Proposition 8 poses ethical, legal, religious, and scientific questions

[NLN]

In the recent election, California State ballot Proposition 8--eliminating same-sex marriage--posed complex ethical, legal, religious, and scientific questions.

 

Proposition 8 is the California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution, to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman--overturning a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right.

 

The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." On the day after the election, the results remained uncertified. With 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes; as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted. The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign conceded defeat on November 6, issuing a statement saying, "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."

 

The passage of Proposition 8 means that the legality of same sex marriage in California has been determined by popular vote--rather than by the state Judiciary. This sets an unsettling legal precedent. Setting aside the question of why one group of people should care about the private lives of others--should all matters concerning individual rights be left to popular vote?

 

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it is unethical to deny one minority group a fundamental right held by the majority (marrying a partner of one's choice). Proponents counter that no such discrimination is occurring--that Proposition 8 eliminates the right of all individuals to marry others of the same sex, and does so equally. In their view, the fact that certain individuals wish to marry partners of the same sex--while others do not--is of little consequence.

 

While many proponents of Proposition 8 site the Bible as justification for their belief that same-sex marriage is morally 'wrong,' many opponents believe that antiquated Biblical passages have no relevance in today's world, and that all humans deserve equal rights under the law.

 

How are we to sort this out?

 

Some forms of religious upbringing and cultural norms have been shown to limit rates of homosexuality (for instance, by teaching that homosexuality is 'sinful'). But are they truly limiting homosexuality, or simply suppressing genetically pre-determined characteristics? If sexual orientation is learned behavior or merely a matter of choice, society arguably has a right to intervene; only voluntary actions and choices can be considered right or wrong.

 

But if sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined, then it is difficult to make the case for limiting the marriage rights of one subset of humans over any another. There is great diversity among the human beings, and preserving and protecting that diversity--the right of individuals to remain unique--is essential for any progressive society.

 

Homosexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species--particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.

 

The genetic basis of animal homosexuality has been studied in the fly Drosophila melanogaster. Here, multiple genes have been identified that can cause homosexual courtship and mating. These genes are thought to control behavior through pheromones as well as altering the structure of the animal's brains. These studies have also investigated the influence of environment on the likelihood of flies displaying homosexual behavior.

 

Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males. Studies indicating prenatal homosexuality in certain animal species have had social and political implications surrounding the gay rights debate.

 

Is sexual orientation a matter of choice? Mounting evidence seems to point against it. What becomes clear is that petitions, ballot measures, and preaching from the pulpit will not resolve this complex issue. Only science can determine the outcome, and until the science is in, we would be wise to move slowly and gently; with tolerance and compassion.

 

Machines Like Us

[REASON]

Is sexual orientation a matter of choice? Mounting evidence seems to point against it. What becomes clear is that petitions, ballot measures, and preaching from the pulpit will not resolve this complex issue. Only science can determine the outcome, and until the science is in, we would be wise to move slowly and gently; with tolerance and compassion.

 

I think this has to become the approach. Until the question of natural biological homosexuality can be upheld in court on the basis of scientific evidence, gays and lesbians will continue to run into societal road blocks. And even then, there will always be those who will deny the science out of principle.

 

What is important is to set legal precedence that one's civil rights cannot be denied based upon sexual preference since it has been scientifically verified to be a natural predisposition in humans, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could then be amended to include sexual orientation.

 

That would open the door to eliminating legal restrictions on marriage and/or civil unions by same sex couples, and making them legally recognized by the state.

[Moontanman]

I've been to two same sex marriages in the last two months and anyone who could see the love between the couples and then say they have no right to marry, share property rights, and have all the rights of any other married couple have their head up their ***. When you have a majority vote on issues of morality between consenting adults you have tyranny by the majority. We have many cases of rights being given to minorities that could not be gained by majority vote. The idea that a majority has the right to deny rights to a minority is not what this country is about.

[Buffy]

While there's some consternation and disappointment about the result of Prop 8 here, the proponents have kind of painted themselves into a corner which is pointing to the real solution....

 

The basic thrust of the argument as *presented* really came down to "marriage is a sacred institution, and it is offensive to our religious beliefs to allow it to be hijacked to support what we believe is immoral with the blessing of the state."

 

The realization has been that they've pinned everything on the word "marriage."

 

So as one letter writer to the SF Chronicle said today:

It's time for "marriage" to take its place alongside "baptism" and "bar mitzvah" as a strictly religious ceremony.

 

Thus the next big sound you hear will be a flood of laws in California that substitute the words "legal union" for each and every occurrence of the word "marriage."

 

You want to get blessed by your God in matrimony, go see your priest, or rabbi, or monk, or imam.

 

But if you want property rights, visitation rights, parental rights, etc. you're gonna have to go down to the court house and do what you've always done, but that license won't say "marriage license" any more, and anyone can get one no matter what their "orientation" is.

 

Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful, :)

Buffy

[freeztar]

I have some gay friends that will be massively disappointed. Heck, I am and I'm not gay.

 

It's about human rights imho. Prop 8 wasn't just about Cali, it was felt throughout the country. When the voters struck down prop 8, it sent a shudder through the nation. It's an almost intangible shudder, but the pulse does not bely the beat.

[REASON]

Heck, I am and I'm not gay.

 

:huh: This may require some clarification. :phones:

 

 

It's about human rights imho. Prop 8 wasn't just about Cali, it was felt throughout the country. When the voters struck down prop 8, it sent a shudder through the nation. It's an almost intangible shudder, but the pulse does not bely the beat.

 

I think you may be a bit confused. Proposition 8 was upheld, not struck down. But I'm sure you meant that the recent court ruling allowing gay marriage was struck down by Prop. 8.

[C1ay]

I'm now feeling even more inclined to become ordained as an atheist so that I can officiate humanist weddings and gay commitment ceremonies.

[Zythryn]

I think the short term solution, and something that should have been done long ago for all sorts of reasons, is to divest government from licensing the religious ceremony of marriage (as Buffy commented on).

Marriage should not involve any government provided rights such as property sharing, treatment under tax laws, survivorship, etc.

The government should license 'Civil Unions' which do provide the above rights under the law.

Churches can marry who they want and can refuse anyone for any reason. Civil Unions would be protected under discrimination laws and could not be denied based on race or sexual orientation.

 

As an aside, I heard that the Mormons were a big contributor to the 'Yes to Prop 8' funds. I find it very humorous that a group that 'in the past' was kicked around by the government for promoting marriages between one man and many women, would now be supporting denying marriages that don't fit the 'one man and one woman' mold;)

[JulianKeller]

Ethically < I see it as homosexual is nothing more than an evolutionary quirk that is possibly meant to do various things. It is more or less sexual stimulation with the same sex and has no value other than getting people off. [this view is not meant to offend anyone. In fact none of my views are.]

 

 

 

Legally < The United States of America has a process that deals with this. First a group arises that is controversal to the rest of society. Then the group somehow affects us all and someone stands up for the group and they are sympathized. The sympathized group gets some sort of inch of power which it stretches, and then eventually gets accepted. :shrug: It's observable throughout the USA history.

 

 

 

 

religious

 

Religions are usally against sex laws, and The United States of America is big on everybody getting to worship as they choose [as long as it isn't hurting anybody]... or that's the idea we used to have here :)

 

The "Religions In Power" so called, are the ones that the people who are in power have, and thusly their religious views will undoubtedly affect their opinions in most any manner. It's just how people are.

 

 

 

Scientifically speaking these are my guesses :P

 

Homosexuals would be an evolutionary dead end, but I do hypothesize some something inside the brain may cause homosexuality. It's been seen in various animals, ducks, dolphins, dogs, most notably humans :P .

 

Theories for the Homosexuality Trait

- It has something to do with the sense of community and uniting those of the same type. From a psychological perspective, lots of homosexuals who embrace their homosexuality are very sociable people and enjoy being around others. I don't remember where I read that, man that was a good article :P

 

- It could have been some sort of instinct to mate, although one is genetically inferior and thus less likely to find a mate so they seek out others of their own kind and dominate or become the submissive partner. [There's a story about a mallard chasing another mallard and it hitting a window apparently dieing, but the mallard mounting it although it was still a male mallard].

 

- It could be some sort of instinct to prove one's self dominant over another of the same species and creating the desire for 'dominance' thru sexual stimulation with someone of the same sex. This 'dominance' could be designed to show the female members of the species that they are more dominant than the male they have 'dominated' and thus ensuring their genetic material is passed on.

 

 

- It could be a mental imbalance that somehow is selected to 'weed out' undesireable genes and traits by having them pair up and become an evolutionary dead end. >_>

It also could be a way that the force of evolution is dealing with the overpopulation in the planet.

[pamela]

Juilian,

I am at a loss for words here, but here goes. You have dehumanized homosexuals with your words.These are feeling, loving people.How can you say it's all about sex?

Does love not exist?

"no other value than getting people off" I am appalled, at your blatant disregard. Have you no feelings for your girlfriend or wife? Or is it just about sex. Whether homosexuality is genetically predispositioned or not, that is not the point here.Do you judge all people based upon your idea of what is normal? We are all different and that is a beautiful thing, life would be boring if we were not.

I cannot add anything more here, in fear that I would become that which I abhor, an unloving and unkind person.

I wish that your mind and heart be opened.

[JulianKeller]

Juilian,

I am at a loss for words here, but here goes. You have dehumanized homosexuals with your words.These are feeling, loving people.How can you say it's all about sex?

Does love not exist?

"no other value than getting people off" I am appalled, at your blatant disregard. Have you no feelings for your girlfriend or wife? Or is it just about sex. Whether homosexuality is genetically predispositioned or not, that is not the point here.Do you judge all people based upon your idea of what is normal? We are all different and that is a beautiful thing, life would be boring if we were not.

I cannot add anything more here, in fear that I would become that which I abhor, an unloving and unkind person.

I wish that your mind and heart be opened.

 

I feel that I've actually done the opposite and humanized homosexuals. We are all animals. We are capable of higher thought process, but still even that is faulty at times [ie Mental Illness, Mentally Disabled] thru either nature or accident.

 

The point is that homosexuals are at base human animals with a variation in sexual reproduction. Dogs and ducks, dolphins all have same sex interactions so that leads to the thought that it could be a process related to biological factors.

 

There are lots of types of love, here's my list that I've studied in the field so far:

 

-Biological Love, aka Lust is a physical attraction to a person based on the biochemical processes, etc etc

 

- Psychological Love, Someone who believes themselves to be in love with a person due to how the person affects them or doesn't affect them.

 

-Social Love, aka Samaritan love [This one may be a result of social conditioning or an actual animal like instinct], someone who loves a person or a people and wishes to help bring them up to their 'level' or educate, or in some way aide the person or people even at the cost of themselves sometimes.

 

 

What gives anyone the right to judge? >_>

 

The brain which allows the ability of complex thought processes to occur. Usually us humans use this at the most basic level to detect what is favorable in some way or not.

 

In the case of a scientifically minded person who is predisposed to weighing the data and addressing what repeats itself thru some sort of process natural or simulated, this usually becomes the 'reality' and can be said to be true.

 

However in the same vain, if somewhere else someone had observed the opposite affect under nearly the same circumstances, then they would be inclined to believe their results and base their views on this 'reality'.

 

I on the other hand realize that it is all interpretation of data with the senses, and it may all be just complete foolishness or it may all be relevant in different ways.

 

Decision making when you realize everything is really an illusion and you are actually just interpretting data second hand and seeing and witnessing everything a few miliseconds after it happens... well you can only live in the illusion and just keep going as if you never realized it.

 

In my case I just go forward with the scientific approach. It doesn't hurt anything to look at humans like higher functioning animals, except a few people with big egos and something to protect. But I'm beyond that, an yet I realize others like yourself Pamela are not. It's okay though maybe my words helped you. But honestly it's not a problem, I'll attempt to edit my freedom of speech and opinion because you deem it insentitive and if you do then others who share the same thought processing system may. After all I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings. So it's all good.

 

back to my earlier stuff..

 

 

>_> Humans are animals. Love is just a biochemical response that we make to procreate and keep our species going. Psychology behind love is well... I gave my list above on the types of love. Biological, Psychological, and Social aka Altruistist :shrug:

 

 

- Julian Keller

 

p.s. I'm not here trying to start any type of problems, just express my scientific view and ask questions based on observation and interpretation of data presented to me via my 'life experience'.

[Tormod]

p.s. I'm not here trying to start any type of problems, just express my scientific view and ask questions based on observation and interpretation of data presented to me via my 'life experience'.

 

While you are free to express your opinions, I don't think you have a claim to a "scientific" view. Personal opinion, more likely? :shrug:

[pamela]

No Julian, your words did not help; they hurt. I have a deep love for humanity, and make it my lifes ambition to extend that love to whomever crosses my path.

Yes Julian, we are all animals. What separates us is our consciousness. We as Homo Sapiens have the ability to act with intelligence and judgment, where as other species, cannot. Let's look at your loves=

 

Biological-

If I gave in every time I find attraction, then my children would outnumber the stars. I use my judgment, to prevent overpopulation.

 

Psychological-

Sure, I am affected by the words from whom I deem to love.Phrases like" Sorry, I cheated Pam" and "I hate you mom", have a profound effect on me.But that doesn't prevent me from loving unconditionally. I use my judgment to forgive and consider the source. I may opt to rid myself of my animal mate, and keep my offspring.

 

Social-

I do not try to raise anyone to my "level". I am not above anyone. I am equal. However, I do feel the need to educate, this being one of those instances. And yes, at the cost of myself, I would throw myself in front of the bus, to protect you, Julian. Not very animal like I am afraid.......

 

I have the right to judge your words, not your heart. I have a big ego? Wow, I have never been told that in my life. Big heart? often. The only thing I am trying to protect here, are people's feelings.You may speak and type whatever you will, opinions, lend us all to think beyond what we know. I would never suppress that. I would however, suggest that you take the time to research sentience and sapience, to add to your understanding of species.

[modest]

Ethically < I see it as homosexual is nothing more than an evolutionary quirk that is possibly meant to do various things. It is more or less sexual stimulation with the same sex and has no value other than getting people off.

I'm going to assume that you understand what "ethically" means and further assume that you intend what you say (i.e. there is no ethical value to homosexuality beyond getting people off).

 

I will not assume that you understand the question. It appears, in point of fact, that you do not. The question is not "what are the ethical, legal,... questions regarding homosexuality?", but rather questions regarding California's proposition 8 which proposed and passed an effort to amend the state constitution in a way that prohibits same-sex marriage. The ethics of the act of homosexuality is different substantially from the ethics of withholding a government service from homosexuals.

 

There are many established methods available for examining prop. 8 ethically. Your "method", as I understand it, is a comparison between a substantive and beneficial life versus a life in pursuit of carnal gratification. This is a commonly understood meaning of ethics which is summed up on the Wikipedia article which they get from Peter Singer’s famous book on the topic:

A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.

You appear to conclude that homosexuality is a behavior of “sexual stimulation” only and therefore (presumably) less ethical than heterosexuality. I believe any argument you could give toward that conclusion (you give none) would fail.

 

In order to properly use applied ethics (which you do not) to examine prop. 8 you would start by asking if it is an appropriate issue of applied ethics. There are two broad qualifications:

1. The issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand.
   
2. It must be a distinctly moral issue.
   

The ballot results in CA were roughly 52% to 48%. Number 1 is then easily satisfied. Marriage rights are indeed moral issues and therefore Prop 8 satisfies #2. This is an issue for applied ethics.

 

A common tool in theories of applied ethics is The Principle of Beneficence.

The term beneficence connotes acts of mercy, kindness, and charity, and is suggestive of altruism, love, humanity, and promoting the good of others. In ordinary language, the notion is broad; but it is understood still more broadly in ethical theory, to include effectively all forms of action intended to benefit or promote the good of other persons.

The question then is what form of beneficence can Proposition 8 be credited with. Does it promote the good of others? Does it connote acts of mercy, kindness, and charity? The principle of beneficence is described in detail in the link above and it can be used to examine the ethics of prohibiting same-sex marriage. I will not do this, but I do believe if you were to use such a method you would find prop 8 has serious ethical problems.

 

Of course, beneficence does not entirely encompass the normative principles of applied ethics that would be appropriate to this question. At this link there is an established and more inclusive list:

• Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.
  
• Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.
  
• Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
  
• Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.
  
• Principle of harm: do not harm others.
  
• Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
  
• Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
  
• Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or physical body.
  
• Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
  
• Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.
  

The idea is then to use these principles to weigh the issue at hand. By the principle of harm, are more people harmed (physically or physiologically) with the ban on same-sex marriage or without it? By the principle of rights, are more people protected in their rights with or without prop 8? I'm not going to answer these questions or use the principles above. This post is getting long enough already, and I think the answers are self-evident.

 

But, I saw these 2 comments this morning,

 

Ethically < I see it as homosexual is nothing more than an evolutionary quirk that is possibly meant to do various things. It is more or less sexual stimulation with the same sex and has no value other than getting people off.

 

In my case I just go forward with the scientific approach... I'm not here trying to start any type of problems, just express my scientific view

 

I was both appalled (like Pamela), and concerned (like Tormod) that you are confused about what a scientific approach is. I have focused only on one very small comment you've made regarding ethics, but your comments regarding other aspects of this issue including the evolution of homosexuality resulting from homosexuals being genetically inferior is equally unscientific and appalling.

 

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

I think it is necessary to put sex in the correct perspective before this goes any further. SEX is simply a process of exchange to allow male and female gametes to come together to make new versions of what ever species is doing the reproduction.

 

Sex can take the form of simply releasing your gametes into the surrounding environment ie Corals, or it can be more specific with two or more animals releasing their gametes onto a specific place and either abandoning them or in many cases guarding the eggs and taking care of the young ie Fishes.

 

Others take this a step forward with the mating of two individuals after which one of them lays eggs and usually abandons them to fate after burying them or hiding them in some manner, some take care of the eggs and the hatchings ie Reptiles and Birds, even more effort is put into sex by some animals.

 

Fertilization is not only internal as in reptiles and birds but the eggs are held internally and even derive nutrients from the female, babies are born alive and taken care of by one or more parents ie Mammals.

 

Of course there are exceptions to these rules, fish that give birth to live young, sharks that have a placenta like mammals and Mammals that lay eggs. this is the reality of sex, reproduction.

 

Now do animals have sex just to "get off" yes, especially among mammals, mammals masturbate, they have sex with the same sex and they have sex for fun. The bigger the brain or the more intelligent an animal is the more likely these behaviors become.

 

Dolphins have lots of recreational sex, as do Bonobo chimps, and yes humans. All most human sex is recreational, very few human sex acts result in reproduction. why would so much effort be wasted on just "getting off" Sex is the lubricant of the social machine.

 

Bonobo chimps are among the most peaceful and socially integrated of all primates and maybe even animals in general. They have sex all the time, same sex sex is particularly rampant with female to female sex being dominant. They use sex to get what they want, to calm down unset members of the troop and even have sex with prepubescent members of the troop as a simple way of calming down and integrating them into the whole.

 

Sex among humans is 99.99999% recreational so to say that homosexual sex is just to "get off" really puts it in the same category as almost all other sex acts among humans.

 

Sex is no longer for reproduction, sex has become the primary social lubricant for humans. Very little sex has anything to do with reproduction, heterosexual or homosexual it serves the same purpose.

[JulianKeller]

I am recanting my previous posts in this thread on the grounds that the lack of data on the Thread's Subject have led to a now recognizable misinterpretation of the data that has been presented.

 

I was wrong, I looked at it too sterilely and didn't realize that that people's emotions were involved. An the issue of one's sexuality being genetic or psychological or an evolutionary advantage and/or disadvantage are not in question in this thread.

 

 

>_> Ethically to me means moral, an like I stated for me homosexuality is nothing more than getting off with dudes/dudettes. Some people just make it a life style. [an so do some penguins] I will respond that I personally do not judge anyone or condemn them because of their sexual orientation. My response on the issue of Proposition 8, can be summed up in "People have every right to be gay or not gay, to live the way they choose to live or not live. But if you ask me if I support it, I'll say no, if you ask me if I'm against it, I'll say no. It may seem heartless and cold, even a bit cruel but it is not affecting me personally as my partner and I already have children from previous relationships. Grouping people into social or sexually oriented groups just shows how our animalistic nature still affects us."

 

On the sex issue, sex for me is a basic drive and animalistic urge. It pacifies an innate need and a desire that due to my being a human can be sated by sexual stimulation with my partner, or masturbation. Either way sex is evolved for reproduction and homosexuals seem to not go that route yet want the ability to adopt children. Which is the same as a woman who can not have children due to her being biologically unable, or an infertile man and his female partner adopting. B)

 

Proposition 8 on marriage... Marriage ..I say let homosexuals go thru the hell of marriage, maybe they'll change their tune afterwards. No but seriously. The definition of marriage ....here's what Wikipedia says

 

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

 

 

I believe the chief argument should be that religion should be taken out of the law because it is the only thing causing the dilemma. Same-sex couples are so called "immoral" by a lot of standard religions but California and the United States as a whole is called the "Melting Pot". Separate the religious moral aspect, an you'll get mainly get a big fat NO to proposition 8.

 

Ethically, I'll use an editted scale the person named Modest typed out:

 

Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.

 

Answer: Proposition 8 would directly oppose the personal benefits of same-sex couples and thus it is unethical by this definition.

 

Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.

 

Answer: Proposition 8 would produce no benefitial changes to any community but religious sects, and anti-homosexuals.

 

Principle of benevolence: help those in need. and

Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.

 

Answer: Proposition 8 would lower the rate of the 'abuse' of marriage. [ie. People getting married just because one of them needs a green card. People getting married just because their partner is pregnant and they decide since they are same-sex partners they'd have to get married so one can take care of the other. Two men getting married for the benefits see the movie Chuck & Larry it'll explain this one]

 

 

Principle of harm: do not harm others.

 

Answer: Propositon 8 would stress out same-sex couples which would actually lead to a more of an increase in homosexual couples. It's been documented that homosexuals are becoming mentally ill because of the stigma of being gay.

 

 

Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.

 

Answer: Proposition 8 would stop the laws that prohibit wives and husbands to give testimony about each other in court [>_> I saw it on Law & Order, not sure if it's real] thus bringing one or both of the alleged criminals into justice.

 

Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.

 

Answer: Proposition 8 may decrease the homosexual communities quality of life, and thus inhibit their free expression out of fear that whatever they do it will not be enough.

 

 

Then again the argument can be said....

Homosexuals can just lives like everyone else and just work twice as hard for the benefits of married couples. Them ******* don't need to get married. Marriage is a joke as it is in the us.

 

 

^I actually copied it from a chatroom and editted out some of the language. I agree Marriage isn't being taken seriously and it is being used for less than savory purposes. But it is still a right of an United States citizen [and at times foreigner/alien] and of legal age or meet the certain requirements to enter into the legally binding marriage contract. Personally I disagree that homosexual couples should be excluded from this on the grounds that if they are United State citizens and they meet the age requirement then the marriage contract is part of their right as a citizen of the USA. :hyper:

 

p.s. the person in the chatroom who said that is known for being a bigot and a self proclaimed Neo-Nazi. I typed it to prove the point underneath it.

[C1ay]

This issue really highlights one of the chief reasons that the founders chose a Republic, government by rule of law, over a Democracy, government by rule of the majority or mob rule. A Republic, under a written Constitution, safeguards the rights of the individual and the minority. A Democracy lacks any legal safeguard for the rights of the individual and the minority. Now we have groups that want to oppress one minority or another and find that they can't under our proper form of government so they get the issue on a ballot in an effort to trump the rule of law with a measure of mob rule. The people should wake up and see this for what it is for we all belong to one or more minorities and we each could find ourselves a victim of such democratic tactics.