San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

62% no so far, way to go piggies!

I have no clue why it would be any of my business who someone else marries. I mean really.

Sample size of less than 20. Yep, that's a scientific representation.

Vote no on all the propositions. Ballot initiatives are a really lousy way of doing government and the sooner they stop succeeding the better.

More money spent on weddings and divorces can only be a good thing for the economy. Let everyone enjoy the bliss that is matramony.

When asked if he was against gay marriages Fred Thompson replied... "I'm against anyone getting married!". Gotta love that reasoning. Anything that has a greater than 50 percent chance of failing isn't that sacared. I bet in 20 years we find out the amount of succesful marriages in the gay community far exceeds the straight per capita.

I for one will not deny someone this...

Equality is Equality.

Oink,

CE

I refuse to vote yes on anything that has "ELIMINATES RIGHT" in the title, regardless of what comes after those two words.

Thank you Piggingtons!

My partner and I just voted early, both of us against Prop. 8.

Please think twice before supporting something that takes away the rights of others. Please.

Even the chosen one, your liberator, and his right hand man Joe the Senator are anti-gay marriage.

Yeah, Barack and Joe aren't on the same page as some on the gay marriage issue, but they are certainly more supportive of gay rights than the GOP.

Also, they both oppose the national version of Prop. 8, changing the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. So if gay people are allowed to continue to marry here, at least the federal government won't stand in the way.

Sorry, double post.

Mark does have a point or two.

My sentiments exactly.

This is exactly why Jerry Brown rewrote the admendment that was origionally submitted (ie the signatures were collected for). Not that I am gonna vote for prop 8, but we need to recognize when we are being manipulated politically.

I agree with Fred Thompson. Everyone should have the opportunity to see just how blissful marriage can be at times. Especially when it's time to go shopping for a home. Ahhh... Pure heaven!

The divorce attorneys are rejoicing.

i think gays should have rights together if they want. but calling it a marriage is going to far.

marriage is for a man and a woman.
(Sorry if you don't feel the same way)

i don't really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8

"i don't really have anything against gays,unless its put in my face like prop 8"

Proposition 8 was not put in your face "by gays". It was put in your face by the "Christian" Right. The courts made the decision to allow gay marriage and the right is trying to force their idea of morality on my life, and that of others. Propisition 8, if passed, will amend the state constitution to outlaw what is now legal - gay marriage.

Gay marriage has been legal since the spring and the world hasn't come to an end. Can't people just live and let live?

I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus.

"Civil unions" are demeaning. If something is recognized as "marriage" by the state for one segment of society, then it must be "marriage" for everyone.

This is a simple matter of the First Amendment. The 1st Amendment forbids the government from favoring Christianity over other religious beliefs (or non-beliefs). Since I am not a Christian, I do not find homosexuality a "sin". There is no rational, non-dogmatic argument against equal marriage rights for everyone.

"I agree. Gay people should have something separate but equal to marriage. Kind of like riding on the back of the bus."

Props underdog.
That is the single most illustrative and sound-bite friendly way of describing it.

I will use that tomorrow.

I was called by the no on 8 campaign.

I decided after reading some of the stupid things here and elsewhere (honestly, blogs are much more willing to spit hate and vitriol than the TV) to accept their invitation to volunteer at their headquarters. Thank you Tucker for helping me to decide.

Looks like I'm in the minority on this site. 'Marriage' isn't a right, it's a definition of a societal relationship--which was originally, and has been throughout cultures to this point referred to a relationship between a man and a woman. I can't understand why same-sex couples have to steal the word marriage and use it to define their relationships when their relationship is NOT the same as a relationship between a man and a woman--simply because it isn't a relationship between a man and a woman. EVERYONE has the right to marry if they choose someone of the opposite gender and EVERYONE has the right to a civil union if they are not inclined to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender. I don't believe it is fair to someone who wants a traditional 'marriage' to have to make a special request to have 'bride' and 'groom' on their wedding certificate because same-sex couples have now required a change to more neutral terminology. Some people do care about societal tradition and definitions, hopefully there are many of these--although I think regardless of the success or failure of Prop8, the lawsuits and contention will continue (hello, doesn't anyone remember the people voted on this already and the judges overulled us). If there are concerns that 'civil union' doesn't mean the same thing as 'marriage', battle on that front and improve the social image for that special relationship to be on the same level of acceptance that marriage has built up through centuries of establishment--but don't try redefine what the word 'marriage' means and call it a 'rights' issue.

whysteal, I kind of admire you for sticking your neck out. Yep, you are in the minority here, and for good reason. Incidentally, was it a typo when you called it "Prod8"? I like that! It is a "prod" into our rights.

I partially agree with you that marriage is a definition, except that the government is in the marriage business and it has a legal recognition. That's why I made the "separate but equal" comment in my earlier post. You say that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Does everyone have the right to be born straight? Or white?

Marriage is a definition, as you say: two people promising themselves to each other for life. Marriage transcends any religion, as most religions have a concept of marriage. Therefore, it is not a gift from the Christian god, as the institution existed before Christianity became a religion. It is not a gift from any other god either, as atheists (like myself) marry for love. It is not a means of procreation, as non-child-bearing couples (like my wife and I) marry for love. There is nothing "sacred" about marriage being a man and a woman, not on religious grounds or child bearing grounds. There is a tradition, maybe, but there was a tradition to enslave people with darker skin at one point. Traditions are often bigoted and misguided and need to be abandoned or amended with more enlightened thought.

Many people who oppose gay marriage say it will take something away from their straight marriage. I'll go the other direction. I want gay marriage to be legal because I think it will add something to my straight marriage. What the world needs now, is love, sweet love.

Marriage as a term and a category has two primary values.

Marriage is a civil union in the eyes of the government.
It is a holy union in the eyes of the faithful.

This is really about bringing parity in terms of the rights of different types of civil unions. I am married. I was married by the chaplain of Caesar's Palace (classy I know). Wife and I set it up online. That marriage is clearly a civil union. No priest does (or probably would) recognize this (though the after-party may have some relevance there) as a holy union.

If all civil unions were treated equally (they're not) this conversation about names would not be happening and the courts would not be involved in the same way.

The fact is that those called "marriage" are treated differently in a way that is unfair. Addressing that unfairness and correcting laws that violate the constitution is the domain of the supreme court.

You can pass any law or referendum you want but the court always the right to make sure you follow the highest law.

And yeah, Whysteal, its a right and we all get equal rights. Its not tradition but tradition seldom trumps the constitution.

dammit underdose quit posting while I am posting. It just makes me (more) redundant.

Although some traditions can be bigoted and misguided, marriage has withstood with its standard definition (between a man and a woman) because it does not meet either one of these categories. Comparisons to slavery are completely disingenuous. It's not the same thing to say 'this word means a certain thing to me and I don't want your definition to make my definition of the word and convention disappear' as it is to say 'you as a person are not equal to me thus I will make you my slave or treat you as inferior'. Civil union DOES offer the same legal basis, so from a legal standpoint the government is in both the marriage and civil union business. I wouldn't ever presume to say that from a legal standpoint one is better than the other (thus my comment if anyone finds differences those should be attacked with vigor).
Just a side note to any No on 8 supporters that are in the groups defacing signs and or public property (houses with spray paint on the garage door, friend of mine had their car keyed with a No message because they had a Yes on 8 bumper sticker)--this doesn't really send a message of love, sweet love to those of us trying to get our message out there and act on an actual right: to free speech. Not exactly my 'definition' of love, sweet love, but I guess it's all about redefining anyway, isn't it.

urbanrealtor: Civil unions in CA do have the same legal rights.
I missed the part of the constitution (USA or CA) that grants the right to 'marriage' without societal definition. Marriage has had changes throughout the history of the USA to actually be MORE restrictive than some historical times(someone better let the polygamists or child-mate-seeking of all gender know their rights are being violated!!!) but the definition of being between a man and a woman has withstood and I hope it will continue to. California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman, judges have overturned that, but this is the chance for people to speak with their vote again. I'm sure the legal challenges will continue from both sides regardless of the outcome of the vote (looking on the bright side, at least a few lawyers can rejoice in job security!!).

I'm opposed to gay marriage int he sense that im opposed to all marriage. the thing I always liekd about gay guysin the old days was they got laid all the time, no minivans. are the days of wine and roses and leather underwear over forever? are gays going to be as dull as the rest of us. still prop 8 is repellent. get a life, people; standing on the street waving yes on prop 8 signs seems kind of small and weird. I'm going to assume from now on that theyre just opposed to gay marriage because they're opposed to all marriage, and that sign-furlers want us all to live more like I remmeber gay guys in the west village in the 70's. Man, I wish i coulda been gay back then , without the prospect of aids. it woulda been awesome. the only downside; you don' get to have sex with women. dammit.

Awesome urbanrealtor. I awoke this morning to my radio alarm clock stating that 4.something percent of the money to fund prop 8 came from N County, including Encinitas. Made me want to move.

LMAO, priceless! It will be entertaining to watch these numbers transposed on election day by the polity. Evidently the majority is not quite ready to legitimize perversion.

I remember explaining abortion to my children when they were young and full of questions, after which my eight year old daughter asked, "Why would they want to do that?" Why indeed.

Legislating from the bench (and other Bushisms):
It is not only the right but the responsibility for courts to overturn laws that violate the state or national constitution. It says so right in the constitution (61% or not).

Right to marriage:
I was referring to equal protection. That is a constitutional right and one of the bases to allow gay unions that can be called "marriage" on paper. You can have a church marriage to multiple people. There is only a restriction on how many people can be in a civil marriage. As far as comparing homosexuality to pederasty, I really think that is despicable on your part whysteal and I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

Amazing the things that people will say and choose to believe when they feel terrified.

What is so terrifying about gay sex? (cause let's face it, that is what this really comes down to). Is it your programing that tells you one will go to hell for it?

Be not afraid.

Out of the body, we do not have gender. We are beings of light who hold both male and female energies at the same time.

Life is so much easier and more joyful when you release your programming and begin to exist in the moment.

I think this is a great example of how people get distracted from real issues.

No kidding, the whole argument reminds me of what a physicist said about the science community accepting new truths.

[Sometimes] a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

--Max Planck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structu...

Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization. Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name (polygamy, beastiality- yes some of them do claim to marry their pets). All of you who vote NO on Prop 8 and want to change the definition of something- you must logically support the cuase for polygamists, 2 men and 3 women, human and animal, or just 1 person marrying themself. If you do not, then you are close minded, hateful and want to deny others theri right to marry anyone(s) or anything they want. Basically, if you are going to call orange green, why not call it purple or white.

Sorry, emotions and whims crack and break against the rocks of logic.

The major emotions that are human...hope, fear and greed. We're headed into fear at this time, it's gaining momentum. Greed is busy being destroyed in the market. How long can hope last after fear is accepted as the norm?

I love fear! It gives the fearless the advantage over most people. Greed and hope keep the competition in the game. What a hassle it is to have competition! Long live fear!!!

Obligatory quote: "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

Even if there were dogs and cats living together, why would that matter to you and your marriage? Isn't your marriage between you, your spouse, and God?

I also wonder if you'd like to outlaw divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Be very afraid of gay people. They want what everyone else wants. That's dangerous! There's only so much marriage to go around, ya know! Plus, this will open the door to all those other people that pose a threat to our world! Pretty soon native americans will want things they shouldnt have, too... like casino's. Oops, too late, the devils got that now, too. Pretty soon catholic preist will want to marry their alter boys! The mind boggles at the endless possibilities.

Damn these freedom things!! They get outta control so darn fast!

Where's CONCHO when we need him?

I notice you didnt respond to the logic of my argument. I never dicussed outlawing anything- stick with the facts- something a lot of people seem to have a hard time doing! Take your emotions out of the equation and focus. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but everyone is so emotionally hysterical- and logic and reason usually goes out the window when that happens.

Issue is changing the definition of something- especially that is fundamental building block of civilization.

You obviously don't know the history of marriage or the definition of civilization for that matter. In ancient greece a wife had less rights the high class prostitutes and was primarily for housekeeping and child rearing. Actually the only instances of "romantic" love noted during this time was between men. Interestingly this is where the democracy was thought of. In Rome for a brief period same sex marriage was permitted by the state. In early Christianity marriage was a private matter and no state was involved later after the state became involved it was more of a proprietary affair and was primarily for making family alliances and building wealth. Definitions have most assuredly changed overtime on many different levels.

Civilization may or may not continue, but it will have nothing to do with gay marriage if it ends and spending energy on this subject takes time away from the issues that very well could end civilization, which there are many.

Actually, thinking about it gay people are valuable contributors to the overpopulation problem which may be one of civilization's biggest enemies at this point. So in that respect they are a saviour of civilization. More breeders we do not need.

That's because the premise of your argument is irrelevant. Who cares if men are marrying men or men are marrying multiple women or if dogs are marrying cats? As long as everyone involved is happy and no rights are being infringed, why does any of that matter?

Can you explain to me how any of the above situations affect you?

arraya

by mentioning the different forms or perversions of something from different peoples thousands of years ago- sorry but it doesn't make your point. Im talking about this country, this people, this constitution, this definition.

If you respond to me- please keep to the facts of my original post. Logic and reason please, please, please. Thank you.

afx

you wrote, Who cares if men are marrying men or men are marrying multiple women or if dogs are marrying cats? As long as everyone involved is happy

Hmmm, yeah I think most people would care. I dont think most people would want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to cats, or welfare to pay for a man with 5 wives and 18 kids- would you?

Please think your comments all the way through.

Rocks of logic!? The fact that you see your mental delusions as logic disturbs me.

This is legalizing marriage for TWO consenting adults. There is nothing LOGICAL about your slippery slope argument. A child cannot consent to marriage. A dog cannot consent to marriage. A horse cannot consent to marriage. It does not open this up to ANY of that.

Your argument has NO logic. First you start with a false premise that marriage between and man and women is the building block of civilization, which is ridiculous on its face then you say a societal norm has a well defined definition. Which it never has and never will because that is the nature of societal norms. They are constantly morphing and changing to new information whether you like it or not, which I have clearly outlined. The burden is on you to show historically how marriage between and man a woman has always been the same from the beginning of time. As well as how changing that could undermine civilization. Let me give you a hint. You can't.

Why would single people want their tax dollars in the form of marriage benefits to go to a man and a woman who are married? Are you married? Are you willing to give up your tax benefits for those people who are single? Why should single people subsidize married peoples' lives?

When you advise people to follow your logic, perhaps you should start by following your own.

ppablo123, for someone who harps on logic and sticking to the arguement...you sure lack a lot of it yourself! You jump to your own conlusions and judgement by mearly stating them like they are fact. When they are your judgements, and not fact or logic at all. By saying a dog has four feet, does everything with four feet now become a dog? According you, it does. So, you lack the most basic of logical cognition capabilities. Two consenting adults. Doesnt sound that hard to me.Not dogs, not cats, not children, not anything else you allude to as well. Before you retort with your usual lack of logic, let me quote your judgements.

"..fundamental building block of civilization."
"Any deviation or perversion of definition of marriage has another name.."

Man, I thought Bush could sound stupid. But I guess the people that voted for him are better at it than even he.

afx

how would you know that I'm not following my own logic if you didn't know what my answers would be to your questions? Also, my answers to those questions would have no ramification to the logic and reason I asked you to follow regarding the argument in my original post.

afx- I dont know how many times I asked to take emotion out of this- now go back and re-read your last statement. It sounds childish- aside from the fact that it doens't bare on the original facts of my argument- you are bringing up entirely different facts- and you still didnt answer any of the previous questions.

You must be a liberal- I can tell by how you think. Not trying to be demeaning, but your idea flow and argumentaion technique is so obscure and jumpy- its just very similar to liberals.

perteb-

you sound like afx. Just because you use the word logic in a sentence- that doens't make you smart or even show you really know what it means, how to use it... your example of the dog is evidence of that. Then you go with the ad hominem attack- yes I must be stupid because you cant comprehend me- WOW- you must be really smart!

What is the building block of civilization. Ask any sociologist (a group of which I used to belong to). Country, state, county, city...person. But a person cant build on their own- here it is doen through family- they grow and multiply. And the family's nuclieaus is man and woman. Again, they grow and multiply.

So there is your sociology lesson for the day- free of charge. (and yes, other forms of relationship have other names)

ppablo,

Each of my retorts has been a response to one of yours.

1) You bring up the marrying of animals which has nothing to do with Prop 8. I point out how this is irrelevant.

2) You bring up tax benefits of marriage, saying it would be unfair for dogs & cats getting tax breaks for being married. I point out that un-married people are already subsidizing married peoples' lives and it is unfair to single people.

3) You call me childish and a liberal - ad hominem, thought I wear the liberal label proudly.

Sounds to me that each time your arguments get shot down your bust out a new premise instead of sticking to the argument at hand.

So lets get back to the original question. Do you support Prop 8 because:

a) You don't want animals to be able to marry someday
b) You don't think it's fair for married people to get tax breaks
c) Civilization will crumble if Prop 8 fails
d) Some other reason (if so, please specify)
e) All of the above

A family can grow just fine without some label "marriage." And if a family's nucleus is a man and woman, does that mean I am not a valid member of society because I was raised by a single mom? Does that make me a second class citizen? There are countless examples of individuals and families that have been successful without marriage. It's not as important to the grand scheme of society as you've been lead to believe. Therefore, a man marrying a man will not have the dire consequences for society that you think.

And I will restate: By your logic we should also outlaw divorce. If marriage is so required for a successful society, we should do our best to prevent the breakdown of marriage. I propose prop 8 in 4 years: Restrict the right of married couples to divorce.