Tough questions for each side in Prop. 8 debate

i wish law speak wasn't so hard to read i am having trouble deciphering the meaning of a lot of these questions because of the awkward wording xD

 

we shall be free my brothers and sister...liberty is ours ! ( ques oscar winnign crying )


ok... really...i think itll go our way... its just coming down to we are human we all bleed feel and cry we all love why should the gender matter as long as we are good people

i love these questions too they are very deep i hope to see this somehow. and witness possibly history being made.

 

I am glad that some of the questions bring up the issues of religious movements pushing for prop 8 to be passed. I also liked that they questioned if voters have a right to vote to take rights away from legal citizens.

 

OK, help me out here: Prop. 8 says that 'marriage', as defined by California law, is only between a man and woman, right? Or am I misunderstanding it?

 

at its core, yes.

The issue is that even the republican govener has pointed out that it was unconstitutional, because the federal constitution states equal protection under the law. The issue is if voters have a right to vote to strip equality from a minority on the basis of intolerence of said minority.

 

So they're ripping the constitution apart searching for something that the constitution itself says isn't there?

*Rephrased*

The constitution says that they can't do this. So they're looking for a way to do it?

----------

So the constitution says they can't do this. So they're looking for a way to do it?

The law is soo confusing.

 

equality is protected under the constitution but the ass holes trying to find loop holes..thus the whole man and woman shite etc... the fact the right wing religious nuts are throwing millions of dollars backing this bigotry don't help..

basically prop 8 s trying to prove your an inferior person, a minority that doesn't deserve the same civil liberty's as others.

this process now with the questions is going in depth asking what is so special about man and a woman being together that a same sex couple cant share. what give a straight couple such superiority in society in the eyes of these people.

its all very positive and we don't need to do much for the most part just say we are human and our only difference is who we love, we just need to say that and wait for the tea baggers and religious right wings to pipe up in this and say their usual spiteful closed hateful views and basically bury them self and get rules against... corse if it was em soon as they spoke id hold them in contempt and have them taken down.

 

It's actually quite simple....or it might just be that way in my mind....

The first question: How can marriage between gay or lesbian couples be a fundamental right in a nation that denied all legal protection to their relationships until very recently?

It's basically just asking the lawyers to explain why gay marriage is a fundamental right, when legal rights for gay men and women only recently started being approved. And more so, why should they (USA) give the rights when they've denied them for so long.

The Prop 8 supporter question: In a state that treats domestic partners the same as spouses, "what purpose is served by differentiating - in name only - between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?"

This one is pretty simple. It's basically just asking, since domestic partners are in certain states treated the same way (same rights as marriage), why is it so important that the word marriage, JUST the word, be different to same-sex couples than to opposite-sex. Why does the word marriage have to mean anything different?

The second Anti-Prop 8 question: “What does it mean to have a ‘choice’ in one’s sexual orientation?”

Quite simple, this is in a way giving it to the people to say "there is no choice in sexual orientation"

and the Pro Prop 8 Question: If spouses are obligated to one another for mutual support and … if legal spousal obligations have no basis in the gender of the spouse, what purpose does a law requiring that a marital partnership consist of one man and one woman serve?

It's basically just asking the bigots, since legal spousal obligations have no gender discrimination (or at least they're headed that direction), the things that come up most often with marriage, then why does the law state a marital partnership can only be a man and a woman.

I don't know if that explained it more, but I hope it helped a bit...

 

^ I really like that last question, as I've never thought of it exactly in that way. There is no government law which states that a husband (male) must do certain things and a wife (female) must do other things in a spousal relationship. So if that's the case, why do we restrict spousal relationships to opposite sex partners?

 

Ok, so this whole thing is basically just the same things African Americans had to go throuigh a few decades ago. We have to prove that we are human before we get rights. It all makes perfect sense now.

 

well, it is similer to the civil rights movement for racial equality in which it is legal challanges to discrimination being enshrined within the law.

The difference being that the civil rights movement of racial equality was on a much broader scope, as it focused on everything from the segregation of schools and buisnesses, the right to vote, and the right to the freedom to marry.

We are focused mainly on the right to marry, and employment non-discrimination (DADT being a form of employment discrimination).

the civil rights movement for racial equality paved the way for us to stand up, but in some aspects, we dont have a high to climb, where as in others, we have to fight alot harder for our rights.

similer, but not wholy the same.