Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional, again

[SuF]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/long-awaited-ruling-due-ca-gay-marriage-ban-15527336

For those that don't know, prop 8 is a voter approved addition to the California State Constitution that defines marriage as one man and one woman.

 

[Wolfdog]

Good. While I'm not (full on) gay, this is the kind of close minded idiocy from close minded groups that drives me nuts.

Let people do what they want - Don't restrict what people can do in their private lives.

 

[SuF]

Good. While I'm not (full on) gay, this is the kind of close minded idiocy from close minded groups that drives me nuts.

Let people do what they want - Don't restrict what people can do in their private lives.

The amendment was passed with 52% of the vote a couple years ago. So, 52% of the people thought it was bad and even though 48% don't care the 52% gets their way. That's why voter approved Constitutional amendments are fucking retarded.

 

[Karl]

52%, which was probably of like 20-30% of CA's population

 

[SuF]

52%, which was probably of like 20-30% of CA's population

Most likely, but it is also most likely that it is a fairly accurate representation of what the vote would have looked like if everyone had voted.

 

[Wolfdog]

Either way, I personally feel its unconstitutional. Opinions?

 

[wizardzgame]

It is unconstitutional. Regardless, it's of no one's business of a person's sexual orientation, the same way it is of no one's business what someone's favorite colour is. It's personal preference, and it'd be quite sad to have gays oppressed even more, especially when the reason is something ludicrous like religion (separation of church and state ring a bell?).

 

[Jimmy]

Terrible. The people of California didn't want gay marriage then, and they don't want gay marriage now; the proper way to change a law of this nature is legislative, not judicial.

 

[Sweetaction]

Gays should have marriage benefits on their taxes. The government just wants more money.

 

[Pwnm30rdi3]

It is unconstitutional. Regardless, it's of no one's business of a person's sexual orientation, the same way it is of no one's business what someone's favorite colour is. It's personal preference, and it'd be quite sad to have gays oppressed even more, especially when the reason is something ludicrous like religion (separation of church and state ring a bell?).

I agree but in some cases I don't believe someone with "Gay" orientation has the ability to choose if they are straight or not. I think they are born thinking of themselves as the other sex stuck in their body.

 

[kill dank]

Maybe they should just make it unconstitutional to act gay in public. I mean, that's the problem, right? People don't like the fact that other people are gay. If they're gay in their house or in gay bars and stuff, nobody would know or care.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

I agree but in some cases I don't believe someone with "Gay" orientation has the ability to choose if they are straight or not. I think they are born thinking of themselves as the other sex stuck in their body.

You are confusing homosexuals with transsexuals. There is a big, big difference.

 

[oldSchool Noob]

good, that bill was straight bigotry and stupidity. RAINBOW WARRIOR AWAY!!!