TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 5, 2008 19:55:11 GMT -5
I know not every Mormon in Utah gave money for Yes on Prop 8 and I have Mormon friends who were against it too. Sorry for being too general. I was just trying to make the bigger point that it just seems so sad that most of the funding for it came from outside of California. Utah was by far the biggest donor, but yes, I do recognize that not all of them donated. I don't assign all of the blame on non-CA donors either. Obviously, only Californians voted, and so Calfornians are responsible for it. It just really upsets me that other states had more of a financial impact on the "Yes on 8" position than California did. Although I understand that legally, it's free speech and there's nothing anyone can do about it. California just got a little taste of its own medicine--there are a lot of political campaigns outside of California that are mostly funded by Californians. Happens all the time. Heck, without Hollywood, Democrats throughout the country would lose half of their funding |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289 
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 20:00:15 GMT -5
I know not every Mormon in Utah gave money for Yes on Prop 8 and I have Mormon friends who were against it too. Sorry for being too general. I was just trying to make the bigger point that it just seems so sad that most of the funding for it came from outside of California. Utah was by far the biggest donor, but yes, I do recognize that not all of them donated. I don't assign all of the blame on non-CA donors either. Obviously, only Californians voted, and so Calfornians are responsible for it. It just really upsets me that other states had more of a financial impact on the "Yes on 8" position than California did. Although I understand that legally, it's free speech and there's nothing anyone can do about it. California just got a little taste of its own medicine--there are a lot of political campaigns outside of California that are mostly funded by Californians. Happens all the time. Heck, without Hollywood, Democrats throughout the country would lose half of their funding And without Brangelina, they'd lose about 1/4 of that. :-P Fine. As a Californian, I've gotten a taste of my own medicine, and it is bitter.  |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 5, 2008 20:00:35 GMT -5
The sanctity of marriage died when FOX aired "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire." Sorry, but that was the end of it.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 5, 2008 20:01:38 GMT -5
Heck, without Hollywood, Democrats throughout the country would lose half of their funding That's rather an odd comment from regarding a State whose Republican Governor is yet another highly successful Hollywood actor to be elected to that office. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 5, 2008 20:10:45 GMT -5
Heck, without Hollywood, Democrats throughout the country would lose half of their funding That's rather an odd comment from regarding a State whose Republican Governor is yet another highly successful Hollywood actor to be elected to that office. Really? It's news to people that Hollywood donates a lot of money to the Democratic Party? It's always been that way. For example, both Democrats in the Alaska race got money from Hollywood: www.adn.com/election/story/557542.htmlI don't care about Californians / Hollywood donating to Democrats throughout the country. I was just pointing out that money from California goes into all kinds of political races throughout the country, with a lot of it coming from Hollywood. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 20:24:59 GMT -5
I don't know if it's on as massive of a scale though. 20 million coming from a religious group that makes up about 2% of California? That seems unprecedented. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I just don't understand why non-Californians cared so much about a proposition that never would have had any impact on their daily lives anyway. It's not like donating to another state's senator, for instance, who would have a national impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 5, 2008 20:45:47 GMT -5
I don't know if it's on as massive of a scale though. 20 million coming from a religious group that makes up about 2% of California? That seems unprecedented. Correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't understand why non-Californians cared so much about a proposition that never would have had any impact on their daily lives anyway. It's not like donating to another state's senator, for instance, who would have a national impact. Thou shalt meddle in thy neighbor's attempts to avoid state-sponsored implementation of faith. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 20:47:31 GMT -5
Ah. Knew it was only a matter of time before this happened: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story "Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters." constitutional revision vs. constitutional amendment? hmmm. "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." |
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Nov 5, 2008 20:47:56 GMT -5
I just don't understand why non-Californians cared so much about a proposition that never would have had any impact on their daily lives anyway. It's not like donating to another state's senator, for instance, who would have a national impact. 2 Points: 1) Governors, senators, representatives are supposed to represent those will of the people that he/she serves. If out-of-state money is allowed in supporting these races, then it should be allowed in propositions as well. 2) I disagree with the statement that this proposition would not have had an impact on the daily lives of other states. First, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution has been used by those against gay marriage as a reason to be against gay marriage in any state, because their state would be forced to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage license even if their state doesn't support the practice (this fear was alleviated with the Defense of Marriage Act, but if the Supreme Court ever decides to hear a case dealing with its constitutionality, who knows). Second, either a positive or negative result could have created an impetus for similar measures around the country. With the passage of Prop 8, does anyone really believe that the gay marriage issue is going to be debated and have it be a close debate? If Californians banned gay marriage, what does it say for the rest of the country? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 5, 2008 20:53:17 GMT -5
On other notes: I guess Stevens winning means the beginning of Palin's senate career. Speaking of provisional senators who replaces Obama and Biden in the senate? I'd guess Jesse Jackson Jr. would get the Illinois nod but I don't know enough about Delaware politics to know who would be targeted there (Delaware does have a democratic governor right?) Beau Biden will be the next senator from Delaware. There's a complication because he will be deploying to Iraq for a tour of duty, but he will probably become the senator once his tour is over. See here: ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ikXdkhGpxM9rLnLYzrmagNZhJMIAD948GVN82I agree that Beau Biden will be the next Senator from DE. I don't believe that Jackson Jr. is a foregone conclusion in IL. Schakowsky (sp?) is believed to be in the running as well and has a considerable following. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 5, 2008 20:56:02 GMT -5
Right, marriages are in front of god. Signing a paper as a matter of law is a civil union regardless of who signs it. No, it's marriage in both cases - in our lifetime no one has ever had a problem with secular humanists getting married in front of a courthouse, or someone getting an Internet certification to allow them to perform marriages, or a captain of a ship performing marriages. In all of these cases, the people receive a Marriage Certificate, not a civil union certificate, and God is not involved. Gloria Allred is already mounting her legal challenge of Prop 8 - it is not going to survive two years in California, whether it's overthrown by courts or whether it takes another Proposition during a midterm election to repeal it. LDS can try as hard as it want to fight gay marriage in California in order to prevent having to face it in Utah, but they are wasting money and making enemies. They are coming out of this with a bit of a black eye and no political cover - I'm not sure how many times they are going to want to fight this when they can't even get people like Steve Young to support their stance. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 20:59:05 GMT -5
I just don't understand why non-Californians cared so much about a proposition that never would have had any impact on their daily lives anyway. It's not like donating to another state's senator, for instance, who would have a national impact. 2 Points: 1) Governors, senators, representatives are supposed to represent those will of the people that he/she serves. If out-of-state money is allowed in supporting these races, then it should be allowed in propositions as well. 2) I disagree with the statement that this proposition would not have had an impact on the daily lives of other states. First, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution has been used by those against gay marriage as a reason to be against gay marriage in any state, because their state would be forced to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage license even if their state doesn't support the practice (this fear was alleviated with the Defense of Marriage Act, but if the Supreme Court ever decides to hear a case dealing with its constitutionality, who knows). Second, either a positive or negative result could have created an impetus for similar measures around the country. With the passage of Prop 8, does anyone really believe that the gay marriage issue is going to be debated and have it be a close debate? If Californians banned gay marriage, what does it say for the rest of the country? I never said out-of-state money shouldn't be allowed for propositions. I said several times, that if you tried to limit out-of-state donations it would be a violation of freedom of speech. I'm just saying in this case, I find it sad and pathetic that MOST of the money for a state's proposition, almost 80%, came from outside of the state. I know there's nothing anyone can do about it. As for impact on other states, sure, maybe other states would have followed suit if California had shot down the ban. But not many, and not for a long time. And the states that donated in big numbers to Yes on Prop 8 are the states that would be last to allow gay marriage/gay civil unions anyway. As for the Defense of Marriage Act, yes, I understand that many states were concerned about recognizing other states' marriages, and that's part of why it was passed, but I highly doubt that's going to be up for review any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 5, 2008 21:03:34 GMT -5
On other notes: I guess Stevens winning means the beginning of Palin's senate career. Speaking of provisional senators who replaces Obama and Biden in the senate? I'd guess Jesse Jackson Jr. would get the Illinois nod but I don't know enough about Delaware politics to know who would be targeted there (Delaware does have a democratic governor right?) Beau Biden will be the next senator from Delaware. There's a complication because he will be deploying to Iraq for a tour of duty, but he will probably become the senator once his tour is over. See here: ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ikXdkhGpxM9rLnLYzrmagNZhJMIAD948GVN82Beau Biden is a safe bet. I don't think Jackson Jr. is a foregone conclusion. Schakowsky (sp?) is very popular in IL and appears to be in the running. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Nov 5, 2008 21:21:42 GMT -5
Right, marriages are in front of god. Signing a paper as a matter of law is a civil union regardless of who signs it. No, it's marriage in both cases - in our lifetime no one has ever had a problem with secular humanists getting married in front of a courthouse, or someone getting an Internet certification to allow them to perform marriages, or a captain of a ship performing marriages. In all of these cases, the people receive a Marriage Certificate, not a civil union certificate, and God is not involved. Gloria Allred is already mounting her legal challenge of Prop 8 - it is not going to survive two years in California, whether it's overthrown by courts or whether it takes another Proposition during a midterm election to repeal it. LDS can try as hard as it want to fight gay marriage in California in order to prevent having to face it in Utah, but they are wasting money and making enemies. They are coming out of this with a bit of a black eye and no political cover - I'm not sure how many times they are going to want to fight this when they can't even get people like Steve Young to support their stance. I know what they call the certificate TC. I'm saying it is more accurately described as a civil union because it's the part that is sanctioned by the state. Part of the problem here is people call the process of getting a license signed and having a ceremony by the same name. Those two have nothing to do with each other. One is for the state's records and the other is however anyone wants to celebrate the event, religious or otherwise. |
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 21:41:25 GMT -5
No, it's marriage in both cases - in our lifetime no one has ever had a problem with secular humanists getting married in front of a courthouse, or someone getting an Internet certification to allow them to perform marriages, or a captain of a ship performing marriages. In all of these cases, the people receive a Marriage Certificate, not a civil union certificate, and God is not involved. Gloria Allred is already mounting her legal challenge of Prop 8 - it is not going to survive two years in California, whether it's overthrown by courts or whether it takes another Proposition during a midterm election to repeal it. LDS can try as hard as it want to fight gay marriage in California in order to prevent having to face it in Utah, but they are wasting money and making enemies. They are coming out of this with a bit of a black eye and no political cover - I'm not sure how many times they are going to want to fight this when they can't even get people like Steve Young to support their stance. I know what they call the certificate TC. I'm saying it is more accurately described as a civil union because it's the part that is sanctioned by the state. Part of the problem here is people call the process of getting a license signed and having a ceremony by the same name. Those two have nothing to do with each other. One is for the state's records and the other is however anyone wants to celebrate the event, religious or otherwise. Yes, but if all the states call that license a MARRIAGE license, doesn't that imply that the word marriage has more than one meaning? That it is NOT just a religious term? |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 5, 2008 22:07:44 GMT -5
Just a few thoughts:
1. As California goes, so goes the nation. Utahans were well within their rights to press to defeat a bill in California, especially when full faith and credit would require that marriage is recognized out of state. And like it or not, the Catholic Church does not like homosexuality (I heard Arlington's bishop tonight rail that marriage was "one man and one woman, and only one man and one woman").
2. Virginia was hobbled by Jim Gilmore. Usually a nominee for US Senator has minions and a network who put up signs and get out the vote for the faithful (which usually has a positive halo effect for other candidates). That didn't happen, at least in Northern Virginia.
3. The Republican party lost some dead weight. It's now time to move to the next generation, and begin to determine the party's stances on key issues (oh, you laugh).
4. Democrats will control the House, Senate, and the Presidency for the next two years. If things aren't better in that time frame, you know whom to blame.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 5, 2008 22:29:38 GMT -5
1. As California goes, so goes the nation. Utahans were well within their rights to press to defeat a bill in California, especially when full faith and credit would require that marriage is recognized out of state. And like it or not, the Catholic Church does not like homosexuality (I heard Arlington's bishop tonight rail that marriage was "one man and one woman, and only one man and one woman"). If the Republican party REALLY believes in states rights and the ability of states to decide these things for themselves - like we've heard Bush claim since 2000 on a variety of hot topic issues, then that reasoning doesn't hold any water. The LDS Church just painted a giant bullseye on Utah with this campaign, and I'm not sure why gay rights activists wouldn't go after Utah after overturning Prop 8 under the same reasoning (why fight it in our home state when we can fight it in Utah?). |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 5, 2008 22:36:12 GMT -5
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Nov 5, 2008 22:45:58 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 5, 2008 22:59:18 GMT -5
As California goes, so goes the nation. Wait, when has this ever been true? Or did I miss the Gore and Kerry presidencies? |
|
