A question for prop 8 supporters...

[capnbob]

I'm not going to question your motives or condemn you here, I just want to know how this is supposed to work.  What if someone claims to be a different sex than they really are, should we require the state government to strip us and look at our private parts before we're allowed to get married?  What about a person who has undergone a sex change

Comments

[pdfunplugged]

HA! I've thought of some of this myself.

Honestly... I don't think government should be involved in any kind of marriage. Let it be between you and your religion, or gods, or whatever...

[spam_27]

Problem there is the government is the one that gives the benefits of being married. Like being named next of kin. Visitation rights. How taxes are paid, etc.

[pdfunplugged]

See... that's just it though... I don't think there should be a benefit, or a liability (legally speaking) of being married or single. Last election it was all about how it's more expensive to get married than it is to stay single. They went around calling it the marriage tax.

I mean really... why DOES the government regulate something like that anyway. That's something they should have never done to begin with..

[diablita_ii]

somehow I don't think those ppl really thought about much of anything.. and definitely not about other ppls beliefs or feelings... but anyway...

the law suits have already begun.. it is possible that it's thrown out again under our (California) constitution's very strict anti-discrimination laws.. we can only hope

personally I don't understand why a state constitutional amendment only requires a simple majority to pass... it should require at least 2/3 of the voters.. but that's my personal opinion

[katje0711]

Such a disgrace. I'm disappointed in my home state of Arkansas that won't allow gay couple to adopt. WTF??

[ef_ex_ay]

bob coming out of nowhere with the politics. wow. long time man.

generally speaking, if you're not in the majority, you're going to have problems.

in the word's of lil o'rielly, "your evil sex makes god send hurricanes."

[spam_27]

HI BOB. I'm not from California, but I've been there. I probably would have voted no because my friend would kill me if I didn't (he's got looooads of gay friends.) But looking at it I can see why non-religious nuts would vote yes.

The Courts overturned something that was the will of the people. In 2000 (ish) the ban was voted on and passed and then the courts over turned it which prompted the flood of marriages in CA. Not everyone that is against it is A nut. I recently just saw a Gay man that was against the idea of Gay marriage. But has the same idea as me. (read on)

Personally I think they should have Marriage as just the religious ceremony and Civil unions as how the government recognizes them. So Civil Unions would have all the benefits of marriage. Everyone would have a civil Union but they could also be married by the church. This includes the churches that aren't against Gays. I know they're out there somewhere.