, I would be happy to.  Would you like to?  This is an issue I feel strongly about too, but just reasserting our positions in different wording is going to do nothing.

[Alcon]

Kind of difficult when it doesn't exist.

Surprisingly untrue, depending on the area.  Black churches in rapidly-gentrifying areas, some of which exist in L.A., oftentimes take accepting stances on gay rights.

[Lincoln Republican]

Demonstrations may be an integral part of our democracy, as you say, however, the time to demonstrate is before the people have spoken.

Once the people have spoken, and the people of California (as well as two other states on this issue, in the 2008 election, loud and clear banning gay marriage), then after the people have spoken, the will of the people must be respected, not derided.

After the people have spoken, it is up to those who believe in democracy to accept the result.  Evidently, these protesters do not believe in democracy, therefore, they are protesting the expressed will of the people.  If they truly believed in democracy, they would accept the results, and move on.

I did not support Barack Obama for President, but he won a free election.  I now support him as President, because the people have spoken, and he won the election.  I am not running around protesting the fact that he won the election.  Unlike these protesters, I accept the expressed will of the people.

Considering that there is the possibility of an eventual re-vote, protesting after-the-fact does not seem objectionable to me.  If there were a law that restricted your right to practice your religion, for instance, would you object to people protesting it after the "will of the people" was expressed?

Freedom of religion is protected in the constitution, therefore, this is a non-issue, and is purely hypothetical.  On the other hand, the issue of popoisition 8 is very real.

Barack Obama, by the way, opposes same sex marriage.

Which is a shame, as far as I'm concerned.

I am proud of Obama for taking this stance, considering much of his constituency disagrees with him on this.

I oppose same sex marriage, and I don't care who knows it.  I do, however, support extending full legal rights and financial benefits to same sex couples that heterosexual couples have.

Same sex couples do not have a right, as they put it, to be married.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, a privilege enjoyed by one man and one woman.

The truth is that the radical gay movement has hijacked the civil rights movement, and are trying to manipulate it to achieve their own self serving agenda. 

If you would like to actually debate this with me instead of providing talking points, I would be happy to.  Would you like to?  This is an issue I feel strongly about too, but just reasserting our positions in different wording is going to do nothing.

Thank you for the invitation, however, what's to debate?  We clearly disagree on this issue, and will not convince the other otherwise.  But I fully respect your right to your views, and think no less of you as an individual because you have these firmly held views in this matter.  

[Sam Spade]

Kind of difficult when it doesn't exist.

Surprisingly untrue, depending on the area.  Black churches in rapidly-gentrifying areas, some of which exist in L.A., oftentimes take accepting stances on gay rights.

You're taking me too literally again.

[Alcon]

Well, that's a fair answer, but say there is something that you felt morally passionate about yet was not constitutionally protected.  You saw it trampled upon.  You would still object to peaceful protest in its honor, a show of solidarity and eventual potential revival for the cause?

I can understand disagreeing with those who protest the rights of Californians to make such a decision.  But if that's not the implication, what's the harm?

Thank you for the invitation, however, what's to debate?  We clearly disagree on this issue, and will not convince the other otherwise.  But I fully respect your right to your views, and think no less of you as an individual because you have these firmly held views in this matter.

You should respect me less if I firmly hold my views in light of a superior argument.  That is, I hope, the point of such of a debate.  It seems a lot more fruitful to just saying what we believe.  There is no honor in foolish consistency, or whatever some dead guy said.

[??????????]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMI0JQop07o

If they have been doing that, then they truly are low lifes.

Go to minute 2:30, disgusting.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Thank you for the invitation, however, what's to debate?  We clearly disagree on this issue, and will not convince the other otherwise.  But I fully respect your right to your views, and think no less of you as an individual because you have these firmly held views in this matter.

You should respect me less if I firmly hold my views in light of a superior argument.  That is, I hope, the point of such of a debate.  It seems a lot more fruitful to just saying what we believe.  There is no honor in foolish consistency, or whatever some dead guy said.

     The problem with that is that a debate is fruitless unless the two people debating share a fair amount of common ground already. CARL & I tried to debate the matter, but we were unable to convince each other simply because we held completely different attitudes towards the question of how it should be decided who can marry.

[muon2]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

I've injected my opinion on this in threads before, but it seems appropriate to add it here as well.

Marriage affects two categories of activities that involve government. The broadest set of activities involve activities that I will call transferable rights. These are activities like power of attorney and inheritance that anyone could assign to another by filling out the appropriate paperwork. There are hundreds of these minor civil rights, and civil marriage bundles all of them into a single piece of paper, essentially cutting out the bureaucracy of assigning each of these separately.

The second category involves specific entitlement benefits. These benefits would not normally be accessible to an arbitrary individual, even if both persons wanted it to happen. For instance a person who is entitled to survivor benefits from a pension plan or family heath insurance coverage cannot not go to the clerk's office and designate an arbitrary person to be the recipient of these entitlements. However, marriage automatically creates that designation for many benefits.

I see no problem with extending activities in the first category to any couple that so desires. I think that civil union would ideally be just that - a one-stop process to identify a person to be the default for all the transferable powers of the kind I mentioned. Opposite sex marriage already has loopholes that have been exploited to gain entitlements from that second group. I don't think it makes sense to open more loopholes to gain entitlements by extending civil marriage to arbitrary couples.

[MR maverick]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

I've injected my opinion on this in threads before, but it seems appropriate to add it here as well.

Marriage affects two categories of activities that involve government. The broadest set of activities involve activities that I will call transferable rights. These are activities like power of attorney and inheritance that anyone could assign to another by filling out the appropriate paperwork. There are hundreds of these minor civil rights, and civil marriage bundles all of them into a single piece of paper, essentially cutting out the bureaucracy of assigning each of these separately.

The second category involves specific entitlement benefits. These benefits would not normally be accessible to an arbitrary individual, even if both persons wanted it to happen. For instance a person who is entitled to survivor benefits from a pension plan or family heath insurance coverage cannot not go to the clerk's office and designate an arbitrary person to be the recipient of these entitlements. However, marriage automatically creates that designation for many benefits.

I see no problem with extending activities in the first category to any couple that so desires. I think that civil union would ideally be just that - a one-stop process to identify a person to be the default for all the transferable powers of the kind I mentioned. Opposite sex marriage already has loopholes that have been exploited to gain entitlements from that second group. I don't think it makes sense to open more loopholes to gain entitlements by extending civil marriage to arbitrary couples.

Couldn't be said any better.

Marriage already has its problems, why create more with gay marriages.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

I've injected my opinion on this in threads before, but it seems appropriate to add it here as well.

Marriage affects two categories of activities that involve government. The broadest set of activities involve activities that I will call transferable rights. These are activities like power of attorney and inheritance that anyone could assign to another by filling out the appropriate paperwork. There are hundreds of these minor civil rights, and civil marriage bundles all of them into a single piece of paper, essentially cutting out the bureaucracy of assigning each of these separately.

The second category involves specific entitlement benefits. These benefits would not normally be accessible to an arbitrary individual, even if both persons wanted it to happen. For instance a person who is entitled to survivor benefits from a pension plan or family heath insurance coverage cannot not go to the clerk's office and designate an arbitrary person to be the recipient of these entitlements. However, marriage automatically creates that designation for many benefits.

I see no problem with extending activities in the first category to any couple that so desires. I think that civil union would ideally be just that - a one-stop process to identify a person to be the default for all the transferable powers of the kind I mentioned. Opposite sex marriage already has loopholes that have been exploited to gain entitlements from that second group. I don't think it makes sense to open more loopholes to gain entitlements by extending civil marriage to arbitrary couples.

If someone really wants to exploit the system, they can already marry someone of the opposite gender in a bogus marriage. So let's see:
Britney Spears can marry someone for 48 hours
People can exploit the system
Long-time gay couples can't marry

[MR maverick]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

I've injected my opinion on this in threads before, but it seems appropriate to add it here as well.

Marriage affects two categories of activities that involve government. The broadest set of activities involve activities that I will call transferable rights. These are activities like power of attorney and inheritance that anyone could assign to another by filling out the appropriate paperwork. There are hundreds of these minor civil rights, and civil marriage bundles all of them into a single piece of paper, essentially cutting out the bureaucracy of assigning each of these separately.

The second category involves specific entitlement benefits. These benefits would not normally be accessible to an arbitrary individual, even if both persons wanted it to happen. For instance a person who is entitled to survivor benefits from a pension plan or family heath insurance coverage cannot not go to the clerk's office and designate an arbitrary person to be the recipient of these entitlements. However, marriage automatically creates that designation for many benefits.

I see no problem with extending activities in the first category to any couple that so desires. I think that civil union would ideally be just that - a one-stop process to identify a person to be the default for all the transferable powers of the kind I mentioned. Opposite sex marriage already has loopholes that have been exploited to gain entitlements from that second group. I don't think it makes sense to open more loopholes to gain entitlements by extending civil marriage to arbitrary couples.

If someone really wants to exploit the system, they can already marry someone of the opposite gender in a bogus marriage. So let's see:
Britney Spears can marry someone for 48 hours
People can exploit the system
Long-time gay couples can't marry

Glad I live in SC on these types of issues and not CA.

I would be upset if Prop 8 gets over turned in a way.

[Alcon]

Thank you for the invitation, however, what's to debate?  We clearly disagree on this issue, and will not convince the other otherwise.  But I fully respect your right to your views, and think no less of you as an individual because you have these firmly held views in this matter.

You should respect me less if I firmly hold my views in light of a superior argument.  That is, I hope, the point of such of a debate.  It seems a lot more fruitful to just saying what we believe.  There is no honor in foolish consistency, or whatever some dead guy said.

     The problem with that is that a debate is fruitless unless the two people debating share a fair amount of common ground already. CARL & I tried to debate the matter, but we were unable to convince each other simply because we held completely different attitudes towards the question of how it should be decided who can marry.

I'm a little more hopeful when it comes to people who are not CARL. 

Glad I live in SC on these types of issues and not CA.

I would be upset if Prop 8 gets over turned in a way.

South Carolina does not have sham marriages?