A bad day for America

Someday we will look back at attempts to stop consenting adults from getting married and think, "Were our ancestors really this stupid?"
 
ib1yysguy said:
It seems like they could successfully challenge it in the courts somehow...maybe.
Click to expand...

the gay community should organize its own 'religion'. Set it up as a non-denominational christian church (or whatever religion they choose) and then in their bylaws include language to the effect that they accept gay marriage as a part of their religious beliefs.

While I would imagine that they would end up with extra 'obstacles' in establishing such a church... legally they would be protected under freedom of religion. After being established... the government would HAVE to accept gay marriage... otherwise they would be discriminating based on religion, which the constitution protects against.

I know this is way more than the gay community should HAVE to do... but it may be the only way they settle this once and for all.
 
ib1yysguy said:
America is still full of bigots and rubes.
Click to expand...

Kind of interesting the exit polls in California showed blacks voted for Prop 8 by the largest margain. Double edged sword, Obama running turned out more black voters in California but that hurt Prop 8.
 
If you look at a poll that isolates blacks as a demographic, they are extremely socially conservative.

I've often said that it wouldn't really take too much for the GOP to splinter them away from the Democratic coalition. Obviously it would be much harder now than 4 years ago, but the potential is still there.

Majorities of black voters oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage AND civil unions, and support prayer in schools. They really have more in common with evangelicals than liberals.
 
Epicurus said:
If you look at a poll that isolates blacks as a demographic, they are extremely socially conservative.

I've often said that it wouldn't really take too much for the GOP to splinter them away from the Democratic coalition. Obviously it would be much harder now than 4 years ago, but the potential is still there.

Majorities of black voters oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage AND civil unions, and support prayer in schools. They really have more in common with evangelicals than liberals.
Click to expand...

You aren't going to splinter a demographic that votes 99% Democratic. That is simply delusional thinking Epic.
 
Epicurus said:
If you look at a poll that isolates blacks as a demographic, they are extremely socially conservative.

I've often said that it wouldn't really take too much for the GOP to splinter them away from the Democratic coalition. Obviously it would be much harder now than 4 years ago, but the potential is still there.

Majorities of black voters oppose abortion, oppose gay marriage AND civil unions, and support prayer in schools. They really have more in common with evangelicals than liberals.
Click to expand...

That's what Bush was really trying to do and he had a modicom of success but there's also a big trust issue at play and Republicans have not overcome that.
 
Well it's all but impossible now that Barack has been elected, but it could have been done as recently as the '90s or early 00s.

The only area where blacks and liberals have a lot of agreement is in their support for the welfare state and affirmative action. As far as social issues go, black voters always have and probably always will be on the social conservative side.
 
Superfreak said:
the gay community should organize its own 'religion'. Set it up as a non-denominational christian church (or whatever religion they choose) and then in their bylaws include language to the effect that they accept gay marriage as a part of their religious beliefs.

While I would imagine that they would end up with extra 'obstacles' in establishing such a church... legally they would be protected under freedom of religion. After being established... the government would HAVE to accept gay marriage... otherwise they would be discriminating based on religion, which the constitution protects against.

I know this is way more than the gay community should HAVE to do... but it may be the only way they settle this once and for all.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would work. The Mormons believe in polygamy, as do many Muslims, but it isn't permitted in the US. The same principle undoubtedly would be applied to gay marriage. The only solution is to help work toward some modicum of sanity among the voting public.
 
Or accept that civil unions are a reasonable substitute and that a rose by any other name smells as sweet.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why? The man woman thing doesn't seem to apply. Laws against bigamy are the epitome of religious intolerance, actually.
Click to expand...
if 4 women want to be married to one man, or four men to one woman, why should we care? The government can say that for tax purposes only two people can file married but what the hell.
 
whats going to be hard to reconcile is the fact that it was legal for a few months before this was passed, so what happens to those marriages before this prop 8 passed? Seems to make a good argument that constitutions were created to define government powers, not negative rights, correct?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
whats going to be hard to reconcile is the fact that it was legal for a few months before this was passed, so what happens to those marriages before this prop 8 passed? Seems to make a good argument that constitutions were created to define government powers, not negative rights, correct?
Click to expand...

The attorney general says those marriages will still stand. Others, of course, disagree. But the final arbitrator will be the same court that decided that gay marriage should be legal, so it's leaning towards the side that says they will stand.
 
Watermark said:
The attorney general says those marriages will still stand. Others, of course, disagree. But the final arbitrator will be the same court that decided that gay marriage should be legal, so it's leaning towards the side that says they will stand.
Click to expand...

fine, they stand. I think they should, but it seems totally backwards that a constitutional amendment can be created to exclude rights while allowing a grandfather clause. don't you?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
fine, they stand. I think they should, but it seems totally backwards that a constitutional amendment can be created to exclude rights while allowing a grandfather clause. don't you?
Click to expand...

I think they deliberately decided not to make a specific clause in the amendment nullifying previous marriages because it would've be a lot easier to defeat if the amendment became about breaking up marriages that had already happened.
 
Watermark said:
I think they deliberately decided not to make a specific clause in the amendment nullifying previous marriages because it would've be a lot easier to defeat if the amendment became about breaking up marriages that had already happened.
Click to expand...

we're not talking about drafting a law or ordinance. we're talking about a constititutional amendment. Nowhere in the history of this country does an amendment have a grandfather clause. how do we start that now?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
we're not talking about drafting a law or ordinance. we're talking about a constititutional amendment. Nowhere in the history of this country does an amendment have a grandfather clause. how do we start that now?
Click to expand...

Nowhere in history has an amendment been drafted specifically to deny human rights that were introduced.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
we're not talking about drafting a law or ordinance. we're talking about a constititutional amendment. Nowhere in the history of this country does an amendment have a grandfather clause. how do we start that now?
Click to expand...

I kinda doubt that there are no grandfather clauses in state constitional ammendmentss anywhere in the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top