Author Options:

I really like... Answered

Hello everyone, I'm not very active here and I think this is my first post on the forums... I just wanted to say how I really like the fact that there are No on Prop 8 banner ads on Instructables. :) But since we're on this topic now: How do you feel about Proposition 8? (If you don't know what Prop 8 is, it's the "Marriage Protection Act", it would amend the California constitution to say that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and would make same-sex marriages unconstitutional.)


Florida has the same thing...amendment 2. I don't feel like I have the right to stop anyone else from being married, and even if I did, it makes no difference to me whether they are or are not "married". It would be selfish to say that only straight people can call what they have marriage.

Exactly! It doesn't matter! Why are other people getting in the way of other people's happiness! Who cares if two guys or girls get married. It's not like the world is going to end.

Same sex marriages should be legal everywhere in the United States. There really is no reason why they should be banned!

"God says marriage should and always be between man and woman." Ever heard of church being seperate from state? Just because Christians, or any other faith for that matter, believe that marriage should be contained to a man-woman couple doesn't mean that everyone should and will believe that!

Or "The traditional marriage is between man and woman." Apparently too many people are stuck in the past, where people hid their sexuality in fear and shame.

It seems that people in general have forgotten one huge thing. Gay people are still people. They should have the human right to be married, just like every other human does.

BTW, I thought I'd mention. It shows Obama saying that Prop 8 is Divisive and Discriminatory, but in the presidential debates, his vice pres nominee, Biden, mentioned that he agrees with McCain and Palin, that same sex marriage should not be allowed! I think that Obama is the best candidate, but no matter who's in office, gay marriage is screwed.

Oh, that last line is begging for a response, but, this is a family site ...

i don't really see how thats relevant it just says men and women nothing about men and men or women and women

It doesn't mean men plus women in a couple, it means men and women, equal with each other. There are some nations where women are handed into marriage without their consent, or where men may divorce their wives on a whim, but women may not divorce their husbands.

Article 2 states "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind".

so everyone is equal in a marriage still is translated to be nothing under same-sex marriage

It doesn't say opposite-sex either. That's the point - all persons, of all persuasions, are entitled to equal rights.

Denying somebody a right (in this case, the right to marry) on the grounds of their gender-preferences is a contravention of the Declaration.

well thats up to judicial review to decide i mean there were arguments that slaves were bad and the declaration of independence said that all men are created equal yet the supreme court ruled against it like in the Dred Scott decision

There's no need for a judicial review - the US signed up to the Declaration almost sixty years ago. It's been tested many times, and still stands.

I have no idea what the Dred Scott decision was, but if it was concerned with the Declaration of Independence, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

the Dred Scott decision was were a slave, Dred Scott was brought north and said he was free because he was in free territory. They ruled against it saying slaves were property I'm comparing it to the current situation because it went against an important document

Still irrelevant, because it's a different set of laws. Decisions made under the UNDHR must be made regardless of gender, so the gender of both parties involved in a marriage must be disregarded. All that should concern people is their right to marry.

I'm not singling out the US in this, the UK has only just begun to give same-sex partnerships legal recognition, and even then they refuse to use the word "marriage", referring instead to a "civil partnership".

Neither am I saying that I expect the US will abide by the Declaration - after all, they don't bother about Articles 5, 9, 10 or 11, and there are plenty of lobbyists campaigning to make articles 18 and 19 illegal.

All I'm saying is; there's this declaration, which the US signed up to, and now a part of the US is potentially going to flout that declaration.

... its a comparison im showing an example of how a crucial document was ignored in a court case just like what can happen to these laws the way our judicial branch is set up, its not whats really constitutional, but what the majority of the bench agrees on, which usually agrees with the constitutional facts

I think we've wandered off the point - I was talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the US Constitution, nor the US Declaration of Independence.

back to the point I feel that even if the proposition gets passed, its up to whoever is on the bench to decide if its right or wrong, despite what the common people think so the verdict can go either way

Why are we arguing here?

I never said that the state or national legislature would listen to the populationb (what do you think it is? A democracy?). I just meant that, if it's adopted, it will be in contravention of a document already accepted as legal by the USA. They wouldn't be the first nation with contradictory laws.

(We have buildings full of people who are experts on the British Constitution, and give binding legal decisions based on the British Constitution but we don't actually have a constitution. Go figure.)

1 judicial, not legislative 2 im just saying, its happened before 3 I'm slightly confused 4 There's a new Arby 'n' the Chief!!

I have points to add but apparently there's a new arby n the chief so....... off to the tube! *gentle sobs after realizing how much of a n3rd i am*

sorry its six days old i don't check very often

yeah, hes not that fast took him over a month to come out with this one

. Sorry, dude, but I just don't think you have what it takes to compete with Arby 'n' The Chief. . BTW, you might want to see a doctor about that lump on your forehead. Maybe a padded keyboard would help.

Just to clarify, judicial review is the Supreme Court's right to decide upon the constitutionality of laws. Because marriage has nothing to do with constitution, nor does the universal declaration of rights, judicial review doesn't apply.

i was referring to any future case where same sex marriage is tried, then judicial review could be applied, but i guess your right, its not the constitution, i was tired last night, working on homework late the night before, and also I'm kinda using a lot of commas

What the hell does Obama have to do with Californian laws? I also think that your wording is a bit off... Kiteman: I'm pretty sure it doesn't contradict Article 16, since its just not giving the normal "rights" of a heterosexual couple, i.e. visitation rights, to same-sex couples.

Oh, and the USA is one of the original adopters of the Declaration, back in 1948.

. I'm against any changes to the Constitution (state or federal) that limit the rights of We The People.
. As for gay marriage: I've been telling my gay friends, family, and acquaintances for years to give up the word marriage. Who cares what you call it? If a "civil partnership" (or whatever one wants to call it) will give you the legal standing you want, why antagonize the holy rollers over a word?