Hundreds of Prop 8 protesters take to L.A. streets

[Fonix36]

i new if i went online i would see this posted...
i meet to beautiful lesbian girls yesterday(i tried to hook up with one of them) and they were ever disappointed in the outcome but where still willing to do whatever it took to change the decision... this spirit is why the decision should be changed if it wasn't a big deal there wouldn't be a reason to care.

[Agamemnon]

Can someone provide me the documentation that shows marriage is a right?

I know the US signed the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 defining marriages rights, but i dont see it in the US constitution. any help. I've been searching for awhile now.

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Can someone provide me the documentation that shows marriage is a right?

I know the US signed the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 defining marriages rights, but i dont see it in the US constitution. any help. I've been searching for awhile now.

In reality, at this point it does not matter, if you can find it in the constitution. What has happened, is the writers and backers of Prop 8 managed to turn it into a constitutional issue. Due to the fact that they were doing it based on religious reasons and stated that fact.
Therefore a a Religious doctrine is trying to create laws of the state. That's a violation of the separation of Church and State.

Its the same deal with Abortion, before Roe VS Wade and the Constitutional amendment made on the Supreme Court decision there was nothing in the Constitution about the rights of women to choose to abort a child.

Most people who opposed abortion before did it on stated religious reasons. Most people who oppose abortion now, do it on religious reasons. As long as they state that in their fight against it, they will always lose constitutionally.

Because these people have managed to connect there prop to a Religious organization and promote that fact that it was backed by them, even though it has passed it would fall in court. Due to what I and others have stated in this thread already.

Please read, how many times do we have to post this fact?
Had they not tied it to a religious organization, had they not promoted and backed it for religious reasons? It would hold up in court constitutionally. They failed, it fails. It will fall if it goes to court, which it probably will.

Regardless of if you agree with it or no?t Purely based on facts it was fucked from beginning and will be overturned.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by drift freaq

What has happened, is the writers and backers of Prop 8 managed to turn it into a constitutional issue. Due to the fact that they were doing it based on religious reasons and stated that fact.

Can you supply the source for this info. Do have the link to the info that quotes backers of prop 8 saying in a court that the reason they wanted to ban same-sex marriage was due to religious reasons?

[drift freaq]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Can you supply the source for this info. Do have the link to the info that quotes backers of prop 8 saying in a court that the reason they wanted to ban same-sex marriage was due to religious reasons?

It was in the ads themselves(among other things) at the end because per law the people backing the ad have to state they did the ad. It has not gone to court yet;

The prop itself was written by religious organizations, the vote yes campaign was advertised by religious organizations.
I used the examples of Roe VS Wade for the constitutionality of this situation. If you seriously do not understand that then you need to stop discussing this right here.

Now I have a question for you?
Why are you so intent on trying to disprove what these people actually did? I seriously think you need to step back and realize this has nothing to do with your state.
Unless you want to see it become a National issue(Supreme Court) and have something to do with your state.

In fact because of what has happened, it just might become a Supreme Court issue. So in other words its already backfired on the supporters of Prop 8.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by drift freaq

It was in the ads themselves(among other things) at the end because per law the people backing the ad have to state they did the ad. It has not gone to court yet;

The prop itself was written by religious organizations, the vote yes campaign was advertised by religious organizations.
I used the examples of Roe VS Wade for the constitutionality of this situation. If you seriously do not understand that then you need to stop discussing this right here.

Now I have a question for you?
Why are you so intent on trying to disprove what these people actually did? I seriously think you need to step back and realize this has nothing to do with your state.
Unless you want to see it become a National issue(Supreme Court) and have something to do with your state.

In fact because of what has happened, it just might become a Supreme Court issue. So in other words its already backfired on the supporters of Prop 8.

First of all, I am not attacking same-sex marriages. I'm in favor for it! So dont think for one minute I'm some sort of religious nut bag.

I asked from you to to show the proof that the backers of prop 8 used religion as a reason to the courts when they petitioned same-sex marriages and had prop 8 added to the November ballot. Cali state would've never added prop 8 to the ballot if they walked in and said "we want to amend the state constitution because god said so!" Just as you said, seperation of church and state. The judges would've laughed in their faces and asked them to leave the courts.

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by drift freaq

It was in the ads themselves(among other things) at the end because per law the people backing the ad have to state they did the ad. It has not gone to court yet;

The prop itself was written by religious organizations, the vote yes campaign was advertised by religious organizations.
I used the examples of Roe VS Wade for the constitutionality of this situation. If you seriously do not understand that then you need to stop discussing this right here.

In fact because of what has happened, it just might become a Supreme Court issue. So in other words its already backfired on the supporters of Prop8.

Hmm..Agamemnon could very well be correct.

According to the manner in which prop 8 presents itself, there is no mention at all about religion. Prop 8 is actually very sparse on details. I take back what I said earlier about it being poorly written.

Taken from;

Proposition 8 - Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2008

"This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California."

Yes, advocates for Prop 8 is funded in part by certain Christian, and Jewish groups, but there are also religious groups that are against it and likewise offer funding for it. So religious groups are funding and supporting both sides of prop 8, but religion itself isn't an official justification for Prop 8.

About the Constitution itself, I see that there provisions that protect freedom of speech, religion, and press. It also demands equality based on race and sex, but nowhere is there mention of equal rights based specifically on 'sexual orientation' or even 'gender'.

Technically the Supreme Court ruling (if it goes there) could interpret this either way. Looking further at this, there is a very real possibility the Supreme Court could uphold Prop 8. I doubt this is likely, but that doesn't mean it won't happen at all either. Depending on your point of view, Prop 8 could be unconstitutional, OR, it could have nothing to do with the constitution at all.

Interesting to see how this will play out in the courts.