California....Vanguard of Civil Rights

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is my rationale, as well.

Heterosexual marriage is not harmed if homosexuals can get married.

My guess is that, politically speaking, it is in the Church's best interest to keep gay marriage illegal. Once it becomes legal, the Church faces heavier scrutiny for condemining it.

From an operational standpoint, legalized gay marriage does not impede the Church one bit, any more than legalized alcohol, abortions, or stores being open on Sunday. The Church and its members will still go about their business as before.

The Church already condemns homosexuality. I'm not sure that it would face more scrutiny for opposing gay marriage, just because it is legalized. The Church opposes lots of things that are legal.

Whether marriage is harmed or not by gay marriage is debatable. One could argue by changing the very definition of marriage in this way, will lessen the value of the institution as a whole.

One could also argue that gay marriage just further legitimizes a lifestyle that is condemned by God.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.protectmarriage.com/index.php

It probably takes a super-majority. Tough to accomplish. Sound familiar? You better go take a shower now that you've rubbed shoulders with this group.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

says the person who thinks polygamy is evil.

Brilliant. This is like saying says the guy who thinks dog fighting is evil.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I don't think homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. I think it will raise taxes to pay the increase in benefits.

That's the reason I'm an opponent. I'll give myself props for being honest.

What increase in benefits would there be?

"California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support."

[NorCal Cat]

Vanguard of civil rights? I'd say it's more a case of another group of judges over turning the will of the people.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

The Church already condemns homosexuality. I'm not sure that it would face more scrutiny for opposing gay marriage, just because it is legalized. The Church opposes lots of things that are legal.

Whether marriage is harmed or not by gay marriage is debatable. One could argue by changing the very definition of marriage in this way, will lessen the value of the institution as a whole.

One could also argue that gay marriage just further legitimizes a lifestyle that is condemned by God.

What does this mean? It seems like nothing more than a platitude.

How does it lessen the value of a marriage?

If two guys get married in San Diego, the value of your marriage is lessened? How? Gay people in other countries can marry. Are you saying that heterosexual marriages in those countries are less valid or meaningful? Makes no sense, unless I am missing some huge point.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Brilliant. This is like saying says the guy who thinks dog fighting is evil.

Just shows how hypocritical you are. Two men marry? Fine. Two men and one woman marry? EVIL, TERRIBLE, BARBARIC!!!!

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It probably takes a super-majority. Tough to accomplish. Sound familiar? You better go take a shower now that you've rubbed shoulders with this group.

Wrong, it only takes a majority.

What is the process for passing a Constitutional Amendment?

Answer:
Step 1: The official proponents of the ProtectMarriage Amendment provide an official petition proposing the amendment to the voters. The campaign must then obtain over 700,000 valid signatures of registered California voters within just 150 days after the Attorney General issues the Official Title and Summary of the measure.
Step 2: When all the signatures have been gathered, the official proponents submit the signatures gathered in each county to the local elections official to verify the number of valid signatures.
Step 3: Local elections officials report the total number of verified signatures to the Secretary of State. If there are enough valid signatures, the Secretary of State puts the amendment on the next statewide election ballot for a vote.
Step 4: If the amendment receives more than 50% of the vote, it becomes part of the state constitution immediately.

[MikeWaters]

Prop 22 got 61% of the vote, so it is very likely that the constitutional amendment will pass, if the bar is only 50%.

Another case of overreaching, to their own detriment.

[MikeWaters]

Meridian Magazine endorsed the pro-amendent groupl.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/coalitionmembers.php

but no sign of the LDS church.