It was part of a deal to ensure statehood for Utah. As I understand it, the problem was that the Mormons were running out of women to marry (well, duh), and so were raiding nearby settlements and kidnapping young girls and young women. It had to be brought to an end.
again, where is the discrimination? All rights are the same. Its just the term "marriage" isn't the correct terminology used when homosexuals choose to have a civil union. All rights are preserved, there is no discrimination.
And many more have been brainwashed by atheism and secularism. You should have defended Jeffrey Dahmer. His "innate characteristics" that led him to murder young boys were definitely restricted by his prison sentence.
In Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino and San Diego county, it passed. Those are major counties of LA and San Diego, not "rural" as you would think.
Ha ha ha that is so funny, yet so typical. Mormon: Were out of women! Mormen2: "Lets go attack some people and steal their women, that is so Christian." Mormen: Saddle up! People are always religious until it doesn't suit their needs.
Actually I am indifferent as to who does or doesn't get married, but that is a bad analogy in my opinion. You are generalizing the term "separate but equal", which refers to all sorts of facilities that minorities were not allowed to enter decades ago. The proposition was about what a single word means, which is completely different and not comparable. Certainly people that are full of hate voted for this proposition as well, but that doesn't mean Xericx is bigoted or anything. That seems like quite a harsh conclusion and he's trying to articulate his point reasonably at least.
That wasn't even a clever attempt at wordplay. You simply quoted my words and then listed a chosen action, not an innate characteristic. Being a Republican is not an innate characteristic, nor is being a murderer.
I'm truly sorry for the impact this vote has on your life. I think about my friend who just moved from NYC to Palo Alto and how his decade-long relationship with his partner is somehow less than a shotgun wedding. We don't agree on much, but we do agree on this issue. This vote disgusts me like raisins and mayonnaise disgust you.
I understood it to be the opposite situation. So many men had died at the hands of Indian attacks on the way from Nauvoo, IL to the Great Salt Lake that men taking multiple wives was the only way for all the women to be cared for and to rebuild the numbers of the Mormons. Of course, I'm not LDS, so I could easily be wrong. I'm just passing along what I had previously understood.
I understand how upsetting this may be for some people, but aren't they also being a bit broad with their accusations as well? Why can't it just be a difference of opinion in semantics, in certain cases? Maybe caring too much about the definition of the word is an absolute waste of time, but I wouldn't pick on someone like Xericx who genuinely seems to base this vote simply on semantics.
Civil unions do not confer all the rights of marriage. The discrimination is that a heterosexual can marry whom he/she chooses (as long as the person is a legal adult, not married to anyone else at the time) but a gay man or lesbian cannot. Since legal marriage confers literally hundreds of rights and responsibilities under state and federal law, that is discrimination. How much clearer can it be? If you want a spouse to inherit the home you both share, do nothing. Your property taxes won't change. If a gay man or lesbian wants the same, they need a legal power of attorney and then have property taxes re-assessed. If you want to adopt your spouse's children, you may do so automatically. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is unconscious or othewise not able to make medical decisions, you may do so. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is in prison, you may visit. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is in intensive care, you may visit. A gay man or lesbian cannot. If your spouse is a noncitizen, he/she can apply for citizenship based on the marriage. A civil union partner cannot. If you die, your spouse gets your pension and social security automatically. A civil union partner needs a legal power of attorney which can be challenged by the deceased's biological relatives. That enough?
Sounds to me like the state should get out of the business of validating marriages altogether, and solely provide civil unions.
No, not even close to enough, you're totally avoiding the fact that a domestic partnership in California is IDENTICAL to a marriage in california. The only difference is the name. In California, a domestic partnership has all the rights under state law, but not FEDERAL law, which is not going to change even with gay marriage in California. This was a state measure, and its implications would be felt under the state only. Essentially NOTHING would have changed, the marriage would not be recognized in other states, only in California, which would be EXACTLY THE SAME AS A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, aside from the name alone. As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these: * Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances * Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person. * Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7) * Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5) * Sick care and similar family leave * Stepparent adoption procedures * Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership * Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner * Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts * The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p) * Access to some survivor pension benefits * Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings * The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d) * The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration * Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses * The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce) * The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 Full text if you've bothered to read it. so please, inform me what rights are being taken away?
The right to be married in California and have that marriage (and all the rights associated with it) recognized by Texas.
Declaring something unconstitutional is not a blanket argument against lack of activism. Roe v. Wade is a class case of judicial activism, and the right that was carved out by the Supreme Court was done by making illegalization of abortion in certain circumstances unconstitutional. Ed O.
Thanks, crandc, for educating me on this. I was not aware, and (given this) it would appear that my statement of judicial activism in overturning the 2000 proposition through judicial activism was incorrect. Ed O.
