Sunday, November 9, 2008

Proposition 8: An Exercise in Democracy

Proposition 8 passed in California. This State of California Constitutional amendment forbids same sex marriage. The passage was the will of the people. Now there are mass protests criticizing groups that opposed gay marriage. Funny how the liberals claim a separation of church and State yet desire a right of a religious ceremony.

The California courts made a mockery of their laws and constitution when this summer they declared it unconstitutional to ban same sex marriages. The people of the state were then asked to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of same sex marriages. I must wonder what it is that Gays and Lesbians are truly after. It can't be the religious ceremony. For the religious part is just that a ceremony. No they want something much different. They want to take advantage of laws and rules that protect families. They want to be allowed "family" benefits. Their intent is not to live as a married couple but rather hold their hands out for more governmental handouts.

Bottom line is that these individuals desire tax dollars and they can not understand why Americans are against them. This is nothing more than an excuse to receive something they are not entitled to. But they need the benefits in order to rob the system. They need the status of marriage in order to bankrupt the public service system. They need marriage to reduce their tax base and medical insurance premiums. No they want nothing to do with the marriage ritual all they desire is privilege of marriage without the responsibility.

This is typical of the liberal mindset. Liberals always want privileges but never the responsibility. They call these privileges rights. But they are not rights. Melissa Ethridge is so enraged that she says she will refuse to pay California taxes and conspires to get others to do the same. She claims that because she is not treated fully as a citizen she she not have to pay taxes. Here is the problem Melissa; you are encouraging illegal activity and everyone with an income pays taxes not just citizens.

Democracy spoke and by 52% elected Barack Obama. Should those of us that voted against Obama quit paying taxes? We did not get what we wanted so we won't be getting the representation we desired so we shouldn't pay taxes? Is that really the theory? Melissa you are an idiot that should be banned from ever voting again. Your thorough lack of understanding the real issues facing our country should alone make you ineligible.

Democracy spoke and California like many other states refuse to acknowledge same sex marriages. Get over it. The only way same sex marriages become the law of the land is for the courts to rule in activist manners rather than by the constitution. Our country is a Democratic Republic and democracy has spoken. The Gay and Lesbians should just come out and tell us what they really want. They really desire all the benefits of being married with none of the responsibilities. If same sex marriage is allowed for the sole purpose of receiving tax benefits we might just as well give this same benefit to people just living together. Then we can give it to boyfriend and girlfriend. Then we just say everyone can be married even to themselves.

Again it is funny watching the liberals twist and spin the message. Nancy Pelosi said voters in California were stupid and did not understand what they were voting for. Melissa Ethridge says she is not represented. Both of these people rail against religion yet they both want a largely symbolic and religious ceremony enacted for behavior that is against most religions all for the sake of stealing from the system.

16 comments:

Publius said...

Opponents of Prop 8 do NOT "want a largely symbolic and religious ceremony". That's the whole point. Civil marriage is NOT a religious ceremony. Churches and their adherants are free to mke whatever requirements they want for religious marriage ceremonies. But the government is different. It is obligated by the Fourteenth Amendment to give "equal protection of the laws" to all its citizens. ALL its citizens. Prop 8 will ultimately be struck down as a violation of government's obligation to treat all its citizens with equal fairness. If Mormons and Catholics and Pentacostals want to limit their church marriages to heterosexuals they have every right to do so.

The Lizard said...

Publius,

Marriage is a symbolic Religious ceremony. You made my point, all these people want is to reap the benefits ie tax incentives, medical premiums, and other governmental benefits. Why else do they want this? Why not give this same right to taxes and medical benefits to unmarried folks after all we want equal treatment. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Start telling people what you really want and quit interjecting the government into religious affairs.

By the way, this will not be struck down as easily as you think. This is an amendment to the constitution for the state. This is not merely a law passed by state legislators. This is what the people of California desire.

Andrea said...

Firstly, religion does not own the word ‘marriage’; it is not exclusively a religious sacrament. With a marriage license, issued by the government, you can get married at a Justice of the Peace, a house, or out in a field, without a church or clergy, and still be legally married. But try getting married in a church without that piece of paper. You will not be legally married! Thus, marriage is a legal entity. All this whining about how “marriage is a religious sacrament” is just a smokescreen to allow discrimination.

How can having the right to leave your estate to the one you have shared your life with be a handout? There are numerous cases where the will has been overturned by some distant relative given preference over a life partner.

Let me also give you a lesson in United States Civics. The United States' form of government is NOT a Democracy. It is a Republic, which means the majority is NOT entitled to vote on the rights of a minority, regardless of their numbers. (Unlike our 'type' of goverment, democracy, lowercase d, which is used to elect officials.) Google democracy republic and get educated.

The Lizard said...

Andrea,

I know and understand our form of Government. We are a democratic republic not simply a republic. Yes majority does rule in our form of government.

Does this mean the majority votes rights? No not a all. Our constitution provides for 10 specific rights and 16 other amendments further defining some basic rights.

Marriage is a religious ceremony period. Your reasoning that the marriage certificate is most important just shows how materialistic you are.

The bottom line is this: Gays and Lesbians wish to take benefits from the rest of society that they are not currently receiving. They wish to be allowed to file a married joint tax return. The wish to pay joint premiums for medical insurance rather than the individual rate.

If we give marriage status to gays and lesbians for taxes and medical premiums why not give to everyone living together? Why not give the same benefits to boyfriend and girlfriend. Why not just to people who claim to have friends.

You are absolutely correct the marriage you are talking about is entirely about the sheet of paper.

So why not call it something else and get over it? Marriage is not a right.

Andrea said...

If I'm so much more materialistic than you, would you be so generous as to forego survivor benefits when your spouse dies? Would you please pay individual insurance premiums instead of the family rate? If not, why not? Because heteros are special?? Rights are rights, and the intent of the Constitution is not to give rights to one group over another group because they are greedy for wanting rights.

If you read my explanation of the legality of a marriage certificate, and still insist it is a religous ceremony, then you go ahead and get married by a clergy without the license. Good luck when you need some legal recourse.

Please do not justify denying one group rights because "another group might want rights". You have just given the answer to your own objection. Legal marriage, rather than co-habitation, would ensure that roommates or friends are not able to claim benefits they aren't entitled to.

May I remind you that the Constitution also guarantees rights which are not enumerated.

Why don't you just say it, you do not like gays, and you are grapsing at the fringes of constitutionality in order to justify your hetero-centrist beliefs. Substitute "African American" for nearly every argument you have against gays, and see how that measures up.

Andrea said...

Another important point: The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic, not a Democratic Republic.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

"Constitutional republic - A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches so that no individual or group has absolute power and the power of the majority of the population is checked by only allowing them to elect representatives. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.-United States"

Your insistence that in the United States, the rights of a minority should be subject to the vote of the majority (mobocracy) is a prime example of hetero-centrists twisting the law to justify discrimination.

Billie said...

(I find it easier to make comments this way, pardon me for copying & pasting your blog here as I rebutt your assertions. My comments appear in parentheses.)

Proposition 8 passed in California. This State of California Constitutional amendment forbids same sex marriage. The passage was the will of the people. Now there are mass protests criticizing groups that opposed gay marriage. Funny how the liberals claim a separation of church and State yet desire a right of a religious ceremony.(This is actually funny when you consider that the separation of church & state is written into our Constitution, a very forward-thinking document for its time. And "Andrea" is correct, religious organizations may perform marriage ceremonies, but it is the State who sanctions and licenses them. Without the license, your marriage is not recognized or legal -gay or straight.)

The California courts made a mockery of their laws and constitution when this summer they declared it unconstitutional to ban same sex marriages.(This is because they could find no legal basis for denying people of same-sex relationships the right to marry, and trust me, they know the law better than you.) The people of the state were then asked to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of same sex marriages. I must wonder what it is that Gays and Lesbians are truly after.(Why don't you ask instead of wondering, thereby conjuring your own prejudicial reasons for denying us this right?) It can't be the religious ceremony.(No, not entirely. It's mainly because we've been denied basic rights that you as a straight person take for granted! Just ask, you'll see it's a rights-based issue for us!) For the religious part is just that a ceremony. No they want something much different. They want to take advantage of laws and rules that protect families.(And why not? Why shouldn't we be able to operate under the same assumptions as you do? That if I die and will my estate to certain people, my wishes will be followed? That if I want to visit my sick or dying partner in the hospital, I won't be told that I'm not a family member and therefore have no rights? That my children won't be taken away from me by homophobic judges?) They want to be allowed "family" benefits.(And why not? My tax dollars go into a system that I'm not even allowed to take advantage of simply because of who I sleep with? While you're at it, say "THANK YOU" to all the single straight AND gay people out there whose taxes foot the bill for your children's public education, and all sorts of other public programs!) Their intent is not to live as a married couple but rather hold their hands out for more governmental handouts.(Wow, this is just inflammatory and prejudiced. What about straight people who engage in extramarital affairs? Aren't they doing the same thing, if we follow your "logic"?)

Bottom line is that these individuals desire tax dollars and they can not understand why Americans are against them.(You're totally misinformed, and I suspect that by your language, you're also a bigot -not a very American trait!) This is nothing more than an excuse to receive something they are not entitled to.(Oh really? According to whom? Where do you get your information from, because if you're paying for it you should demand your money back!) But they need the benefits in order to rob the system.(That's hilarious, last time I looked, STRAIGHT people take more out of the system than any of us gay people.) They need the status of marriage in order to bankrupt the public service system.(LOL, that's rich.) They need marriage to reduce their tax base and medical insurance premiums.(I think Andrea should stop worrying about your little blog because you have no idea what you're talking about, but that's nothing new. We in the gay community have been dealing with ignorant bigots for a long time.) No they want nothing to do with the marriage ritual all they desire is privilege of marriage without the responsibility.(This is more true of the straight community than any other group you could single out for your hate-mongering.)

This is typical of the liberal mindset. Liberals always want privileges but never the responsibility.(Oh, so now you're saying marriage is a privilege and not a right? The same could be said about conservatives who've shown over the last 8 years that they ARE NOT responsible, and certainly NOT accountable.) They call these privileges rights. But they are not rights. Melissa Ethridge is so enraged that she says she will refuse to pay California taxes and conspires to get others to do the same.(I think that's exactly what we in the gay community should do. Remember your history? NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!) She claims that because she is not treated fully as a citizen she she not have to pay taxes. Here is the problem Melissa; you are encouraging illegal activity and everyone with an income pays taxes not just citizens.(And this would be the argument you'd make with Melissa? I think you should probably find out what the REAL issues are that brought us to this point and not just spout off about something which you know nothing about.)

Democracy spoke and by 52% elected Barack Obama. Should those of us that voted against Obama quit paying taxes? We did not get what we wanted so we won't be getting the representation we desired so we shouldn't pay taxes?(On the contrary, Obama won without cheating, unlike GWB who stole the last two elections and thwarted the will of The People.) Is that really the theory? Melissa you are an idiot that should be banned from ever voting again.(The same could be said about the author of this blog..the difference between Melissa's position and yours is the democratic process cannot be used to deny a group of citizens their rights -again, you know nothing of the issues surrounding this question, so you should stay out of it until you avail yourself of some knowledge and can speak intelligently about it.) Your thorough lack of understanding the real issues facing our country should alone make you ineligible.(It's unfortunate that people like you are allowed to vote without having to take an IQ test, or at least read about an issue before you spout off about being against it. I can only assume you're a self-righteous, homophobic bigot because if you understood what we're really fighting for, you'd take a much different tone here.)

Democracy spoke and California like many other states refuse to acknowledge same sex marriages. Get over it. The only way same sex marriages become the law of the land is for the courts to rule in activist manners rather than by the constitution. Our country is a Democratic Republic and democracy has spoken. The Gay and Lesbians should just come out and tell us what they really want. They really desire all the benefits of being married with none of the responsibilities.(Again, you're ignorance is showing, and you should be ashamed of shining a light on it here or anywhere else.) If same sex marriage is allowed for the sole purpose of receiving tax benefits (wrong!) we might just as well give this same benefit to people just living together.(Yes, it's called common-law marriage, and we're fighting for them, too! Wow, what a concept, fighting for someone else's rights and not just your own!) Then we can give it to boyfriend and girlfriend.(Who then become husband and wife when they marry...) Then we just say everyone can be married even to themselves.(You should've quit while you had a chance, now you just look foolish.)

Again it is funny watching the liberals twist and spin the message.(Nope, we made the mistake of leaving you conservatives to do that.) Nancy Pelosi said voters in California were stupid and did not understand what they were voting for.(That's right, you have no idea what you just did, but that's okay because Prop 8 will be overturned!) Melissa Ethridge says she is not represented. Both of these people rail against religion yet they both want a largely symbolic and religious ceremony enacted for behavior that is against most religions all for the sake of stealing from the system.(I'd just like to point out here that if you do go to church on Sundays, whatever you're supposed to be learnin'...it ain't workin'. You really need to go back and stay there til you get it. You're simply cloaking your ignorance & bigotry in religious self-righteousness. I don't expect you'll be looking to be educated on the reasons behind our community desiring the same rights which are afforded straight people -even ignorant so-called conservatives like yourself. Conservatives should look to purge their ranks of people who think like you do. Maybe then they might stand a chance at winning another presidential election in say, 30 years.)

The Lizard said...

Andrea,

America is in fact a Democratic Republic. Look it up.

Now on to the rights. Marriage is rite as in ritual or ceremony and not a right as in constitutional right. If you believe it is in the constitution please tell me where as I have never read anything about marriage in the constitution.

Same sex marriages is about gaining a status that they currently do not have. It is not about family. Now if you want to take away the privileges of those that produce families then say so. I receive certain benefits because Congress said I could have them. This is the same in many other countries. In fact Germany provides kindergeld. Kindergeld is nothing more than a tax handout for having children. The reason is because having children is a necessity for human life to continue.

I do not buy the "right" aspect of your argument. You want to claim a status that gives you the same benefits that I receive. Well then let me split my income four ways. That way my income is such that I wouldn't pay any taxes at all. There are four people living off one income so let me split that income by four and let me receive all the benefits that come to the individuals that make that little. I would gladly pay individual rates on everything if I could get the benefits of the working poor.

The Lizard said...

Let me set the record straight. I could care less what two consenting adults do in the bedroom. It makes no difference to me for that is an individual right for which no government has the right to interfere with. My complaint is forcing acceptance of a lifestyle that many consider immoral. Many people are tolerant and could care less but when it comes to raping the system and forcing people to believe the same as you is forcing acceptance. While I will not interfere and will tolerate other beliefs and opinions as long as I do not have to accept them as common practice. Californian have spoken and said they do not wish to promote what many feel is deviant behavior. Keep it in the bedroom and no one will really care.

The Lizard said...

Billie,

Let me be clear, I am not a religious zealot. In fact I am not religious at all. My conservative views were not developed in a religious culture they were developed out of individual rights and freedoms. I certainly believe every individual has rights and freedoms. I however also believe that the right of the individual stop where another individuals begin. In other words your rights stop where they begin to push your one sided ideas down my throat.

Andrea said...

Lizard,

That's funny that you are so sure of the US being a Democratic Republic that you ignored my link, and told ME to look it up without YOU even looking it up yourself. Google "democratic republic" and you get hundreds of hits on the Congo. Google "constitutional republic" and you get hundreds of hits for the United States. Where DO you get your misinformation that the US is a Democratic Republic?

Marriage is a right. Do I have to tell you AGAIN that just because a right is not in the Constitution does not mean it is not guaranteed?

My evidence is that in no fewer than three United States Supreme Court Cases, it was affirmed that marriage is a fundamental civil right.

Loving v. Virginia
Zablocki v. Redhail
Turner v. Safley

So, when did the right to marry cease? Please do share your proof; I'm very curious.

And, in your answer to Billie, what do you mean we are shoving our lifestyle down your throat? We in no way want you to participate in what we do. We just want equal rights.

As for it being immoral, that is subjective. Some people still think oral sex is immoral. Religion has clouded this definition. A logical test is if no one gets harmed, it is not immoral. An act by 2 consenting adults harms no one. By contrast, theft, murder, infidelity, rape, and pedophilia DO have a victim, and thus ARE immoral. The immorality view of homosexuality is rooted in ancient Christianity (Augustine, Paul). As if these relics had any insight into human sexuality.

And, I can split my income four ways, too. So what? What on earth does that have to do with reality?

How someone such as yourself, with a 4th grade understanding of our government, thinks him- or herself qualified to write a blog on politics, is beyond me. You are simply a bigot in constitutional clothing. Take a government class. Please.

The Lizard said...

Andrea,

You are materialistic and wish nothing more than to rob the tax payer. You desire benefits that you are not entitled.

I know the constitution far better than you seem to be able to grasp it.

By the way we are definitely a democratic republic. Just because you can use google does not mean you know what you are talking about.

To take this a step further we are a representative democracy. You can look that one up also. My fourth grade understanding of the constitution is far superior to your no knowledge of the constitution.

No I am not a bigot. I simply do not understand why someone would desire a religious rite of passage when the major religions denounce this type of behavior. Please don't give the crap that the marriage certificate is more important than the rite itself.

This is in fact materialistic and goes directly to the reason for why people want same sex marriages. It is simply to rob from the government system.

The 10th Amendment provides that those rights not explicitly provided for in the constitution are left to the States to decide. California decided that this would not be a constitutional act. It is as simple as that. Just because some activist judges decided based on emotion rather than facts and logic make no matter. Marriage is not a right and never will be without a constitutional amendment. Ever heard of the ERA?

By the way, no one asked for you to come to this site. If it outrages you so much perhaps you should stay away.

Andrea said...

We employ democracy to elect officials, but we give rights to our citizens based on the Constitution, NOT a democratic "majority rule" vote. That is what a "Constitutional Republic" means. If rights could be voted on by the majority, then if I got enough people to vote with me to confiscate all your property, I would win. But I cannot do that, because the Constitution forbids this.

I am outraged by the Right's insistence that my getting legally married is somehow a religious rite. If I married in a Justice of the Peace's Office, with a JP officiating, exactly WHICH religion would you say I was married in?????

It's not the marriage piece of paper that is important, it is the RIGHTS that come with the marriage.

The problem is that the PEOPLE of California have no right to decide who to give and take away rights from.

You still not have explained why YOU are non materialistic for reaping benefits, but someone else IS materialistic. Please do, why am I not entitled to the same rights as you??? And I'm still waiting to hear when marriage ceased to be a right.

The Lizard said...

Andrea,

I have no rights as a married person. I am protected by laws. Believe there is a difference between laws and rights.

Congress passed bills/acts, that became law when the President signed them. Now these laws can not be unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will shoot them down.

Marriage is a religious rite of passage. The marriage rite was around way before there was a Justice of The Peace. Just because common law has changed to accept marriages by JP's and other sources does not make them rights.

By the way, certain benefits like survivor benefits are signed "by law" not "by right". There is a difference between laws and rights.

Give me the same benefits as a single person and I will gladly forgo the benefits. Unfortunately, I gave up protections of being single when I chose to get married. Again marriage is not a right. It is not explicitly in the Constitution. Therefore it is up to the States. States have the right to make their own laws pertaining to this and any other act. Marriage is governed by laws and not a right.

I fully understand individual freedoms. Unfortunately, the constitution gives us individual rights and then defers to the States to give us further rights.

Marriage never ceased being a right. For in order to cease being a right it would have had to of been a right to begin with. Marriage is governed by common law and is not a right.

Andrea said...

This is my last time dealing with your circular and contradictory reasoning.

You are saying that, even though the Supreme Court deemed something a "right", the Supreme Court is WRONG because they were not enumerated in the Constitution, although the 9th amendment of the Constitution STATES that

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So you are smarter than the Supreme Court?

THEN you say:
"Congress passed bills/acts, that became law when the President signed them. Now these laws can not be unconstitutional as the Supreme Court will shoot them down"

This does not make sense. Are you saying that the Supreme Court will shoot down laws that are unconstitutional???? But you just said earlier that you refuse to recognize rights granted by the Supreme Court if they are not enumerated in the Constitution. (The 9th amendment) As I told you previously, the Supreme Court struck down LAWS in:

Loving v. Virginia
Zablocki v. Redhail
Turner v.Safley

and in their arguments, stated that MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT. So don't try to twist words and say that laws and rights are indpendent. They are intertwined.

The Supreme Court exists to override LAWS enacted by the legislative brance when they intrude on RIGHTS. (e.g. see above 3 cases.) But I should not have to tell you this, since you know so much about the Constitution

I have proved that marriage IS (regardless of what it was in another point in history) a legal entity. Blacks used to be slaves; but that was in the past. Are you advocating ownership of humans again?

"Shoving down your throat" would be if I FORCED YOU TO HAVE A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. No such intent. You are SHOVING HETERSEXUALITY DOWN OUR THROATS.

You still insist on this convoluted reasoning. You have said "it is immoral". Since we are talking about marriage, I surely don't think you mean MARRIAGE is immoral. So you must mean what I do in my bedroom is immoral. The Supreme Court already... oh, wait, I forgot... you don't accept any rights that the Supreme Court gave, if they were not in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights. So you must think that women should not have the right to vote, and blacks should not marry whites.

You have proved my point. You will fight against equal rights because you have already made up your mind, regardless of the facts. And this is EXACTLY why the (prejudiced) populace should NOT vote on giving a minority rights. It should be left to the impartial courts, who are not obsessed with what I do in my bedroom, when I am asking for equal rights under the law.

We will have equal rights one day, when the Supreme Court finally gets the balls to listen to the case, rather than letting the states duke it out.

Thank you for proving our case.

The Lizard said...

Andrea,

I could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. What I am concerned about is the reasoning behind same sex marriages. It is definitely not to benefit the existence and survival of mankind.

It is simply to exploit the governmental system.

In your efforts to exploit the governmental system you are turning to a religious ceremony (and yes it is still considered a religious rite) into materialistic (marriage certificate) rite in an effort to game the system.

You should be quite thankful right now that the Supreme court has not ruled. Your rights would probably not be in existance very long if the Supreme Court ruled in your favor. There are 39 States that have already passed legislation prohibiting same sex marriages. That is more than the 3/4 needed to pass an amendment.