No, it's not excessive. People should be outraged by the fact that little over 6 million people decided whether or not their or their friend's marriages were valid and worth respecting. Though I wish such a furor would have been created prior to California's election.

You're right, it's not the end of the world. But for 18,000 couples who married in California, it is a frightening and disheartening reality.

denim, gotta bring up prop 8 again, huh?

This is the second time Democracy has allowed for a vote by the people of california to speak their minds on this issue. And they did. Whats frightening and disheartening is how for these citizens is that evidentially Democracy is only good if it works for your agenda; otherwise you should resort to mob rule. Chuck Norris just wrote a great piece on this in WND. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81195

Democracy is good when it protects a minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Did democracy fail when the courts overturned bans on interracial marriage? Were those "activist judges" who were "legislating from the bench" and should have been removed? Should we have left that up to a vote?

"Democracy is good when it protects a minority from the tyranny of the majority."

since this is originally an article about elections, I guess I can take your philosophy and claim that the election was unfair to republicans.

and no, democracy is not tyrrany just because your viewpoint lost.

Konighund, you're not a minority because you're a Republican. 44% of this country identifies itself as Republican and 44% of this country identifies itself as Democrat. It is up to the candidates to reach to the 12% of people who are independents.

The problem here is that a majority is deciding what is right for an actual minority. It was done with interracial couples marrying and it was even done with African Americans wanting to get married.

The problem is you are having a majority tell Americans that they are less than equal. Remember that separate-but-equal is not actually equal...

If your argument is correct "The problem here is that a majority is deciding what is right for an actual minority" then we have a much bigger problem then a simple prop 8 vote. For, if you are correct, then our Republic fatally flawed (all reasoning behind the value of voting would be wrong) and everything is at stake.
Our Republic was founded on the people speaking by vote to decide what laws are passed. To do so takes a majority vote. Unless you are claiming the very foundation of our democratic system is wrong, logically one cannot argue effectively that how the vote that passed was illegal. There are now 40 states that have banned gay marriage in this very fashion.

Example, using your philosophy, if a majority chooses to pay higher school taxes, the minority is forced to go along, even if they can't afford it. By your definition that is unfair.
By your reasoning, all voting on any subject is airfingers-quote "unfair" and thus all issues decided by voting are null and void, because someone somewhere is 'less than equal' or on the losing side.


What you have to answer is how is such a vote as prop 8 unconstitutional? What prop. 8 did was overturn a activist judgees decision to overturn the 2000 prop 22, which 61% of the California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Let me guess, you thought prop 22 was unfair, but didn't mind when the judges threw out the will of the people. Now that the people have once again spoken up, and restated their case, you are upset again. is it that prop 8 repeats the prop 22?
"Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Furthermore, Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this.

What it does do is make clear that while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else. The minority should not be able to force the majority to accept their choices. That's like saying a pedophile should be able to determine the age of consent.

Please inform me how gay marriage effects your life or marriage for you? As a straight male, I see it not affecting my life at all.

Is it really that much of an issue to you that two people who are consenting adults wish to have certain rights that can only be obtained through marriage?

The issue here is not whether the minority should go along with higher taxes if the majority wants it. We are talking about human beings being treated as if they are not actual citizens. They are being treated as less than and it is despicable.

I'm sick of this bitching about how marriage is a right that only gay people are denied. It's not. Gays have the SAME marriage rights as every other person in this country. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. NO ONE in this country, or any other country, has ever had a right to marry whoever they wanted. Some people might want to marry their sisters, but that's illegal. A lot of Mormons want to marry multiple wives, but that's illegal too. Are they being discriminated against? No. Again, they have the same rights as everyone else...to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not anyone's right to marry whoever they want.

Technically, what gays are asking for is special rights. They think they're special and should be allowed to marry whoever THEY want, even though Mormons with multiple wives or first cousins who want to get married don't have that choice.

"They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. "

You mean like how a white man can marry any white woman he wants and a black man can marry any black woman he wants?

Saying that a gay man is free to marry a woman is like saying you're free to eat all the pine cones you want. Thanks for the generosity.

And if we could please try and stay within the bounds of good taste and not compare homosexuals, who desire to marry consenting adult partners, to pedophiles? Sheesh.

chicagobobcat: I see you cannot actually answer the questions raised using your own logic, nor can you actually defend your reasoning.
Your second paragraph shows you are ignorant of what either prop 8 or prop 22 actually said. Basically you are protesting something you know nothing about. Did you start protesting it because someone told you it was anti-gay and evil? Way to jump on the bandwagon.

SO, here is what the bills actually say and what their power really is. You are claiming it takes away rights, when all it does is solidify a law that has been on the books since 1977.
Proposition 22 was a 14 word addition to the original bill which would merely close a loophole. In California law it was already on the books that marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman. So what you are protesting is a law that is already in existence.
When Prop 22 came before voters, California Civil Code section 300 defined marriage as:
“a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. “
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:
“A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. “
Advocates of Prop 22 described section 308 as a "loophole," apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state. After passage, Prop 22 added a new section, codified at section 308.5, that reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. “ which, btw, is the exact same wording of the original, prop 22. What both 22 and 8 do is make sure another state cannot force California to accept outside decisions. Contrary to popular fear-mongering, no rights are taken away by the bill. Why should Massachusetts dictate California law?
What it does not do:
Some will try to tell you that Proposition 8 takes away legal rights of gay domestic partnerships. That is false. Proposition 8 DOES NOT take away any of those rights and does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose.
However, while gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

What it does do:
It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved..
It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.


But by all means, what benefits does it actually remove from same-sex couples? Point out in the bill, if you can, what is stated that they should lose? Or are you claiming that the will of the people should not be followed?

Denim:

Take that last paragraph you are quoting in context and explain how the example given is worng. Or is your only response a 1 liner?
so you don't like the last sentence. OK, then just take the general question as listed: should the minority be allowed to dictate for the majority? If you answer yes, then you are following the pattern of a monarchy, where the few elite run the show for the masses. And btw, such a viewpoint directly contradicts democracy.
The other option is for you to answer no, but that forces you to agree with my viewpoint. For what we have are minority groups trying to overthrow the will of the majority.


Whats next, illegals should be allowed to change the immigration policy of the U.S. because they don't think it's fair?

You are using straw man attacks here knighund. Oh, and way to try to belittle me to prove your point. I am very well informed of the background of prop 8 and prop 22. The rights lost? Well the big one that I can think of is visitation rights if one of the members is hospitalized. Only immediate family is allowed to see them, with no legal rights the couples cannot even see their dying loved ones. Also, insurance doesn't carry over to the other partner because there is no "your live-in-gay-boyfriend" column to check when filling out your insurance.

Tell me how these legal rights are NOT being taken away by nullifying any and all marriages done during the time that gay marriages were legal.

Oh, and do us all a favor... stop using these smokescreen tactics of yours to distract from the bigger issues. Were not talking about illegal aliens nor are we talking about the plight of the minority Republicans. We are talking about real minority Americans who are having their legal rights taken away.

chicago:

Show us, please, in the wording of either proposition 22 or proposition 8, where the loss of these rights are listed?

Clearly, your real argument should be with the law that has been on the books since 1977. Your real fight should be with California Civil Code section 300, which already claims marriage in California as only between a man and a woman.

As for strawman theories line, nice red herring. You have yet to post any data to back up your claims; at least I have the factual evidence and refrence material in my posts.





after going through the bill and clauses, you are claiming that "right's are being taken away" when they were never granted in the first place. Sure, the courts overturned the will of the people and tried to legislate from the bench, and the people have spoken their minds once again, wanting said activist judges ruling overturned.

“Just like Obama and other Democrats getting elected, the people of California using the democratic process to determine what kinds of legal contracts can be made in their state is not the end of the world. If the majority of Californian voters decide that they voted in error, the democratic process can be used to overturn the amendment in 2010, just like if the majority of Americans decide that they voted in error for Obama and other Democrats, they can vote for non-Democrats in 2012. Democracy works, even if you voted with the minority.”

This still assumes that the democratic process is some sort of unerring standard of measurement. In any case we should note that since the will of the people change each election cycle, no sort of absolute value can be attributed to any belief or set of beliefs held by the people. All the democratic process amounts to is the tyranny of a majority that perpetually changes its mind.
Democracy “works” only because it feels better than its alternatives. It gives the individual the feeling that he is not powerless in determining who should govern himself and his peers. Yet there can be no greater contradiction than investing power in an individual or group of individuals to greater limit one’s own freedom.
But aside from this feeling of empowerment, the difference between the Democratic party and Republican party is non-existent, because their goal is essentially to enact policy that promotes corporate and special interests. While we still cling to the notion that it is the individual (common person) who determines who should represent him, corporate and special interests still have a more direct role in determining who wins elections and how law is crafted.