Title and Summary Change for Proposition 8

The State Attorney General and Legislative Analyst have amended the language for Proposition 8's Title and Summary.

[Cpetr13]

Whether they change the language or not, it would be up for judicial review if it passed, either because the original version was incomplete or because the new version isn't the one that the petitioners signed on for. And of course, there are those couples who are already married by the state who could not be retroactively annulled by such a measure, and who would have to be recognized by the state.

Either way, pursuance of this matter is going to end up in court, unless people vote it down--which is a possibility. Personally, I would have every member of every gay legal group in CA track down the signers of the petition and verify every one of them. If they can be proven to be fraudulent, the whole thing can be tossed out.

[gemelk]

I like the new language because it is far more accurate!

Let's hope it stays in tact.

Eric

[Sir Andrew]

This is great news, and it shows how the state feels about this silly measure. I think this amendment is going to be defeated, and defeated big time. Where the amendment, voted on in an earlier year, would have guaranteed that no right to gay marriage would be granted, this one will actually take away a right that currently exists and is being exercised. That is something that most Americans will not do. I think this is particularly true of Californians.

I think this is the last gasp for conservatives on the left coast. Especially since their wonderchild, Ahnold, is against them on this matter.

But that doesn't mean we should take a victory for granted. Every gay man and woman in America, regardless of whether he or she ever expects to get married, should be involved in this battle. It is essential to the future of most of the rest of our rights, both those we already embrace and those to which we have yet to win access.

First target: The Mormons, for their illegal involvement in this matter.

[Hello]

Even Arnold won't speak up, because one of his gay cash cows from his arrival in Hollywood will come out about him being gay for pay.
I called him at the gym in the 70's because he had nothing to lose and I wanted to thank him for being pro-gay in a magazine article. Anyway, I got him on the phone and the next thing you know, he invites me to come and hang out with him.

[Florida Dude]

I wish Florida's laws required non-biased descriptions of proposed laws like California does.

The proponents of a law in Florida get to describe it on the ballot. They are not required to be accurate. Our amendment (amendment 2)*will* remove some domestic partner benefits however the legal wording of the law doesn't mention it. The organization pushing the law denies it. But the fact is, it will affect the unmarried partners of anyone employed by government, to include university professors, college professors, and other teachers.

[George Funk]

Cpetr13 wrote:

Whether they change the language or not, it would be up for judicial review if it passed, either because the original version was incomplete or because the new version isn't the one that the petitioners signed on for. And of course, there are those couples who are already married by the state who could not be retroactively annulled by such a measure, and who would have to be recognized by the state.
Either way, pursuance of this matter is going to end up in court, unless people vote it down--which is a possibility. Personally, I would have every member of every gay legal group in CA track down the signers of the petition and verify every one of them. If they can be proven to be fraudulent, the whole thing can be tossed out.

I read an article on the editorial page of the LA times a couple weeks ago by law professor that said that if Proposition 8 passes it could indeed annull our marriages. The language is; only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in California. I'm looking for the article, but I haven't found it yet.

[Bob from Los Angeles]

All I can say is I'm glad you don't live in CA and hope you don't more here or visit. We don't need more bigoted people in this state. Every argument you present has been refuted. Your comments simply confirm your ignorance.

[ltndncr59]

Bob from Los Angeles wrote:

All I can say is I'm glad you don't live in CA and hope you don't more here or visit. We don't need more bigoted people in this state. Every argument you present has been refuted. Your comments simply confirm your ignorance.

not sure who you're replying to, Bob. If it's to Wil, you're dead on, but beating a dead horse.

[Shadow Dragon]

Sir Andrew wrote:

This is great news, and it shows how the state feels about this silly measure. I think this amendment is going to be defeated, and defeated big time. Where the amendment, voted on in an earlier year, would have guaranteed that no right to gay marriage would be granted, this one will actually take away a right that currently exists and is being exercised. That is something that most Americans will not do. I think this is particularly true of Californians.
I think this is the last gasp for conservatives on the left coast. Especially since their wonderchild, Ahnold, is against them on this matter.
But that doesn't mean we should take a victory for granted. Every gay man and woman in America, regardless of whether he or she ever expects to get married, should be involved in this battle. It is essential to the future of most of the rest of our rights, both those we already embrace and those to which we have yet to win access.
First target: The Mormons, for their illegal involvement in this matter.

No to mention those "Megachurches". Most those become "ordained" to avoid paying taxes,

[mrSteven]

zac wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Hey Nutty Willy..

Nice try again,

We weren't born yesterday unlike your screen names lol GO back and hide under your mommys bed

[mrSteven]

this is great news!!

We will win in November.. I HAVE A FEELING WE WILL.. However, we have an uphil to climb for equality

[newanarchy]

I've posted this question all over these boards and still have not had one single person answer it, come on folks, people who are so convinced they are right should be able to answer this with no problem.
How does gay marriage affect your straight marriage? Do I love my wife any less now that gays are allowed to marry in California than I did before they were allowed? Is my marriage any less viable now than it was before? Do I love my children any less because gays can marry?
Come on folks give me some answers without resorting to "religious" reasons which have no argument based on common sense or laws. Tell me how it affects YOUR marriage. Tell me why you are against equal rights for everyone.

[mrSteven]

newanarchy wrote:

I've posted this question all over these boards and still have not had one single person answer it, come on folks, people who are so convinced they are right should be able to answer this with no problem.
How does gay marriage affect your straight marriage? Do I love my wife any less now that gays are allowed to marry in California than I did before they were allowed? Is my marriage any less viable now than it was before? Do I love my children any less because gays can marry?
Come on folks give me some answers without resorting to "religious" reasons which have no argument based on common sense or laws. Tell me how it affects YOUR marriage. Tell me why you are against equal rights for everyone.

Nothing will change within your family..

jmo

[Live-n-Let-Live]

This is going to be very interesting... I love how they changed the words to specify: Take away an existing right (which is the case). And loss of money to the state.

Glad I'm in California to be able to vote NO on Prop 8. Anyone else outside the state, guess you'll just have to wait and see the outcome...

If it loses, I'm sure you'll hear the groans and moans of all those opposed to Same Sex marriage.

And when that happens, maybe closet cases like Nutty Willy can finally come out and stop being ashamed of his homosexual urges...

[Live-n-Let-Live]

zac wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.... and another thing about your writings... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Cpetr13]

Reported as spam, moron. How many boards are you gonna post this on?

zac wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" ...

[Cpetr13]

They could try it, but that would mean that the state would be nullifying legal marriages contracted in good faith, something that has never been done before to my knowledge. The state just can't tell you that you are no longer married without your consent. An attempt to do so--in essence, making the amendment retroactive--would make it even easier to strike down in court.

George Funk wrote:

<quoted text>
I read an article on the editorial page of the LA times a couple weeks ago by law professor that said that if Proposition 8 passes it could indeed annull our marriages. The language is; only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in California. I'm looking for the article, but I haven't found it yet.

[FrankIrvingstone d]

There are two kinds of marriage, civil and religious.

Homosexual can already get married in the eyes of God, so why not in the eyes of the government that we support with not only our money, but also our lives.

To those against same sex marriage, I promise not to get married in your church if you promise to let me get married in mine. What is so hard to understand about equal civil rights…

And here’s a bet no one seems to want to take. I’ve offered it to Bill O’reily and to Wil, but they don’t have any donuts to bet against my dollars.

Since same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, who do you think has the highest divorce rate? I will bet anyone, dollars to donuts, that the heterosexual divorce rate is higher. Any takers? I thought not.

Well it’s straights by over two to one.

Since homosexual marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, only 8% of same-sex marriages have ended in divorce, but almost 18% of opposite sex marriages have.

And I’m betting California will continue this trend….

zac wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

[mixed]

The correction makes sense, as does keeping equal protection under the law for gay couples, vote no. I think many small business owners may change their mind on this one as they have benefited from gay marriage being legal and the celebrations and tourism business the marriages have created.

[kooky]

zac wrote:

The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Hey Wilma, you're late. Only the fifth post on this thread instead of the first? You're slipping......