Topic: California's Proposition 8

[Bone Crusher]

Have you guys been paying attention to the biggest issue behind the presidental election?  On election day, California voters will vote YES to ban gay marriage or vote no to keep the status quo with gay marriage.  For people outside of California, people are saying what's the big deal?  The big deal is that many things in California tend to end up going nationwide.  For instance the Clean Air Quality Standards that California has were eventually adopted by the eastern Atlantic states especially in the northeast including Maryland and Virigina.  My father's 2001 Ford Explorer SporTrac bought in VA had very low emission scores compared to the same vehicles bought in Colorado.  That is one example of how the state of California has a significant influence on the rest of the country.

Now suppose people in California vote YES to ban gay marriage, it could lead to more bans on gay marriage but Proposition 8 does not include the right to same sex civil unions.  Now if people were to vote NO, this could open the door to more states allowing gay marriage due to legal predcents taking place.  This is a pretty big issue.

I am opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions.  God didn't design men to stick their dicks in other men's rears...that is what women's vaginas are designed for.

[GIBuff]

Moot...

Obama will make it Federal Law with either legislation and/or a packed court to force all states to recognize gay marraiges. Kinda like Roe v Wade like.

[Cowboys]

Moot...

Obama will make it Federal Law with either legislation and/or a packed court to force all states to recognize gay marraiges. Kinda like Roe v Wade like.

Hooray for judicial fiat.  A gang of liberal douchebags creating law when they are expected to merely smoke pot and interpret law when they feel like it. 

[JJ Wheeler]

Moot...

Obama will make it Federal Law with either legislation and/or a packed court to force all states to recognize gay marraiges. Kinda like Roe v Wade like.

He will?

[Phog]

I am so fricken tired of hearing about Prop 8 out here.  They got kids standing on corners with signs that say yes for 8.   I am tired of this.  I can't wait for these elections to be over. 

[Bone Crusher]

He will?

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

You sure about that too?  Are you sure that it wouldn't take 3/4 of the 50 state legislatures to ratify that into the US Consitution?  How many states would that take?  Wouldn't that require the approval of 38 states right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

GIBuff, please count how many red states are in that map.  Then tell us if that won't be enough to prevent Obama's gay marriage law from being made as part of the US Consitution.  You don't know?  There are 18 states that have banned gay marriage AND civil unions for gays as well.  That would mean the other 32 states wouldn't be enough.  Eight states have banned gay marriage but not civil unions (just like Colorado).  That pushes the number down to just 24 states.  Now, will that be enough?

I am so fricken tired of hearing about Prop 8 out here.  They got kids standing on corners with signs that say yes for 8.   I am tired of this.  I can't wait for these elections to be over. 

I understand your pain...however, I think this is an issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.

GIBuff, I have to call you out for not having the correct facts in place over the last few weeks.  How many times am I going to have to shoot down your claims?  Yes gay marriage could be passed into law, but thanks to W, there are more conservative judges on the supreme court bench....right?  Does that mean they can strike down that law that Obama signed into law?  The Justices can practice conservative or liberal activism if they choose to do so.

[Bone Crusher]

What I have found out is that Obama does want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was signed into law by Bill Clinton if I'm not mistaken because I think that is the one where federal law defines marriage as an union between a man and a woman.

What’s to stand in its way? Obama opposes a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He opposes the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. And he supports activist judges of the sort who find the California court’s reasoning congenial.

Now when you do your taxes, do you look at the tax rates for single people and married people?  Do you know it actually costs more to be single than to be married when it comes to taxes?  This is a way to encourage marriage between a man and a woman.  Gay couples still have to file their taxes as two single people and it costs them more to be married than a normal hetrosexual marriage.

JJ did ask GIBuff "He Will?"

I was actually being saracstic in my response to JJ's question but I also was pointing out the process of passing such things.

Now I'm going answer the question the way it should be answered.  JJ is right to indicate that Obama might just not pass a law allowing gay marriage because if DOMA is repealed, that very well could allow gays to file their federal tax returns as a married couple and pay the same tax rates that hetrosexual married couples pay instead of paying as two single people because of DOMA.  Obama doesn't have to propose an amendment that allows gay marriage as long as DOMA is repealed.  It's a shady way to allow gay marriage in our country and that very well would have a huge ripple effect on our country and society.  Obama very well might not have to sign a bill allowing gay marriage into law because DOMA is gone.

Isn't that sad especially when much more work has to be done on the legislative level to pass a law to ban gay marriage?  Just think about it.

[mpalmer4]

It will be a very long time before there is a federal constitutional amendment that makes gay marriage legal.  In fact, it will probably never happen.  The only place that would occur is at the state level.  The Supreme Court justices will likely remain the same throughout the next President's 4 or 8 years, maybe with 1 or 2 at the most changing, so that avenue is out. 

Bone, there are a lot of insurance implications behind defining "marriage" as well.  Many gay couples fear that the other will die and will be left with nothing because insurance companies don't have to recognize a gay marriage.

[Bone Crusher]

It will be a very long time before there is a federal constitutional amendment that makes gay marriage legal.  In fact, it will probably never happen.  The only place that would occur is at the state level.  The Supreme Court justices will likely remain the same throughout the next President's 4 or 8 years, maybe with 1 or 2 at the most changing, so that avenue is out. 

Bone, there are a lot of insurance implications behind defining "marriage" as well.  Many gay couples fear that the other will die and will be left with nothing because insurance companies don't have to recognize a gay marriage.

mpalmer4, what I suggested was that an amendment legalziing gay marriage doesn't have to happen as much as an amendment banning gay marriage has to happen.  All Obama would have to do is get DOMA repealed and all hell breaks loose.

Perhaps that might not happen since insurance companies are in the ears of any politican and the idea of having to pay out life insurance to dead gay partners who died of AIDS might end up preventing gay marriage from really happening.  Those insurance companies won't want to let go of their mountains of cash.

But anything can happen.

[Scarecrow]

So in a sense, Obama wants to give a tax cut to the gays who want to file their taxes as married jointly.

It won't take long before others pick up on this whether they are gay or not to claim to have a "partner" just for the sake of saving on taxes.  It will cause a domino effect.

When was California supposed to fall into the ocean?  I wish it would hurry and happen so they stop trying to mess up the rest of this country.  As if sending Pelosi to DC wasn't enough for them.

[Bone Crusher]

It won't take long before others pick up on this whether they are gay or not to claim to have a "partner" just for the sake of saving on taxes.  It will cause a domino effect.

Yes, whatever happens in California does have a domino effect on the rest of the country and voting NO in this situation would just open a can of worms on the country.

When was California supposed to fall into the ocean?  I wish it would hurry and happen so they stop trying to mess up the rest of this country.  As if sending Pelosi to DC wasn't enough for them.

The sooner the better. 

[GIBuff]

GIBuff, I have to call you out for not having the correct facts in place over the last few weeks.  How many times am I going to have to shoot down your claims?  Yes gay marriage could be passed into law, but thanks to W, there are more conservative judges on the supreme court bench....right?  Does that mean they can strike down that law that Obama signed into law?  The Justices can practice conservative or liberal activism if they choose to do so.

How many states voted in Roe v Wade? Did states get to decide if they wanted to kill babies?
Why do you think it would be harder for Barry Soerento to get federal protection for the destruction of a cultural institution?

Bone you haven't called me out for anything. And you know as well as anybody I have my facts straight. But I encourage you to keep looking for any inconsistentcies you think I might have inadvertantly included. You would be better served looking into Barry's facts. Much more to correct there.

[HuskerManiac]

I'm for gay marriage or civil unions. Which ever one is fine with me.

I think this whole issue is dumb actually....never really understood why people are so against it. If two people love each other, who am I to say they can't? I certainly don't see how their happiness will have a negative effect on my life.

but that's jmo. 

[mpalmer4]

It is peoples opinion, often people with a religious background are against it. Its one of those things that I don't like to argue with people about, just like abortion.

[GIBuff]

You are right. It is one of those issues not everybody agrees.

So why would you support the democrats that imposes their will upon the states from up high on D.C.?

Do the states get to decide for themselves if abortion is morally wrong? or what steps they can take to discourage abortion?
No, the federal government imposes their will upon everybody even if you don't morally agree with abortion. And to make matters worse make you pay taxes to support abortions.

Barry supports letting babies die even if they are born alive in a failed abortion. He is the only Senator to have such a record.

The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced in 2001 to provide legal protection to all born babies, wanted or not, including the right to medical care.

Then-state Senator Barack Obama voted against Born Alive 4 times in 3 years and was the sole senator to speak against it on the Senate floor in 2001 and 2002.

In 2002, the Federal version of Born Alive passed unanimously in the US Senate and by overwhelming voice vote in the House. The pro-abortion group NARAL even went neutral on the bill.

But In 2003, Barack Obama voted against the identical version of Born Alive in Illinois. Then, for the next 4 years he repeatedly misrepresented his vote until it was recently discovered in the IL General Assembly archives.

He still lies about it today. http://www.bornalivetruth.org/fact-check.aspx

He will impose his and the democrats will basically by fiat by legislating from the courts. Just like Roe v. Wade. No debate and vote by congress. No debate and vote by the people.

Suppose slavery was codified the same way. Would you feel the same way?

[mpalmer4]

Everyone knows by now that has paid attention that he voted against that legislation because:

A) There was already a law on the books basically protecting exactly what the new bill was proposing.
B) Doctors take this thing called the Hippocratic Oath. What does it say?  To do all things within their power to save a life, which would include a living aborted baby.

Simple enough.

[GIBuff]

Everyone knows by now that has paid attention that he voted against that legislation because:

A) There was already a law on the books basically protecting exactly what the new bill was proposing.
B) Doctors take this thing called the Hippocratic Oath. What does it say?  To do all things within their power to save a life, which would include a living aborted baby.

Simple enough.

1. Obama: On the Fact Check section of Obama's website, the campaign asserted the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was unnecessary because the same provisions were provided in the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.

Reality: The 1975 law specifies medical care should be given to infants who, before being aborted, are considered viable - by the very doctor aborting them.

2. Obama: “There was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged.”

Reality: After seeing a colleague place an infant who survived an abortion in the hospital’s soiled utility room, our spokesperson and former Christ Hospital nurse Jill Stanek testified before Congress and several state legislatures of holding a live aborted infant for 45 minutes until he gasped for his last breath. Another Christ Hospital nurse, Allison Baker, testified before Congress after observing similar practices


Evidently you weren't paying attention, but most Obama supporters don't.

[mpalmer4]

1. Obama: On the Fact Check section of Obama's website, the campaign asserted the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was unnecessary because the same provisions were provided in the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.

Reality: The 1975 law specifies medical care should be given to infants who, before being aborted, are considered viable - by the very doctor aborting them.

2. Obama: “There was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged.”

Reality: After seeing a colleague place an infant who survived an abortion in the hospital’s soiled utility room, our spokesperson and former Christ Hospital nurse Jill Stanek testified before Congress and several state legislatures of holding a live aborted infant for 45 minutes until he gasped for his last breath. Another Christ Hospital nurse, Allison Baker, testified before Congress after observing similar practices


Evidently you weren't paying attention, but most Obama supporters don't.

Part B of my post should cover that. 

And by posting 2 examples from the SAME hospital, you've accomplished very little.  Can you share more from, you know, a wider range of places? 

[GIBuff]

Here's the Born Alive Act:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html

Abortion doctors are paid to end a life, if they fail what incentive do they have to keep the born alive baby? And in practice, it was left to the nurses to "shelve" the babies until they expired.
Jill Stanek and her testimony to congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9duXeLahkV4

I use the examples from specifically from Illinois because that is where Obama voted 4 times against the Born Alive Act.

Obama argued against calling for a 2nd physician if the 1st physician - the abortionist - had decided the baby he has just aborted alive is non-viable....
Most would recognize the potential for subjective opinion in this case. The abortionist has been paid to kill the baby, and a live birth would indicate he botched.

In addition, these babies are often being aborted because the abortionist has stated they are handicapped. A living baby could be evidence the abortionist made a wrong diagnosis.

Barack Obama, a self-professed champion of the little guy and opponent of bullies, in this case argued in favor of trusting the abortionist. The reasons for Obama's trust in the abortion industry are obvious. It gives him $$ and gets him votes. For instance, the abortion lobby, in 2008, promised to spend $30 MILLION for their candidates.

In this audio, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI Obama utters these infamous words, among many:

"... if that fetus or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb...."
and

"... but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead...."



But that is your guy there mpalmer, he so liberal that he is the only one that spoke against this act in the Illinois Senate:

[Bone Crusher]

Only 9% of precients are reporting but at the moment, people in CA are saying NO to gay marriage.

[Bone Crusher]

Looks like Arizona will say no to gay marriage.

[Bone Crusher]

Florida looks like they will say no to gay marriage.

Votes are now being counted in SF and it looks like CA might pull the biggest shocker of the election by banning gay marriage.

[MIZtigersZOU]

I have a lot of friends in California that are affected by Prop 8.  I am a firm supporter of it...but it seems as though many of you are not...so I will just leave it at that.

[Bone Crusher]

I have a lot of friends in California that are affected by Prop 8.  I am a firm supporter of it...but it seems as though many of you are not...so I will just leave it at that.

You say you support Proposition 8?  Did you know we all support that too?

[MIZtigersZOU]

I'm a supporter of gay marriage...or at least civil unions.