derek.haines
Smash Ace
I heard that there's already a court battle for one of them forming.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
California, Prop 8
- Thread starter CorruptFate
- Start date
- Status
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
I'd imagine so. Don't see why the marriages that have already passed legally and recognized would be illegal under new law with the Grandfather Clause.
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
You're right, I forgot this was changing the entire constitution for a second (which is even bigger bull).
Looks like my parents got married for nothing.
Looks like my parents got married for nothing.
pockyD
Smash Legend
why would it necessarily void everything before it?
if for some inexplicable reason they amended the constitution to abolish free speech, would they be able to go back and track down everyone who said things in their lifetime that the government deems slanderous?
not that I'm condoning amending the constitution to redefine marriage or anything, but I don't see how existing licenses would necessarily be revoked
if for some inexplicable reason they amended the constitution to abolish free speech, would they be able to go back and track down everyone who said things in their lifetime that the government deems slanderous?
not that I'm condoning amending the constitution to redefine marriage or anything, but I don't see how existing licenses would necessarily be revoked
cman
Smash Ace
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 593
The wording is something like "the only valid marriage". That means regardless of what homosexual marriages were at the time, they are not valid now, or at least it could be interpreted that way.
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Because the license system is supported by laws that would no longer be constitutional. Constitutional amendments dont affect court rulings, they affect legislation and how that legislation is to be interpreted.
The analogy is not correct. Instead it'd be more correct to say "are they going to stop rerunning shows that were made before the amendment that could say slanderous things?", which would be yes. Those statements would not be "grandfathered" in.
For a better example, let's say they ban whites from hunting license. Whites that already have hunting license wouldn't be grandfathered in, but as it was legal at the time they had them they would be prosecuted for forgery or anything like that.
This **** is such bull. How dare they have the right to tell them who can get married. If marriage is only for children, why do some straight couples not have children? Maybe they should go get divorced. I just saw this commercial that had a 5 year old girl questioning her 2 fathers on why the F*ck they got married and she was adopted. There is a lesbian couple down my block whose children are some of my friends and one goes to my school . Their lives aren't horribly twisted. They are two perfectly happy kids who might have been in an orphanage if it weren't for her two lesbian parents.
pockyD
Smash Legend
(I'm really asking, I don't know) - are you guys speculating or is this what you actually know will happen?
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Im doing a bit of both. I understand how constitutional changes effect laws for the most part, by essentially forcing those laws to see if they are allowed by the constitution (if theyre allowed they stay if theyre not they are made void), but I cant say for sure how it would be interpreted, if the judges who are declaring its constitutionality are liberal enough, I would suppose they could prevent the law from even applying by interpreting their current marriage laws in a really weird way.
Bans and stuff are strange in themselves though, Im not exactly sure how you can ban something in a constitution which is supposed to specify the powers of the state not pass what would essentially be a new law. But I dont know the wording for proposition 8 since Im not from California, though I would assume its designed to change the way that current laws are to be interpreted.
Bans and stuff are strange in themselves though, Im not exactly sure how you can ban something in a constitution which is supposed to specify the powers of the state not pass what would essentially be a new law. But I dont know the wording for proposition 8 since Im not from California, though I would assume its designed to change the way that current laws are to be interpreted.
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
My mothers got their official marriage license, and they say that not only will their marriage be protected (the only way would be if someone brought it up in court against already married couples as it is not retro-active), but that bringing this up in Supreme Court is also already being discussed and petitions are a-plenty.
It's a sad day when the Constitution is Unconstitutional.
It's a sad day when the Constitution is Unconstitutional.
Darkurai
Smash Master
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,012
Isn't that an oxymoron then?My mothers got their official marriage license, and they say that not only will their marriage be protected (the only way would be if someone brought it up in court against already married couples as it is not retro-active), but that bringing this up in Supreme Court is also already being discussed and petitions are a-plenty.
It's a sad day when the Constitution is Unconstitutional.
IWontGetOverTheDam
Smash Lord
America is ready for Barack Huesein Obama, but it's not ready for them queermosexuals to get married? What has this world come to?
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
The entire thing is completely moronic.
(Yes, I know what an oxymoron is, it's just a good time and set-up to say this)
Peeze
Smash Master
My main qualm against homosexuality in general is, if its so "natural" then why are only a small amount of the world's population gay. If something, anything happens in a small percentage of people its considered rare, or abnormal.
Don't flame, a well-informed, knowledgeable response would be appreciated.
Don't flame, a well-informed, knowledgeable response would be appreciated.
manhunter098
Smash Lord
Everything is natural. You can call it rare, or abnormal, but its still natural. But why should we even be basing this decision off of what is normal or abnormal? We need to weigh the pros and cons and come to a decision, but I personally think that having a happy homosexual population instead of one that is pissed off is going to be more beneficial to society and to the overall productivity of the nation. Does giving them the same benefits as heterosexual couples even bestow any negatives upon society?
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
Well, it obviously destroys the sanctity of marriage and alternative marriage would be taught in the classroom, therefore ruining the family and their view of the world. Didn't you watch the "Yes on 8" commercials?
......
Um, yeah, you just got your own answer there. It IS natural.
I don't follow that at all, not many people are born with certain birth defects, but those are still natural. Besides, it's thought that up to 10% of the population is LGTB
Let's pretend you're born albino. Is that a natural? Yes. It is.Peeze said:
1 in 17,000 people are albino.
1 in 10 are gay.
They're both different, but they're not unnatural. Hell, move to New York City. Being gay is more than normal there. Same with San Fransisco. Come to where I live, and its not normal to be black. I'm sure there are more gay people than black people in my city.
But does it matter? No. They're all natural, baby!
I never checked back on this. After the vote, they weren't sure whether or not it was going to void all the previous marriages or not. Either way, that leaves 16k married homosexual couples. They are more privileged citizens than the rest of the LGBT community. And that's pretty **** messed up, if you ask me.PokyD said:
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
This reminds me of the results for Prop 8
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
Notice how all of the counties that voted No, with the exception of the two next to AZ, are by the Bay. lol.
Peeze
Smash Master
Uh substitute natural for normal.
Peeze
Smash Master
I was gonna argue that it's not normal to be born a red head and that they should be outcast from society, but i don't wanna die a violent flame death.
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
I know someone who is gay AND a natural red-head :O
This had better be for shock value, or else my entire respect for you will be damaged greatly...
Peeze
Smash Master
Of course it was sarcasm...
You respect me? Stop it, I'm blushing.
You respect me? Stop it, I'm blushing.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,681
- NNID
- OctagonalWalnut
- 3DS FC
- 0619-4291-4974
Even if it is rare or abnormal...what makes something wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with something being rare or abnormal. That's hardly an argument against gay marriage, or homosexuality in general.
Also, one thing that might contribute to the lack of gay people is pressure. Whether by parents, friends, or just pressure you might feel from society, either some will never act on being gay or some may automatically be straight and never question it due to the pressure.
Mewter
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,609
Wow. There sure are a lot of counties voting yes.
I personally think there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. People have lives and the right to choose, and I thought that should hold true in the country for which the main reason it founded was for freedom.
I guess I was wrong.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 7,681
- NNID
- OctagonalWalnut
- 3DS FC
- 0619-4291-4974
I...agree with you. Were you arguing with me or agreeing with me? Because if you were arguing my message must've come off wrong.
Mewter
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,609
I was agreeing.
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
Majority of them Mountain and Latino counties, which, on a demographic scale, tend to be more religious than others.
I read somewhere that 75% of black people voted for prop 8.
That is something to think about.
That is something to think about.
Aesir
Smash Master
That's funny they're the group I would expect for them to be a little more respecting of, after all African Americans know what it's like to be the victim of Mobocracy.
pockyD
Smash Legend
on the other hand, nowadays black people benefit from stupid arbitrary divisions (affirmative action comes to mind)
Aesir
Smash Master
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
for anyone who hasn't seen it.
He sounds like he's about to cry.
for anyone who hasn't seen it.
He sounds like he's about to cry.
It's because black people are tired of being picked on as a minority, so they turn around and pick on gays. It's nothing new.
Edit: Wow. Keith Olbermann gained a lot of my respect after I watched that vid. I used to think he was a no-good douchebag, but seeing him this passionate about something that he believes him really changed my mind.
Apparently because the majority is always right.
What we need to do is make sure that the majority in American isn't right-wing religious, which will probably prove to be a nigh-impossible task considering the anti-intellectual tendencies we have as a nation.
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
The United States has always been a little right of the middle on the political spectrum. We can slowly change policies one at a time, but it'll still be quite a few generations before we appear even at the middle, let alone on the left.
Besides that, Separation between Church and Sate ftw. It's a shame that a lot still think that Prop 8 has nothing to do with it.
Besides that, Separation between Church and Sate ftw. It's a shame that a lot still think that Prop 8 has nothing to do with it.
Mewter
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,609
I'm disappointed that the government even considered this. Then there's all those commercials propagating "simple and safe marriage" and all that stuff and how voting to pass prop 8 will "protect the sanctity" of marriage as well as "redefining" marriage. You've got all these ignorant people voting yes to prop 8 because they are to scared or biased to understand that voting yes would lead to further discrimination against gays. This guy said it clearly. This is about human rights. When was the last time anyone ever got hurt because of same-sex marriage? I think it would help improve America as a whole if they had allowed it. There aren't any negative effects to gay marriage that I'm aware of. What is one good reason to ban gay marriage?(And no, "safe and simple" doesn't count)
- Status