Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The whole Prop. 8 thing is now front page news seeing the gay and lesbian community is taking the ruling to court here in SF. Now I don't care at all if gays and lesbians can get married, I voted against prop 8 but I'm having a hard time finding out if this will really change anything for them. The biggest issues for them are on the federal level (immigration, social security issues, tax benefits, basis step ups, etc.) My question is will any of those federal issues change here in CA if they reverse prop 8 and allow them to get married here in CA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Ya. You will pay more than you already do for living in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The whole Prop. 8 thing is now front page news seeing the gay and lesbian community is taking the ruling to court here in SF. Now I don't care at all if gays and lesbians can get married, I voted against prop 8 but I'm having a hard time finding out if this will really change anything for them. The biggest issues for them are on the federal level (immigration, social security issues, tax benefits, basis step ups, etc.) My question is will any of those federal issues change here in CA if they reverse prop 8 and allow them to get married here in CA? I'm not sure what their strategy is here. Maybe it's "hey if we get states to allow it we'll trap the feds into allowing it too?" The issues you mentioned are what they should be going after, instead of chasing a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 I'm not sure what their strategy is here. Maybe it's "hey if we get states to allow it we'll trap the feds into allowing it too?" The issues you mentioned are what they should be going after, instead of chasing a word. That's been my whole point all along. They really seem to be directing their energies in the wrong direction. And what's really going to piss me off if they reverse the vote is that will be one of many propositions they've reversed since I've lived here. It's almost like there is no point in voting for these things anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Again.. What is wrong with saying no marriage should be recognized by the state? Just think of all the money they would make. Just think how our society has changed... Woman working, all kinds of legal protection, etc... I know what JA said in the other threads about legal issues... But really, why not just wipe all marriage off the board when it comes to being recognized by the state. Save it for the religions to decide and accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 That's been my whole point all along. They really seem to be directing their energies in the wrong direction. And what's really going to piss me off if they reverse the vote is that will be one of many propositions they've reversed since I've lived here. It's almost like there is no point in voting for these things anymore. That's why you have the legal check & balance. You can vote whatever you want, but then it needs to stand up to the state's constitution and then to the Constitution. It's gonna be a long one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 That's why you have the legal check & balance. You can vote whatever you want, but then it needs to stand up to the state's constitution and then to the Constitution. It's gonna be a long one. But my gripe is shouldn't a proposition pass the state constitutional muster before it gets on the ballot? These elections aren't cheap and go through the economic and emotional ringer only to have the whole thing shot down is frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 That's why you have the legal check & balance. You can vote whatever you want, but then it needs to stand up to the state's constitution and then to the Constitution. It's gonna be a long one. Seems to me that, given what it costs to hold a statewide election, it would make more sense to find out if the election would stand up to the respective constitutions BEFORE spending the money to hold the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Seems to me that, given what it costs to hold a statewide election, it would make more sense to find out if the election would stand up to the respective constitutions BEFORE spending the money to hold the vote. Well, yeah that's logical. But you can't determine Constitutionality of a law before the law is written and passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Well, yeah that's logical. But you can't determine Constitutionality of a law before the law is written and passed. Exactly. Find a way to make the voting process cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Again.. What is wrong with saying no marriage should be recognized by the state? Just think of all the money they would make. Just think how our society has changed... Woman working, all kinds of legal protection, etc... I know what JA said in the other threads about legal issues... But really, why not just wipe all marriage off the board when it comes to being recognized by the state. Save it for the religions to decide and accept. I really do hear what you are saying, and I am not against taking power away from the government- be it state or federal. What I am COMPLETELY against is giving any type of power to religion. We have enough zealots in this country already and power corrupts.....just allow them to marry- its really not a big deal and doesn't affect anyone. Once they are allowed to marry, the issue will go away and we will never have to hear about it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I really do hear what you are saying, and I am not against taking power away from the government- be it state or federal. What I am COMPLETELY against is giving any type of power to religion. We have enough zealots in this country already and power corrupts.....just allow them to marry- its really not a big deal and doesn't affect anyone. Once they are allowed to marry, the issue will go away and we will never have to hear about it again You're right, because then they'll move on to whining about something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I think gay people should be able to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Once California legalizes marijuana, everyone there will mellow out and not care who marries who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Once California legalizes marijuana, everyone there will mellow out and not care who marries who. Oh, like the people who smoke aren't smoking it because it is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share Posted January 13, 2010 Once California legalizes marijuana, everyone there will mellow out and not care who marries who. Oh don't get me started on that. Now we're going to have every dope smoking loser moving here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Oh don't get me started on that. Now we're going to have every dope smoking loser moving here. You can have them. And the gays who get married. And all the illegal immigrants. Plus all the hippies Then maybe there will be an earthquake knocking California into the Pacific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share Posted January 13, 2010 You can have them. And the gays who get married. And all the illegal immigrants. Plus all the hippies Then maybe there will be an earthquake knocking California into the Pacific. You know I'll still take it over anyplace else I've lived or visited in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 You can have them. And the gays who get married. And all the illegal immigrants. Plus all the hippies Then maybe there will be an earthquake knocking California into the Pacific. I think there was a movie about that. Maybe just Los Angeles went into the Pacific, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I think there was a movie about that. Maybe just Los Angeles went into the Pacific, though. I wouldn't cry if LA went into the Pacific. Then maybe every couple years we wouldn't have to hear rumors of the Bills moving to LA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts