• 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!

Will CA do the right thing and overturn Prop 8?

Will the CA courts overturn Prop 8?


  • Total voters
    27
That would make sense of course, otherwise what is the point in the amendment.
There are those here that do not understand that basic concept.
I'm reasonably sure that failure to understand is willful.
 
For the record, I think that Prop 8 sets California back at least a hundred years in recognizing the human rights of all members of society.

HOWEVER, having said that, the voters of California HAVE, in fact, spoken. I do not support activist courts overturning democratic initiatives.
 
I guessed wrong.....
and I still don't get it. Marriage is a social contract, and if 2 gay people agree to such a contract, and document its particulars, how is that any different from what heterosexuals do?If it is just the terminology, or the word marriage, who can stop them from using the word once a "civil union" contract is in force?
Certainly a common law marriage is legal in many states and those unions have no documentation to describe the particulars.
And I don't see how the state should have any say in the matter, or is there a compelling state interest that I am missing? Don't we already have the right to assign our assets to anyone we choose upon death?
 
Marriage is a social contract, and if 2 gay people agree to such a contract, and document its particulars, how is that any different from what heterosexuals do?If it is just the terminology, or the word marriage, who can stop them from using the word once a "civil union" contract is in force?
Certainly a common law marriage is legal in many states and those unions have no documentation to describe the particulars.
And I don't see how the state should have any say in the matter, or is there a compelling state interest that I am missing? Don't we already have the right to assign our assets to anyone we choose upon death?

I think one of the arguments is that gay couples have to go to additional steps to document each other as next of kin, etc., than do hetero couples. However, even hetero married couples are smart to use a professional attorney to draft their will, etc, instead of relying on the state to distribute their assets. Really, no one should die intestate. And, it isn't much more expensive to designate next of kin when you're already doing a will. If you plan to have joint assets and/or children, it's basically an essential that you can't afford to live without.

So, while I agree that gay marriage should be legal, I think that attempts to force this before the nation is ready to accept it actually do more harm than good. I look at the views of myself and my children, and can see that this is a trend that will ultimately and inevitably resolve itself in favor of equal rights for gay couples.
 
Back
Top Bottom