California's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Passes

One minute, we transcend discrimination, the next, we uphold it.

In Obama's case, discrimination wasn't transcended; it was merely seen as impractical. A lot of people decided that electing Obama would better serve their interests, and weren't willing to make a sacrifice to advance their racist cause. They could think, "Yeah, stick it to the negro! Oh wait .. President McCain! Damn, what am I going to do? Oh well, I'll put my racism aside for now (until my whatever my economic peeve happens to be, gets fixed)."

For the gay marriage ban, a person could vote for it without seeing any personal downside. "So what if some people are denied liberty? I'm straight, so voting against liberty in this instance, won't hurt me."

Discrimination (racial, sex-orientation, whatever) won't be "transcended" until most people realize that voting against liberty indirectly harms everyone, even harming the people that a specific act of discrimination doesn't directly target. When people think, "Wait a minute, if I do this, then my group might be next," then this bullshit will finally be over. Have we really seen signs that people are thinking that way?

In Obama's case, discrimination wasn't transcended; it was merely seen as impractical.

Oh Spock, you're always splitting hairs.

Speaking of splitting hairs, I agree there is NO substantial difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage." I went to the court house to get married, no church involved.

I believe OutaCigs is right that "civil union" has more legs as a concept. Unions of any kind between partners who have the same sex organs will not ever yield offspring, which is the traditional reason for marriage. Hence all this touchiness about "gay marriage" as a term.

And speaking of touchy terms, I really do not think "breeder" can escape being pejorative. Humans breed, even gay ones. Breeders are required to create new humans, gay or straight. Let's not divide up into camps on that, hey?

with outacigs and obamagascard. If gay people can get all the rights of marriage only without the word "marriage," why complain?

And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized

..trying to get people to understand that allowing a change isn't the same as making a change. "Think of the terrible message that liberty would send to the childen," is getting to be a pretty damn tired reason for using government power to enforce social agendas.

Are you presenting what you say in your post to be fact or is it merely your theory?

Fact. I used my telepathic powers to read all the voters' minds, including yours (BTW, abbacaab, you're a very dirty person who thinks impure thoughts).

If gay people can get all the rights of marriage only without the word "marriage," why complain?

But why pass this amendment, either? If separate but equal status was an issue that nobody cared about, there wouldn't be any people on either side of the debate.

Traditionally, Californicate has long been on the cutting edge of popular culture. Free sex, free love, Berkeley, drug culture, gay this, gay that, Hollywood morons, anti war, hippies, flower power, the Beach Boys, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam. Dare I suggest that on the eve of Obama's proposed Socialist revolution, California, by rejecting "gay" marriage is sending us a signal that it is time to return to more conservative moral ideals? Could it be so?

think misogynism is funny.

I understand the GLBT arguement - saying that marriage is only for straight couples creates a second class of citizen even when civil unions are allowed. The gay couples are perceived as "less than." Personally, I wouldn't care at all about the terminology if I was gay. "Seperate but equal" would work just fine - equal is equal. Why get hung up on semantics? And I do believe that marriage between a man and a woman is different because they can produce their own offspring.

Politics is all about semantics Abbacaab. It's about what you say, how you say it and even what words you choose to say. You're right about marriage - performed in a church, by a priest, under a graven image of your lord jesus christ - is between a man and a woman. From a political perspective, remove the secular overtures and you have a civil union AKA common law marriage.

Oh and believe me when I say that all GLBT can have children, That has everything to do with biology and NOTHING at all to do with marriage.

It's about property and kinship, not child-bearing. In case you haven't noticed, child-bearing is getting further and further removed from marriage between the biological parents (whose definition is getting wider, too).

I've been married for almost 40 years, but we didn't have children. Does that mean my marriage isn't real? There's no test or requirement for child-bearing to get married. That's a red herring.

Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to be responsible and have the corresponding protections I get to take for granted?

It's true, marriage isn't what it used to be. But I still say that when a man and a woman get married and produce their own children and raise them in a loving home, that's something sacred. Our country was built on the nuclear family. The tradition of marriage between a man and a woman has existed for thousands of years and that should be valued and respected. Give gays equal rights, but let marriage continue to exist the same way it's existed for ages - a man and a woman.

I was just joking - well, sort of anyway because the idealism you are waltzing around the dance floor with is mostly gone the way of high button shoes, five cent cigars, and the stereotypical June Cleaver, Theodore (Beaver) Cleaver, and whatever the dad was named families of the fifties and before no longer exist. Most marriages end in divorce these days, "families", nuclear or otherwise, can have two dads, two moms, "men" who have babies, single parents, and God only knows what else. Is it good? Is it bad? I dunno but it will serve no useful purpose to place oneself on a perfect white horse and point fingers and pass judgement. People do whatever they're gonna do anyway so might as well join the party.

This sucks.

Once we start taking peoples freedom's away...what else will be left?!?!?!?

PROP 8 IS HATE.

This wasn't a matter of government accountants saying, "oh no, if we allow this, tax revenues will be down and state-backed medical insurance payments will be up, and in a couple decades we'll have fewer soldiers to draft. I recommend you don't sign this, governor."

The issue was never framed in the public debate the way you just put it, hotrod. It was a referendum by the people, and weird terms like "defending marriage" were used. Nobody's running on a platform of, or talking about, setting policies to maximize population growth. Maybe the people are being manipulated with propaganda by someone lurking in the background with those types of motives, but even that's a stretch.

Religion and us-vs-them thinking was happening, this time. Advocating liberty for everyone, in order to protect one's own, just isn't anyone's strategy anymore. And that failure will come back and bite people in the ass, the next time they are in some minority and no one stands up for them.