• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
article here

Currently, the YES votes have the lead, though it is still close. Not as clear cut as the opponents of the measure proclaimed here in DP just a few months ago. My gut tells me that this WILL pass.
 
Although I support it not passing, my gut tells me it will. And this makes me 'le panda of sadness', as the French say (yes, I can speak two languages. And speaking two languages means I am bisexual. Wait...that's what bisexual means, right?)
 
Although I support it not passing, my gut tells me it will. And this makes me 'le panda of sadness', as the French say ...

Same here.

(yes, I can speak two languages. And speaking two languages means I am bisexual. Wait...that's what bisexual means, right?)

En Le Francais, oui. :mrgreen:
 
Although I support it not passing, my gut tells me it will. And this makes me 'le panda of sadness', as the French say (yes, I can speak two languages. And speaking two languages means I am bisexual. Wait...that's what bisexual means, right?)

THen what does it mean when you speak five? :mrgreen:
 
According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.

So.... if 8 passes, it will be because of those that wanted to get out the minority vote.
 
Proposition 8
Same Sex Marriage Ban
24270 of 25429 (95%) Precincts Reporting
Position Votes Percentage
Yes 5,163,908 52%
No 4,760,336 48%

cbs13.com - Election Results
 
According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.

So.... if 8 passes, it will be because of those that wanted to get out the minority vote.

It will be because those that wanted to get out of the minority vote? What does that mean?

Historically Whites have always been the most supportive of the homosexual lifestyle with Blacks being the most unaccepting. The poll numbers are not surprise.

This is one issue that is not ethnic minority vs majority. It's those that believe we should live under a theocracy and those that don't.
 
It will be because those that wanted to get out of the minority vote? What does that mean?
Seems self-explanatory to me.

If it fails, it will be because of the numbers of minority voters.

Thus, those that pushed for minorities to come out and vote are at least partially responsible for its failure -- unintentionally, I'm sure, but responsible none-the-less; had they NOT pushed for these people to vote, its far more likely that the proposition would have failed.

This is one issue that is not ethnic minority vs majority. It's those that believe we should live under a theocracy and those that don't.
So, you think that minorities - especially blacks -think we should live under a theocracy. Interesting.
 
So, you think that minorities - especially blacks -think we should live under a theocracy. Interesting.

There are many Christians that wouldn't mind living in a theocracy, as long as it was Christianity calling the shots.
 
This election produced conflicting results.

The Presidential Election showed how far we have come as a country.

The passage of prop 8 showed that California, although we have come a long way, still has a ways to grow.

What is strange to me is that the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Consistent with this, the Federal Constitution requires 2/3 ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. However, California only requires a simple majority, which is inconsistent with this ideal.

Ironically, on the Los Angeles Ballot there was a tax measure to fund additional subway construction. Its passage required a 2/3 majority.:doh
 
What is strange to me is that the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Consistent with this, the Federal Constitution requires 2/3 ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. However, California only requires a simple majority, which is inconsistent with this ideal.
That's the wonderful thing about States' Rights -- States can do what they want in terms how they can change their Constitutions.
 
That's the wonderful thing about States' Rights -- States can do what they want in terms how they can change their Constitutions.

It seems strange to me, however, that a simple majority can pass a Constitutional Amendment. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a Constitution, doesn't it?
 
well on the state level that's all that is needed. Yeah, I think in general it should take more. It's too bad bigotry and ignorance seems to be winning out in CA; but it's not too surprising.
 
So, you think that minorities - especially blacks -think we should live under a theocracy. Interesting.
It's apparent they are an outspoken group that wishes their religious views to dictate our state laws, so yeah I do. They aren't alone though. many Christians believe this as well.
 
It seems strange to me, however, that a simple majority can pass a Constitutional Amendment.
I suggest you then propose an amendment that changes it.
Ohio is the same way, BTW, as are several other states.

It kind of defeats the purpose of having a Constitution, doesn't it?
No.
 
It's apparent they are an outspoken group that wishes their religious views to dictate our state laws, so yeah I do.
Wow.
Can you -show- that the 70-30 black opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religion, or do you simply assume that if you're against same-sex marriage, it is because of religion?

If it is 'apparent', then I suggest you -can- show that the 70-30 black opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religion.
 
well on the state level that's all that is needed. Yeah, I think in general it should take more. It's too bad bigotry and ignorance seems to be winning out in CA; but it's not too surprising.

I actually enjoy the fact that one of the most liberal states in the country is passing this amendment. Not because I want gays to be discriminated against, but so I can shove it in the faces of those who talk about how progressive and totally awesomes California is.
 
It seems strange to me, however, that a simple majority can pass a Constitutional Amendment. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a Constitution, doesn't it?

I think most state constitutions are this way, but I may be wrong.
 
No on Prop 8 was a hoped for victory was an expected defeat. It will be a Prop yet again and will eventually pass.

The amount of supporters of No have increased greatly over the years and will be the majority as new generations become able to vote.
 
I suggest you then propose an amendment that changes it.
Ohio is the same way, BTW, as are several other states.


No.


How does it not defeat the purpose of a Constitution is everything in the Constitution is subject to a "popular vote"?

It sets up a system where everything is simply subject to a referendum, in which case the Constitution is meaningless.
 
The referendum system is left over from when the legislature was so corrupt that you needed the process to prevent the bastards in office from screwing the people. Frankly, I think the process should be changed to require a 2/3 majority to change the constitution. It has nothing to do with prop 8, and more the fact that most of its contents are billions of dollars in bond measures. Tax increases do require a 2/3, so instead we pay for everything by mortgaging the future. Although it looks like 8 will pas, it has a decent chance of getting overturned in 2 years if Obama speaks out against it. Still its a bit ironic that the minority democrat voters are the ones who managed to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage passed.
 
No on Prop 8 was a hoped for victory was an expected defeat. It will be a Prop yet again and will eventually pass.

The amount of supporters of No have increased greatly over the years and will be the majority as new generations become able to vote.

And that is exactly why it is strange that a Constitutional Amendment requires only a simple majority.

I expect this to be on the ballot every year or so back and forth for the next decade.

Which really diminishes the integrity of "Constitutional rights".
 
Still its a bit ironic that the minority democrat voters are the ones who managed to get a constitutional ban on gay marriage passed.

As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. It is interesting though that it was most likely Democrats in California that voted discrimination into our Constitution.
 
How does it not defeat the purpose of a Constitution is everything in the Constitution is subject to a "popular vote"?
The -purpose- of a Constitution is to define the powers/limits of a Government and provide protections for the rights of the people that live under it.

The method(s) specified to change the terms of a Constution do not defeat that purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom