About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

It's a civil-union certificate

---

Strange...the license I signed for my friends when they got married said "Marriage," not "Civil Union."Where is this "civil union" certificate that applies to mixed-sex couples? I can only find "marriage" certifications.How many times do we need to learn the "separate but equal" lesson before we remember it? Or does the Constitution mean nothing to you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Fosdick writes:

quote:

---

Marriage means a civil union between one man and one woman. That is the opinion I hold on the matter. And, incidentally, my opinion on this matter seems to be supported by a majority, both in the popular vote and in the SCOTUS. You hold a different opinion, and without majority support.

---

"Marriage means a civil union between two people of the same race. That is the opinion I hold on the matter. And, incidentally, my opinion on this matter seems to be supported by a majority, both in the popular vote and in the SCOTUS. You hold a different opinion, and without majority support."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?You do recall that when the SCOTUS overturned miscegenation laws, more than 70% of the population felt that interracial marriages should remain criminalized. That's more than currently think same-sex marriage should remain criminalized. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overturn the majority opinion? After all, the Constitution means nothing, right?

quote:

---

We can have differing opinions, can't we? Why is yours so supremely moral and superior to mine?

---

Because one is bigoted (denying to others that which is demanded for oneself) while the other is not. One is unconstitutional (Fourteenth Amendment) while the other is not.

quote:

---

Why should the majority opinion be overthrown to grant you yours?

---

Because the Constitution isn't a popularity contest.Was the SCOTUS wrong in the Loving v. Virginia decision? Majority opinion, still to this day, is that interracial marriage should be criminalized. Does the Constitution mean nothing?

quote:

---

And why would you even care, so long as homosexuals are granted their equal civil-union rights? In my opinion, marriage is not one of them.

---

"And why would you even care, so long as interracial couples are gratned their equal civil-union rights? In my opinion, marriage is not one of them."If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia decision?

quote:

---

If you look at this matter deeply enough you'll see that the government needs to get out of the business of marriage.

---

You don't really believe that. If you did, you wouldn't call your previous relationships "marriages."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Damn Straight!If one enters into a legal contract with another person and that contract confers certain rights and responsibilities according to the laws of the state, then that should be how marriage is defined according to rights and responsibilities according to the state. Such a contract should not discriminate according to race, creed, background, or indeed sexual orientation.Now if one desires that this contract be sanctified by a given religion, it is their privilege to do so and indeed it is the right of any given religious sect to refuse such sanction. But regardless of any religious sanction, such a verdict should involve no legal validity as it violates the establishment cause.The legal business of marriage belongs to the state, as in rendering to Ceasar, the ideological consideration belongs to the church, as is what the couple may desire according to their rendering to whatever god they may choose, or be rejected by the laity, as the case may be.

Artemis Entreri writes:

quote:

---

Marrige is something that is upto the states, not the Federal government...so...your...US constitution stance is rather irrelevant, you see?

---

So when the SCOTUS overturned Virginia's miscegenation laws in the Loving v. Virginia decision, they were wrong to do so?

quote:

---

The 9th may propect from a national amendment like prop 8, but on a STATE level, the 9th does not apply, as this...is...a...STATE issue.

---

Incorrect. The Fourteenth Amendment gives the US Constitution supremacy. It wouldn't be much of a First Amendment right to free speech of the state could take it away. States are free to recognize more rights than the feds, but they cannot take away federal rights.If the Loving v. Virginia case was correct, how does it not apply here? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Hint: Even Scalia has said that Lawrence v. Texas means that gay people have the right to get married. Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

...and be ruled unconstitutional?re: and MooseADDED BY EDIT: NEVER MIND - THIS HAS PROBABLY BEEN COVERED ELSEWHERE IN THIS TOPIC (maybe the next message).Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Time for a primer in law. Artie, please take a seat in the front row so you don't miss anything. If there's anything that's unclear, feel free to ask questions. If, instead of asking questions, you insist on making claims contrary to what is set forth here, please provide appropriate authority. On questions of law, appropriate authority would be a Court decision, preferably a SCOTUS opinion, since the points that I will be covering have largely been addressed by SCOTUS.If you simply wish to pontificate, that is your right. However it would be helpful to all involved if, when you are stating your wish that the law be other than it is, you make that clear, and provide reasoned argument for why it should be different. Ideally, your argument will address and be responsive to the reasoning and rational that SCOTUS used in deciding the matter. You are particularly advised to refrain from making arguments that the facts are other than what SCOTUS has previously decided. I find it virtually inconceivable that you would be able to make a compelling case for a factual conclusion inconsistent with a SCOTUS ruling.Artie wrote:

quote:

---

2. cases are brought up to SCOTUS, not amendments to State constitutions

---

Well, yes, cases are brought up to SCOTUS. Those cases can include challenges to State constitutions.Artie wrote:

quote:

---

1. Its not up to SCOTUS.

---

If someone brings a case that makes its way to SCOTUS, then it most certainly is up to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison.Artie wrote:

quote:

---

i wish i had a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v. Vriginia as if it even applies to this at all.

---

Courts decide cases based on a principle called stare decisis, which, translated from the Latin, means "to stand by that which is decided." Courts look at prior cases for the principles upon which the prior cases were decided, and determine whether a prior principle applies to the case at bar. It should be apparent that the later case will not be factually identical to the earlier case. The question then becomes how is a later case the same as the earlier case, and does the general principle from the earlier case apply to the later case.The Loving case involved a ban on whites marrying nonwhites. Obviously, factually this is a different question from whether gay marriage can be banned. However, the question is whether any general principle from Loving is applicable to the question of gay marriage.Loving contains two different bases for striking anti-miscegenation laws. The first is based on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which states in relevant part: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Loving Court wrote: Citations and footnote omitted.Loving stands for the proposition that a state marriage law violative of the Equal Protection Clause cannot stand. Thus, the question becomes whether laws prohibiting gay marriage are violative of the Equal Protection Clause. In order to answer this question, we need to know what level of scrutiny to apply to the question. In hope you will forgive me for cribbing from my own work as it gets rather tiresome saying the same thing over and over again. Much of what follows can be found in this thread.In essence, the Equal Protection Clause means that laws must apply equally to all equally situated persons. This language has been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court in many different contexts. To briefly summarize, the Court has developed three different tests depending on the type of classification a challenged law contains.The Court will use what is called strict scrutiny if a law is based on a suspect classification, such as race or national origin, or if it impinges on a fundamental Constitutional right. Under strict scrutiny, a law must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest before it will be upheld. In addition, it must be the least restrictive means to achieve the end. As you can see, Loving was decided under strict scrutiny.The Court will use what is called intermediate scrutiny when examining a law that classifies on the basis of gender. Where a law relies on a gender classification, it must be substantially related to an important state interest.The lowest level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause is called rational basis. Under this test, the law must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. The rational basis test is used for any classification in law that does not fall under strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny.Any state action that treats one group of people differently from another is potentially subject to review by the courts to make sure that it does not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.If the question of the validity of a ban on gay marriage is not decided under strict scrutiny, (more below on why it may be, even though it is not based on a racial classification) the next level of analysis is intermediate basis. The argument to apply this level of scrutiny is that laws banning gay marriage are not gender neutral. It makes the question of whether two people can marry one another turn on their gender. (The objection to this reasoning is that gay marriage bans are gender neutral, they apply equally to men and women. A version of this argument, based instead on race, was considered and rejected by the Court in Loving.)Under intermediate scrutiny, the question becomes whether the ban is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Here is where my analysis begins to break down, because those who advocate bans on gay marriage are seldom particularly clear about what state interest the ban is intended to serve. There is frequently talk about "protecting traditional marriage." I suspect that a court would have no trouble finding that protecting marriage is a compelling state interest. But I have yet to hear anyone describe in what way allowing gays to marry will harm or even change in any way anyone else's marriage. Absent a showing that gay marriage presents a threat to marriage, I can't imagine how it could be described as substantially related to serve that end. If you can show how gay marriage is a threat to "traditional marriage," I'd be happy to listen. In the alternative, if you can show an important governmental interest that is served by banning gay marriage, I'd like to hear that, too.I mentioned above that there were two different bases for the Loving decision. I've already described the Equal Protection analysis and shown how it would apply to gay marriage. The Loving Court also concluded that interracial marriage bans violate the Due Process Clause because When a law infringes on a fundamental right, the Court will use strict scrutiny to determine whether it is violative of the Constitution. See, for example, Oklahoma v. Skinner. Just as with intermediate scrutiny, or even rational basis, the first question is what purpose is the classification purporting to serve. I again concede that protecting "traditional marriage" is a compelling state purpose. As above, if you wish to explain how banning gay marriage is the least restrictive means for achieving that end, give it a go. Or, if you wish to propose a different compelling state interest served by banning gay marriage, I'm all ears.Artie wrote:

quote:

---

I dont even see how a case will be brought up against prop 8. the scenarios aren't even remotely close. The lovings left the state to get married and came back, then they were arrested and charged with a felony. So two homosexuals leave CA and go to Taxachussets and get married, will they get arrested when they return to CA? no, thier marriage will just not be accepted. its over folks.

---

Here you attempt, using rather creative grammar, capitalization, sentence structure, punctuation and spelling, to distinguish Loving because it involved a criminal prosecution. While it is an accurate distinction, it is a distinction without a difference in this case. The closing lines of Loving read as follows:Obviously Loving stands not just for the proposition that a state cannot criminalize interracial marriage, but that it cannot even refuse to recognize it.Artie wrote:

quote:

---

Just so you know...the 14th amendment is BS.

---

I shall not unduly lengthen this message by repeating in toto your objection to the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment. SCOTUS has considered your arguments and rejected them. See Coleman v. Miller:Footnotes omitted.Any questions?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

So rather than addressing the issue, you find it more productive to act like a five-year old?I admitted an error on my part, and originally referred to the 9th Amendment when I meant to refer to the 14th...and you call that "moving the goal posts"? Ha...you're quite the card there AE. Tell ya what, AE, let me know where you want me to send your nickle, cuz that's all you're asking for. Learn English. You probably answered your own question AE. However, since I'm neither homosexual nor a resident of California, I obviously cannot say with certainty how a case may be brought to SCOTUS, but I do see a likely scenario playing out as you mentioned. Granted, the couple will not be arrested upon their return, but since they will be denied rights that other married couples have, that might very well be the vehicle for a court challenge.In addition, I also want to point out that there is some talk about the prop not being "legal" in that the voters cannot, by a simply majority, amend the State Constitution. And please note AE, that the California Supreme Court has agreed to take up legal challenges to Prop 8.
Read more here: California Supreme Court Will Hear Prop 8 Legal Challenge - Fog City JournalFog City Journal. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!! So is your argument. I mean, seriously, this is just so stupid that I really have no response. Well, these first three responses are nothing but avoidance of the issue.True...it is not up to SCOTUS...until, that is, a case is brought before them. And I realize that amendments are not brought to SCOTUS, cases are...but I don't really see how you can use this as an excuse to discriminate. When prop 8 is challenged, a case will be generated. And it's that case (or a similar case) that will likely be brought to SCOTUS. Why is that so difficult to imagine? And who gives a flying fuck that California is not the only State with amendments like prop 8? Of what consequence is that AE? Do you think that if more than one State has "prop 8 like" amendments, that suddenly SCOTUS is prevented from ever hearing a case brought before them regarding these discriminatory actions? If the implementation of the amendment denies rights to a certain group of people, then how is that not discriminatory? So, if I underatand your argument, you are basically saying that States can do whatever the fuck they want, because they are, after all, States...and SCOTUS will not take up any challenges to these States for fear that our beloved Union will crumble? Meaning, of course, that in this particular case, your defense of prop 8 is a fear that "The Union" will fall apart if gays are allowed to marry? Wow! Ah...but it wasn't a liberal thing. It was a combination of voter backlash, age and religion.And just so you know, eight years of listening to people like yourself whine and cry and blame all the Worlds troubles on liberals is getting old. Nobody falls for the shit anymore....let it go.On a related note, here's another question you can avoid answering? Do you feel that the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church should lose their tax free status because of all the money they spent trying to pass prop 8?

Hi Rrhain,While I would like to answer your posts, however tedious and redundant they may be, the Big Cheese says I can’t. I asked the admins if I could have all my posting privileges restored (in Message 4) But it’s Percy’s sandbox and he makes the rules. To wit (from Message 5): So I’ll clear out of these boards with a fond farewell to those who have troubled themselves to engage me. I’ve listed my email address in my profile if anyone cares to discuss these matters further. Or I’ll see you on another forum somewhere in hyperspace.(Daisy Mae doesn’t look much like Marilyn anymore”more like Mammie Yokum”and Li’l Abner looks more like B. O. Plenty than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sam Katchem turned out to be an asshole, and the only two I can trust now are Flat Top and Gravel Gurtie. Think I’ll kill a schmoo for lunch.)btw: I am not a homophobic bigot. You must be hysterical.”FTFEdited by Fosdick, : added a sweet btw for Rrhain

It does no such thing it only clearly states what a marriage is in California. You can’t really take a way something that wasn’t there in the 1st place. Yet in the same link it clearly states 70% of black voted for prop 8. are you fond of sources that contradict each other? You found it written on the internets, it must be true. If you understand anything about the reconstruction south you know that it was a mockery of liberty. It was a fake puppet government, created by the north. The amendments and laws passed between Presidents Lincoln and Hayes, are not representative of how the southern constituents were. If you cant see the BS then you re blind or you are not looking.Basically the north conquered, then used the soldiers who were there to, to write new laws, and ratify that BS amendment, all while refusing to allow the southern leadership to do so.You try to cop-out and tell me to get over something that was one hundred and fifty years ago then go in the same post to show that it was finally ratified by everyone five years ago. Why the contradiction? The irony of your posts, is comedy at its finest. Just as silly as your argument to an amendment in the California State Constitution. So rather than addressing the issue, you find it more productive to act like a five-year old? Keep practicing your strawman, its getting better. Prop 8 passed . let it go. You don’t answer anything either. You talk of a constitutional republic, and you don’t even know what amendments you are talking about. You ask question and when answered you claim they aren’t. You say others are acting immature and then act immature in the same post. You say learn English, and then make grammar errors in the same post.Keep up the good work.Subbie, stick around you gave a great response and its going to take me a bit to respond, FO is to funny i couldn't resist myself.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot subbie

You said you wanted a nickle every time someone brings up Loving v Virginia. I offered you a nickle.
Now, if you had said you wished you'd get a nickle EACH time someone mentioned L v V, then I would not have made the offer. It's not my fault that you did not know the difference between the words "each" and "every"? But now you do. See, even you can learn something. And the irony of you not knowing what an irony is, is just sad. And what argument is that AE? That I feel such discrimination should not be allowed in this Country? That's a silly argument to you? But your response is stupid. It's almost the year 2009 and you're blabbing on about the Civil War and how the 14th Amendment to our Constitution is BS. Golly, if it were BS, dontcha think maybe...just maybe...someone would have noticed by now. But yet, as it turns out, SCOTUS has actually cited this "BS Amendment" in some of their decisions. How utterly bizarre that the fucking Supreme Court Justices themselves didn't recognise the (apparently little known fact) that 14th Amendment is actually BS. Stupid Supreme Court Justices. Well then, enlighten me as to what exactly it is you ARE trying to say. Let's see...what was it again that you said? If only there were some way to see again, what it was you said. Wait a minute...here it is(bold mine)
Heck, I thought I summarized your arguments pretty well. Please tell me where I am mistaken. Again....kind of a meaningless and childish response, dontcha think? We should just "let it go" why, exactly? You may like blatant, Government sanctioned discrimination in this Country, but I personally I find it both reprehensible and repugnant. To "let it go" as you state, goes against the very foundations on which this Country is based. Or is your "just let it go" mentality only applicable to things you like. Do you wish/feel that there should have been a "just let it go" attitude towards laws banning mixed race marriages? Should we have "just let that one go" too. How about slavery? Should we have "just let that go" as well. Or is it only things that discriminate against homosexuals that you're OK with? Yeah...well...except I do. Did you happen to notice where I admitted the error and corrected myself. Seriously AE, are you really so dense as to not recognise a simple error that has been corrected? And since it has been corrected, it really no longer is an error. And since it's no longer an error, then, as it turns out, I actually DO know which Amendment(s) I'm talking about. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on this. Yeah...well..except for the part where you didn't actually answer the questions. Other than that little tidbit...you nailed this one spot on there AE.So I'll ask again. On what grounds do you support Prop 8? Or to word it another way...how do you think prop 8 gets around the 14th Amendment. And simply stating that the 14th Amendment is actually BS does constitute a legitimate answer, since as we ALL fucking know that the 14th Amendment is not really BS, but an actual Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as ratified by all States that were in the Union as of 1868.So then, even if you, AE (in your infinite wisdom), consider the 14th Amendment to be BS, the actual Supreme Court Justices see it differently and may very well structure their decision(s) based on their interpretation(s) of this Amendment. Do yo get it now, AE? Unlike you, simply calling it BS and letting it go at that is not one of their options. And since it is they who will be deciding any case(s) brought before them, not you, I'd like to know how YOU think THEY will get around this Amendment. Point them out to me. Unlike you, I don't mind being corrected. I actually appreciate it when my errors are pointed out to me. It's how we learn things AE...try it sometime, you might find it enlightening.Edited by FliesOnly, : To correct my "ratification" error. See A.E. I admit to and correct my errors.

Ah, the sillyness. The California Supreme Court earlier this year said that homosexuals had the right to get married in the state.Prop 8 clearly takes this right away.And I notice how you did not deal with the fact that the state government's website even says that it takes away the right to vote. Why would the state gov't say that if it did not take away rights? No, I found a rather decent analysis of the vote. Nate Silver isn't just simply asserting that it is not reasonable to suggest that the black vote passed Prop 8. He show's the vote breakdown and reasons out why Prop 8 passed. The conclusion? It's age, not race. That is, old black people and old white people voted for prop 8, whereas young black people and young white people voted against prop 8.Oh, and if you're going to critique FO's grammar, check your own first. Internet is not plural. How about not playing the silly grammar game? I made a slight reading error. Not all fifty states have ratified the amendment. As of 2003, all states in existence since 1868 (38) have ratified it by 2003. New Jersey and Ohio were the last to do so. Kentucky followed through by 1976. Oregon in 1973 (after having cancelled its ratification in 1868). California and MD in 1959. Delaware in 1901. And so on.Still, there is no contradiction in my post. The 14th amendment does not need everyone's ratification in order to be valid.Your opposition to the 14th amendment is equally silly to those who oppose the 16th amendment.Tell me, do you also oppose the 13th and 15th amendments? After all, VA, TN, Arkansas, Alabama, SC, NC, and GA ratified the 13th by dec 6, 1865. NC, Arkansas, SC, FL, VA, Alabama, MI, and GA ratified the 15th by feb 3, 1870.I suppose, then, that the 13th and 15th amendments, which outlaw slavery and prevents voting discrimination on basis of race, are null and void? That slavery is legal and blacks and asians and indians and other non-whites can't vote?I have no choice but to think you do given your opposition to the 14th amendment, which was passed in similar measure to the other two.

I want to touch on this again. This is a very dangerous sentiment, as it can be used as justification for restricting the rights of people.Before the revolution, people did not have the right to bare arms. They may have legally owned their guns, but it was not considered a right.So the legislatures could then, per your argument, prevent you from having that right by declaring that only soldiers have a right to bare arms.You can't take away something that wasn't there in the first place, right?And yet, the action of thos legislatures (and the executive who signed it into law), are most certainly wrong, no? They were actually taking away your right.Before the revolution, one could not speak freely. Any criticism of the king was looked down upon (I honestly can't recall the punishments). Imagine that? Just how many conservatives would be in jail for calling Bill Clinton "Slick Willy"? How many liberals would be in jail for call Bush a despot?But because this right was not laid out before, it did not exist, right? So legislatures and executives could prevent you from speaking freely, and they would be in their power. And yet, the legislatures actually did take away your rights.The better position is to assume that there is no limit to rights. That is, there may be rights we have yet to think of. What we should limit is not rights, but the government's power.Instead, we have the government limiting people's rights and aggrandizing its own. It's not just in marriage. It's in our political and civic freedoms. The Patriot Act, for example, is one of the most egregious abuses of power in the rights that it limits or takes away.

Chris,
I didn't start the grammar game, FO did. I also did not start the name calling and the personal attacks, but i have been on this site long enough to realize that only leftists and people from the UK are alowed to ignore the rules, and since im american and conservative here i am just a target.calling me out on internets, you cant be serious. i'll take it as a joke, like most of your posts, they are funny. I iz 2 l33t 4 u, n00b. we have Dorthy, Toto, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, who are we missing? Oh yeah thanks Kuresu, the Strawman! lulz
not only a right but an unalienable right. taken from english common law, taken from the Magna Carta (1215ce). Come on "History Major" you can do better than that. Unless you mean before the revolution as in way back in the year 1214? Actually the Bill of Rights of 1689 was an act of the British Parliament that covered freedom of speech (we got most of our ideas from the british, and from already existing british laws, but you study history so i guess you know this). Also in 1689 the Bill of rights allowed for the right to bear arms (if you were a protestant). gays can still get married the way polygamists do, it just wont be legal, but then neither is polygamy. The Pedophiles, and the Polygamists are on your side now.
marry who you want as many times as you want no matter what their age is. yeah freedom!(sarcasm)

What the F#$K does gay marriage have to do with polygamy? Are you going to to go the really stupid route and say that making gay marriage legal, it will lead to polygamy, marriage with animals etc. Real Ken Hovind type crap.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Great we agree on one thing. But then it goes downhill from here. What exactly is free about creating an exclusionary definition of marriage, then say well you get the same thing with a different name. Why does anyone need to be told who they can marry and who they can't. Because this is exactly what's going on here, if the situation were reversed and heteros were the minority, and you were told you marriage is defined as between two men or two women. Wouldn't you feel a little left out? Wouldn't you try to fight for your supposed inalienable right to marry whoever the hell you want to and it’s nobody's business? Just because you treat gay marriage like a label doesn't mean it is one. Gay marriage is very much a measure of freedom as hetero marriage is. Civil Unions ARE NOT equal in any sense of the word if only gay people can get them. Creating a category based on an arbitrary criterion is exclusive, meaning it excludes things from it. All prop 8 manages to say is that everyone can get married as long as you’re a man or a woman. Yes that speaks volumes of freedom and equality. Please at least tell me, you might run to the defense of anyone who's right to vote is limited or not recognized at all because of some arbitrary criteria like they have brown hair. All people have the right to vote, correct?Furthermore, prop 8 and anything similar to it isn't taking anything away from anyone. It’s only trying to maintain the status quo by not recognizing the rights of a particular group of people. Gays have always had the right to get married, it’s only now that there are enough of them and enough supporters that they dare come out in public to claim their rights without fear of being lynched or murdered or persecuted for simply being different from the "majority". Change is inevitable, adapt or get out of the way.Edited by b00tleg, : spelling and grammar