Prop 8 Would Fail If Enough Old People Die

[red states rule]

A liberal activist actually said the gay marrage initative could pass if enough old people died before the election


California and Beyond: The Battle over Gay Marriage

snip

Kristina Wilfore says she's prepared to take the long view in California. "I am not going to be discouraged if we lose," she says. Victory will come over time in the courts, as demographics works its influence on the nation's voting patterns, she says, noting that young people support gay marriage far more than their parents and grandparents do. "A lot of people are going to have to die" before Election Day is an easy day for gay marriage, she says.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1852263,00.html

[Little-Acorn]

Ummmm...

Prop 8 is AGAINST same-sex marriage. Not for it.

It amends the Calif state constitution, with a statement that says only a marriage between a man and a woman, is recognized or legitimate in California.

It's got some history behind it. Four or eight years ago, when lots of states had ballot propositions to form state laws that restrict marriages to only man-woman, California was one of them. Their Proposition 22 passed with a 2-to-1 margin, as virtually all the similar state propositions did.

Then the Calif Supreme Court declared that Prop 22 was "unconstitutional" in relation to the State Constitution, mostly by misreading that document. So that tossed out Prop 22, which was merely a state law.

So now we have Prop 8, which specifically amends the state constitution, thus overriding the state Supreme Court declaration.

If "a lot of old people die" before election day, that will help DEFEAT Prop 8. Not pass it.

As it is, I believe Prop 8 will pass, by about the same margin that Prop 22 did back in the day.

[crin63]

I've been handing out, "Yes on 8" yard signs for a couple weeks. I put together about 100.

[manu1959]

the government should not be involved in social issues.....

government = civil union for legal reasons

marriage = church for religious reasons

let each do whatever it sees fit .....

[Yurt]

the government should not be involved in social issues.....

government = civil union for legal reasons

marriage = church for religious reasons

let each do whatever it sees fit .....

yup

[Immanuel]

the government should not be involved in social issues.....

government = civil union for legal reasons

marriage = church for religious reasons

let each do whatever it sees fit .....

I completely agree with this post.

Immie

[red states rule]

It was the left who made this a political issue back in 2004. Now when they get their wish and let the people vote on the issue - they lose - and run to a liberal Judge to toss out the vote

Then the liberal Judge orders laws created to create gay marriage

Where am I wrong here?

[April15]

It was the left who made this a political issue back in 2004. Now when they get their wish and let the people vote on the issue - they lose - and run to a liberal Judge to toss out the vote

Then the liberal Judge orders laws created to create gay marriage

Where am I wrong here?Discrimination. Plain and simple .

[Trigg]

Discrimination. Plain and simple .

Care to explain how voting NO on gay marriage is discrimination????


Gay couples will gain NOTHING!!! They are already granted EVERY right as a couple.

The only difference....they would now be able to call their arrangement a marriage. Which, by the way, Biden is against.

[April15]

Care to explain how voting NO on gay marriage is discrimination????


Gay couples will gain NOTHING!!! They are already granted EVERY right as a couple.

The only difference....they would now be able to call their arrangement a marriage. Which, by the way, Biden is against.The California proposition is to deny rights to a specific group of people. That is part and parcel of discrimination.
An example, far fetched, is to pass a law making german sirnames illegal. Really doesn't do much but it feels good to eliminate kraut names as they are hard to pronounce.

[red states rule]

The California proposition is to deny rights to a specific group of people. That is part and parcel of discrimination.
An example, far fetched, is to pass a law making german sirnames illegal. Really doesn't do much but it feels good to eliminate kraut names as they are hard to pronounce.

They have the same rights as married couples - they want to force their beliefs on us and demand we condone their activities

[Immanuel]

They have the same rights as married couples - they want to force their beliefs on us and demand we condone their activities

Technically, they do not have the same rights as married couples. They don't have the right of survivorship. They can't visit each other in the hospital or make decisions for each other when incapacitated. If only one is employed they cannot get health insurance for the other among other things.

I think homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that the government should be in the marraige business and I don't believe the government should be favoring one class of citizens over another. Therefore, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The way to do that is for the government to set up a contract between individuals (call it a civil union) and give rights to these couples that it deems necessary. Any couple straight or gay that wants these rights can sign the contract and be a couple. If they want the tradition, some would say sacrament of marriage they can go to the church and get married. It would be up to the church to sanctify their marriage. If a couple chose only to get married in the church, they would not enjoy the benefits of the civil contract.

Immie

[red states rule]

Technically, they do not have the same rights as married couples. They don't have the right of survivorship. They can't visit each other in the hospital or make decisions for each other when incapacitated. If only one is employed they cannot get health insurance for the other among other things.

I think homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that the government should be in the marraige business and I don't believe the government should be favoring one class of citizens over another. Therefore, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The way to do that is for the government to set up a contract between individuals (call it a civil union) and give rights to these couples that it deems necessary. Any couple straight or gay that wants these rights can sign the contract and be a couple. If they want the tradition, some would say sacrament of marriage they can go to the church and get married. It would be up to the church to sanctify their marriage. If a couple chose only to get married in the church, they would not enjoy the benefits of the civil contract.

Immie


Then I have no problem changing the law so they do have the same rights. But granting the sacrament of marriage to gays is ludicrous

Immie, it was the left in 2004 that made gay marriage a political issue. It satrted with the Mayor of SF ignoring the law and marrying gays. The liberal media lapped it up. Kerry and the Dems thought this was their issue to win in 2004

It backfired on them

[avatar4321]

Discrimination. Plain and simple .

I agree. Will you please stop supporting the homosexuals descrimination of the people simply because they lose elections?

[Immanuel]

Then I have no problem changing the law so they do have the same rights. But granting the sacrament of marriage to gays is ludicrous

Immie, it was the left in 2004 that made gay marriage a political issue. It satrted with the Mayor of SF ignoring the law and marrying gays. The liberal media lapped it up. Kerry and the Dems thought this was their issue to win in 2004

It backfired on them

I agree. Change the law but don't rewrite the meaning of marriage.

Immie

[avatar4321]

Technically, they do not have the same rights as married couples. They don't have the right of survivorship. They can't visit each other in the hospital or make decisions for each other when incapacitated. If only one is employed they cannot get health insurance for the other among other things.

I think homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that the government should be in the marraige business and I don't believe the government should be favoring one class of citizens over another. Therefore, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The way to do that is for the government to set up a contract between individuals (call it a civil union) and give rights to these couples that it deems necessary. Any couple straight or gay that wants these rights can sign the contract and be a couple. If they want the tradition, some would say sacrament of marriage they can go to the church and get married. It would be up to the church to sanctify their marriage. If a couple chose only to get married in the church, they would not enjoy the benefits of the civil contract.

Immie

they can get all those rights through wills, trusts, and private contracts.

[red states rule]

I agree. Change the law but don't rewrite the meaning of marriage.

Immie

Once again we agree. Damn I am having a positive influence of you:laugh2:

[Immanuel]

they can get all those rights through wills, trusts, and private contracts.

Health Insurance?

Can the one that is employed or has the better health package get insurance for the other partner? To me that seems to be a big issue.

Filing jointly on their tax returns if it helps them?

{Note} These are actual question Avatar. Not a dispute of your statement.

Immie

[red states rule]

Health Insurance?

Can the one that is employed or has the better health package get insurance for the other partner? To me that seems to be a big issue.

Filing jointly on their tax returns if it helps them?

Immie

Alot of companies (not all) offer benefits for their partner

With the marriage penalty, it might be betterr for them if they file separately

[Immanuel]

Alot of companies (not all) offer benefits for their partner

Some do but most do not. Those that do, ie Disney, get bad mouthed by the public as it is not acceptable to the "right" in this world. But let's face it, most homosexual couples do not work for companies that provide health insurance for significant others. That is changing, but slowly.


With the marriage penalty, it might be betterr for them if they file separately

If it were true that the "marriage penalty" meant paying higher taxes then most married couples would file separately. I believe that most married couples file jointly although I have not looked up stats on that. That being the case, it would behoove most homosexual couples to file jointly as well.

Immie

[red states rule]

Some do but most do not. Those that do, ie Disney, get bad mouthed by the public as it is not acceptable to the "right" in this world. But let's face it, most homosexual couples do not work for companies that provide health insurance for significant others. That is changing, but slowly.



If it were true that the "marriage penalty" meant paying higher taxes then most married couples would file separately. I believe that most married couples file jointly although I have not looked up stats on that. That being the case, it would behoove most homosexual couples to file jointly as well.

Immie


What a private company does is their business. If state abd local governments offer it, then taxpayers should have a say

I would hope most people would figure their taxes both ways and pay the lower amount. (Now libs will attack me for giving that advice)