Should Proposition 8 (California's Ban on Gay Marriage) be overturned ASAP?
Yes, it's unfair and unequal
Side Score: 85
|
 |
No, it was voted on
Side Score: 69
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it was based off of religious beliefs and gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. No one should have their rights taken away to begin with, especially when the reason to do so is because of a belief system, that is not supported by everyone, that thinks it is disrespectful and harmful to an idea. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
Yes, because state and federal constitutions are not in place to set negative rights. They are there to ensure the rights of the citizen while strictly outlining the branches of government and the roles thereof, as well as the process of electing representatives and officials. Inserting negative rights in a state or federal constitution undermines the principles behind their creation. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
A constitution exists to outline the function of the government and place limits on its power. It is necessary to include a "bill of rights" to make clear where the government absolutely has no authority. The constitution also represents a contract of sorts between the people and the officials that they elect. In essence by accepting a nomination the official agrees to abide by the terms outlined in the constitution. It is in the people's favor to their rights, both positive and negative, clearly outlined in these documents to avoid "fine print surprises." Side: No, it was voted on
There are two ways to amend the Californian constitution: by ballot measure (proposition 8) and through the legislature. Ballot measures cannot be used if the proposed amendment is considered a fundamental change to the constitution. The argument at hand is that proposition 8 fundamentally changes the equal protection clause of the constitution and therefore should not have been a ballot measure. This argument is supported by the fact that the CA supreme court previously defined gay marriage as a right under that clause. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
"It is in the people's favor to their rights, both positive and negative, clearly outlined in these documents to avoid "fine print surprises."" I get the feeling this is the gist of your argument. Could you explain exactly what you mean by this? Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
1
point
1
point
The courts basically said that there's nothing in the constitution preventing same sex couples from getting married. The religious right said, "well then, lets put something in." So they "clarified" the definition of marriage to be the union between a man and a woman. This does not take away the rights of same sex couples (please bear with me till the end cause you are not going to like what I have to say next but I'll fix it, I promise) because they never had those rights to begin with! The irony is that the religious right, with all of their "clarifying," just basically said that same sex couples can't use the word "marriage!" They can still go back to the courts and say, "Can I have these rights under this new name?" And the courts are going to come up with the same conclusion they came up with before, "Sure! There's nothing in the constitution that says that you cannot have those rights." Eventually someone is going to see that this is all just a bunch of bull shit and say, "Hell, they have the right so just let them have the damn word already. Jeez!" But like everything else it has to go through the process..... and we all know how slow that is. But hey, this is just another J.C. argument. What value does it have besides fodder for down votes ;) Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
That would be the legislative branch. We elect our representatives democratically, who then go on to make laws which are enforced by the justice system. The checks & balances here are that the courts can only apply the laws laid down by the legislative branch, however, in appeals, the (supreme) court can find a law passed by the legislature unconstitutional and have it struck down. The final check comes in the form of the citizen on a jury. As a jury member we have the right not to simply judge whether the accused is guilty of breaking the law, but we have the right (and duty) to judge the law itself. A jury is perfectly within its rights to refuse to convict on the basis that the law itself is either unjust or being misapplied. It's called nullification, and it, along with voting, is our most basic power as citizens. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
3
points
No one has the right to choose someone if they can marry or not. It's not fair for a total stranger to change someone's life entirely by opposing same sex marriage. Well, does it matter if gays and lesbians marry? I mean, who cares? Well if its one of your family member, then it might, but a total stranger??? Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
2
points
America has freedom of religion, which means that beliefs of some people should not decide how ALL people should live. Just because the form of Christianity that doesn't like the idea of gay marriage is rather common that doesn't mean all believe it. It's like 1 person shouldn't eat/drink anything but milk because 3 others believe drinking milk is the best thing ever. The problem I have with people being against gay marriage is that they don't realize it's completely remote and has nothing to do with THEIR religion even though they TOO call their religion Christianity, but it's NOT same religion AT ALL!!! It just evolved from same religion and shares a name. Like, I'm not my granddad, I just inherited his genes. The second problem is that if you eat beans and on the other island that you KNOW you will never be someone has his/her own beans, and you don't want them to eat those beans because you think your 'eating beans' is special and wouldn't be so special if the guy/girl somewhere else would eat HER beans. The 'sanctity of marriage' is nothing but 'jealousy of marriage' in disguise. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
2
points
Wait.... what?!?!?! I'm sorry..... what's the second problem again? "The second problem is that if you eat beans and on the other island that you KNOW you will never be someone has his/her own beans, and you don't want them to eat those beans because you think your 'eating beans' is special and wouldn't be so special if the guy/girl somewhere else would eat HER beans." You get an up vote for that. It's classic. Thank you. I wish I could give you another up vote. ;) Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
1
point
Prop 8 is an unacceptable encroachment upon human rights. If voters voted upon a bill that required all black people to receive less birthday cake than white people, that would be immediately be recognized as ridiculous and unfair. How is Prop 8 not the same? Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
1
point
1
point
In the Bill of Rights it says that every to be created equal. This means that if a man can marry a woman, then a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman. This is not an issue that should be voted on by the people. It is a right that was given to us in 1776 stating that they have a fair shot in getting married, just like everyone else. It should and needs to be overturned! Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
0
points
I am hetero, a woman and over 30. I live in CA, and can not believe this was voted for the way it was. ALL should be equal among EVERYONE. As long as "that" way does not harm any one else. You might say, but it does "harm" me. "I have to see it" or "I have to explain it to my child" So what! I say, doesn't your child ask about the fat guy in walmart or the strange lady in the grocery store(who's suffering from some illness)...these things happen, it does not directly affect you!! You can choose to explain it or not...but you have no right to say that that person can not be in the store with you because then you'll have to "explain" things (GAWD forbid you have to speak to your child intelligently!) but how exactly does the gay population affect anything that "you" do...oh except they bring money to your neighborhood, pay taxes for your schools even though 75% of them don't have children and generally go into blight-ridden neighborhoods and start sprucing them up and turning them around making those neighborhoods nice for everyone because they have more disposable-type incomes to spend that way. Don't get me started on the whole "sanctity of marriage"...marriage is a contract, made to benefit men, made to subjugate women and generally until the 1980's was NEVER seen as a good thing to have in the event of a divorce..and since then still not seen as a good thing in the event of divorce for a man. So this utter crap that that we have to preserve the "true" meaning of marriage... lets take a peak back a bit....if you wanted to get married, your land lord had rights to your property...therefore he could take your new bride on your wedding day and do with her what he liked but he needed to show you who was truly in charge and she's just property anyhow.....yeah THAT'S what I want to preserve(sarcasm) Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
In a heartbeat! The entire principle of American government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The constitution of the United States and thankfully, California, are designed to do exactly that. That's why it is so hard to change the US constitution. It should be equally hard to change state constitutions. If this is allowed to stand, than a Pandora's box is opened. How about gun rights next? How about freedom of speech? Sure, why not vote to make the Republican party illegal, through a constitutional amendment! How about your church via the same means? "But the majority voted on it!" In my state, Arizona, we voted it down in 2006 and through the deceitful shenanigans of Tim Bee, president of the state senate, who was running for Congress, we were forced to vote on this garbage again. No wasted money on signing petitions, just an illegal procedure in the state senate and viola! My rights are forever removed because it will take a 2/3 vote to overturn 50% vote of the people who bothered to show up. I see that the California elections board is also looking into fining some of the backers of Prop 8 for their illegal activities. I certainly hope so. So -- straight people -- how's YOUR marriage going? Is it all hunky dorry now? Has it been saved by stomping out the dreams and aspirations of millions of gay and lesbian people? Tell me, how has this IMPROVED your life? Exactly? Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
|
5
points
3
points
It used to be the natural way for women to be considered property. It used to be the natural way for blacks to be considered property. It used to be the natural way for interracial sex and marriage to be illegal. Tradition is one of the most moronic arguments for public policy. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
4
points
I don't vote, so I don't care, but you guys may just want to consider the implications before you answer. If Prop 8 is overturned by the courts, then you might as well kiss the power of the vote goodbye. Prop 8 needs to be defeated by votes. Anything less will reek of a minority group ramming their views down the majority's throat in a democratic country. That's not good. Side: No, it was voted on
2
points
The USA is a representative republic, not a democratic country, and there is actually a major difference. I find it disturbing as a British person that I seem to understand your constitution far more than you do, but the fact of the matter is that proposition 8 was a fundamental change to the California constitution and therefore requires far more than a popular vote in order to see it passed. The method through which proposition 8 was passed was unconstitutional, and overriding unconstitutional laws is the whole point of the higher level courts. It's already on its way to the CA supreme court, and I'm confident that it will be overturned. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
1
point
Equal rights are the basis of a free society. I'd rather live in a country where individuals were allowed to live as they see fit, according to the principle of harm, than live in a country where everything was decided by the majority. It doesn't matter if its brought about by one person or half the population, if a law discriminates against a person or a group of people without a reasonable basis then that law is a form of facism. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
2
points
OK, so let me see if I understand your argument. The principle of potential harm should be used when trying to determine a person's rights. I modified it and put in the word "potential" because I don't think you want to give someone the right to drive 200 MPH on the freeway because they may injure somebody. So, do I understand you correctly? Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
1
point
Actually one of the responsibility of the courts is to strike down laws that discriminate against minorities. Unconstitutional laws, like segregation, have been struck down before, but we didn't kiss the power of the vote goodbye then, and we won't do it now. This isn't a minority group cramming its views down the majority's throat, it's minorities demanding their rights. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
4
points
While I don't have a problem with gay marriage personally, I do support the power of the voters. I agree with Joe that if the courts can over turn any thing we vote on, what is the point of voting in the first place? With that being said, I also understand that the voters can get things wrong, take slavery, black and women's rights for example. But hindsight is always 20:20, and eventually people warm up to an idea and will come around to what is right. You cannot change the world over night. Side: No, it was voted on
So your point is - if we the majority decided to ban the Republican party as a hate group, that would be just fine because it the right of the majority to do that via constitutional amendment? How about if we the majority decided to imprison blond people just because? Hey, the majority voted, right? No one should use those nasty evil courts to defend their rights, because the majority voted, right? You know, I really get annoyed by kids screaming at fast food places. I know, let's strip the rights of parents who don't control their kids! Yeah! Majority rules, dude! This is wrong and you know it. Take "gay" out of gay marriage and put in any other minority and see if you still support this as a constitutional amendment that can't be challenged because it was "the will of the majority." Jews? Blacks? Hispanics? Take your pick and see if this still sounds like a good idea. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
Regardless of whether or not Gary Marriage is morally wrong it's hard to argue with the will of the majority. The entire concept of democracy revolves around the will of the public. I'd certainly say that it should be voted on in the next election cycle but it shouldn't be overturned until then. Side: No, it was voted on
Same thing that I said to Joe above: The USA is a representative republic, not a democratic country, and there is actually a major difference. Proposition 8 was a fundamental change to the California constitution and therefore requires far more than a popular vote in order to see it passed. The method through which proposition 8 was passed was unconstitutional, and that's the reason that the CA supreme court has agreed to hear legal action being taken against proposition 8. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
I have to disagree on several points. First of all, I would describe a fundamental change to a Constitution to be a change to the way that the government is run. Although the issue of gay marriage is incredible important, it is my opinion that constitutions exist to define what governments can and cannot do. Since the government is already able to authorize a marriage it is a matter of definition which is a legislative matter which can and should be determined by the will of the people. As for the argument that the United States is not a democracy, the United States may have a representative republic system, but that system is controlled by the democracy. The fact is, the checks against the "mob" have slowly been eaten away over the years. Now, I am not arguing for or against these changes (hear at least) but the point is that when the United States Constitution was amended to elect senators directly the representative republic died and was replaced by a democratic republic. There were more than one reason for a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives was intended to represent the people. The members of the House were expected to forgo their agendas and instead act as public servants acting out the will of their constituents. The Senate at the other hand were to be elected by each state's legislature and would represent the interests of the state. By allowing democracy into the elections of both houses, essential the United States turned away from the idea of the Representative Republic in favor of a democracy. On the surface little or nothing changed, yet the will of the people now dominates the legislatures throughout the United States. Side: No, it was voted on
"The will of the majority?" What part of American civics do you not understand? You get to vote on sewers, the President, maybe building a new school. NOT whether it suits your fancy to strip African Americans of their rights, or women, or Jews, or anyone else you don't happen to like at the moment! When do I get to vote on your marriage? Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
1
point
Well actually, every form of government has it's pros and cons. Monarchy for example can make a pretty strong country, a happy country, anything, but it all depends on one person and that can have horrible results on people's hapiness. Democracy's pros are that people feel like THEY have the power and not the shepherd that decides what they should think. The cons however are that if 51% of people decide 1+1=4 it will be considered 4 and in democracy Earth might still be considered flat because democracy will favor the majority. What pvtNobody is saying is that we should support the flaws of democracy, which is stupid however well you sound in saying it. Sure, you may love democracy, but just because you love a cliff, you won't drive towards it and go "Well, I won't stop the car because there is nothing wrong with the cliff and if my car is going towards it, I'm not going to stop it because it would make me feel like a hypocrite if I argued with the cliff being where my car is going." Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
0
points
No, that's why I think Democracy really isn't freedom (and why our constitution should provide more specific Libertarian laws). but, this is something that was voted on by the people. And that's exactly what our government is built on, the will of the people. Although i voted against a proposition like this in my State, it was still voted in. And, although my vote didn't work, i still am not gonna be a sore loser demanding that it gets overturned. Side: No, it was voted on
2
points
Absolutely not .There can never be equality for same sex unions in law .People in the U.S. seem to constantly go on about individual rights,as though they take precedence over the good of the collective.Yes false arguments have been used like that of parallels between the black american etc but they are false and disingenuous . Each culture wishes historically to dominate the other,and by following the overall higher law most if not all of the time we moved up in our evolution. When same sex culture dominates and it will if you let it, look at the tactics all over the world now, then you will not have a vote .It is my profound opinion that only a few do not have the agenda to use science to make heterosexuals subject to the will of this militant group who when it is expedient will use emotion [love as motive ] and or. violence as needed. Look at the true agenda of most of these groups . They want power over you . Side: No, it was voted on
0
points
It's all a gay conspiracy!!! Come on, really? Most minority groups have fought for equal rights, not dominance. Once equal rights are achieved, people tend to be less vocal. It is perfectly legitimate to demand equal treatment under that law and your accusations are ridiculous. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
2
points
No matter what you believe about whether or not gays should marry, prop 8 must be maintained. California has voted on this twice now! If the Court's take away the right of the people to vote, we no longer have a democracy. The common arguement is that this vote discriminated against a minority, and that is simply untrue. Every person in America has a right to marry one member of the opposite sex. Gay and Straight people all have this right. If we want to allow anyone to marry members of either sex, that needs to be decided on by a majority vote. There is nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to marry whomever you like, and so current law defining marriage does not violate any existing constitutional law. Furthermore, the most disturbing part of this entire situation is the existence of checks and balances. The people pass a law in 2000 defining marriage as between a man and a woman; the courts deem that law unconstitutional in 2008 (in a divided vote and with no constitutional grounds imo, as I have already demonstrated it does not target any specific group but applies to all Americans alike), so the people exercise their right to check the judiciary branch by passing a constitutional amendment. If the courts overturn the amendment, they are the ones who are violating the constitution by overturning the system of checks and balances. If you want gay marriage, do it legally. Finally, people have a right to vote against gay marriage if they want to. Marriage is a state recognized institution, and married partners receive tax-payer money because the state (and tax-payers) believe married families can raise children and strengthen society. It also alleviates the double tax-burden of couples in long-term relationships. Married couples also get automatic rights of inheritance and the like. In all honesty, most of these rights are already granted to any couple who file for them, gay or straight. So because this money is tax-payer funded, tax payers have a right to decide who recieves it. If I don't believe gay couples strengthen the fabric of society, I have a right to put my vote in saying I do not wish to fund their union. That doesn't mean they can't be together, it just means I don't want to fund it. I have a right to vote in this fashion. I have a right to vote the other way as well if I see fit. That's what democracy is about, but no one has a RIGHT to MY money. Finally, if you want to talk about bigotry, hatred, and persecution, look at the people who are LOSING THEIR JOBS (i.e.-artistic director of Sacramento Theater) because they donated to yes on prop 8. THAT is discrimation and taking away our rights. We need to remember that Religious Freedom is Amendment no. 1. It must have been important. Side: No, it was voted on
1
point
You're absolutely right! In those cases (blacks, asians) fundamentally rights guaranteed by the constitution were violated, and thus the courts had or would have a right to overturn the laws. But in this case NO FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONALY DECLARED RIGHTS were violated. Show me where it guarantees citizens a right to marry whomever they wish? Ah yes, equal protection clause gives equal rights. I hate to say it, but they have equal rights: every citizen has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex. That sounds pretty equal to me. I know it's not what they want, but it is equal. Side: No, it was voted on
1
point
I do think it is extremely unmoral, and unethical. I do not agree with this law at all. However I think rather then turning the law over they should make a federal law making gay marriage lawful. That way the power of the vote is still there yet proposition 8 does not hold any power as it is a state law. Side: No, it was voted on
1
point
1
point
Yeah, like that time states voted to keep slavery! Those blacks were such sore losers. I don't think you understand how the U.S. government is supposed to work. Why should the majority decide the rights of the minority. That is why we have courts. In California the courts decided that gay marriage was legal. Prop. 8 overturned that decision. Let me ask you this. If we had a vote in this country that Asians shouldn't be allowed to vote, and the majority of the country voted yes, would that be fair? Of course not! Courts are there to interpret the constitution and they said gay marriage was legal. The U.S. constitution is supposed to protect the many from the few and the few from the many. In this case, the few were not protected, but instead had their rights trampled upon. Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
3
points
I don't think that slaves were sore losers. I think that they were a little sore with the whole situation and a lot sore after a beating but..... wait..... I'm being insensitive again, ain't I? Damn it! Now I'm going to get trampled upon. Can I get some of that protection from the courts? I think that it is not fair for non-ass holes to decide what rights ass holes like me have. Specifically I have the God given right to be an insensitive ass hole. It's right there in the constitution, trust me, you're just interpreting it wrong! Oh, and while you're at it, can you please get me a tax break? Thanks! ;) Side: Yes, it's unfair and unequal
D: The U.S. doesn't vote on things that shouldn't be voted on. And of course it is not the same thing at all, why, because that would take away rights from some americans and not others. If you think that is what Prop. 8 is about then your wrong. By the way Asians arent allowed to vote, but Asian Americans sure can! See you kind of have to be an american citizen to vote, did you know that? 0: (= Side: No, it was voted on
|
