Prop. 8 actually established FOUR classes of Californians, with no rational basis

From Ted Olson's opening statement in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 1/11/2010 (see pp. 43-44 of the transcript below): \"Proposition 8 enacted [...] an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting of four separate and distinct classes of citizens: First, heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers, and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry. [...] Second, 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, are allowed to remain married. But if they divorce or if they lose their spouse by widowhood, they can't remarry. And, third, thousands of same-sex couples, as of the first of the year, who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, those marriages are now valid and recognized in California. [...] But, fourth, the fourth category are the people that we represent, the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of other Californian same-sex couples who are prohibited by Proposition 8 from marrying.\"|~|#|^|!|ht

Back to LivingVote.org

This is a minimally functional text-only version of this debate. To be able to see the full debate and voting information, or to vote yourself or add arguments, you must use the Flash version of the website. Please make sure javascript is enabled and that you have the latest version of the flash player


California Prop 8, which states \"only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California\" should stand.
          Children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father.
                    The American Association of Pediatrics disagrees with this opinion.
                    As president of a group promoting discredited \"ex-gay\" therapy, A. Dean Byrd distorts psychological research to conform to his anti-gay bias.
          Public schools will have to teach children about gay marriage
                    Public schools will still have discretion in what they teach.
                    If schools teach about same-sex marriage... GOOD!
          Prop 8 protects the free expression of religion
                    So do the Gays
                    Civil marriage is not a religious institution
                    Separation of church and state: a particular religion's beliefs should not control secular law
                    Prop 8 denies religious protection
                    Marriage is a civil act
          Not being allowed to marry has financial consequences
                    Prop 8 will not take away financial rights, protections or benefits.
                              Benefits of domestic partnerships does not extend to a federal level
                              Federal Defense of Marriage Act
          CA Prop 8 is discrimination
                    Prop 8 does not take away any rights
                              Equality in civil marriage does not \"redefine\" or weaken anyone else's marriage.
                              Being GLBT is not chosen or a \"lifestyle\"
                              Prop 8 denies the right to marriage among other things
                    There is nothing to be against
                              supporting facts..?
                              Marriage has already been radically redefined, for the better.
                    Prop. 8 actually established FOUR classes of Californians, with no rational basis
                    Prop 8 discriminates against more than just \"gay couples\".
          Gay couples deserve the dignity of marriage as well.
                    Gay couples deserve to be happy
                    Marriage should not exist as a government function, period.
          Same-sex marriage is GOOD for the economy and employment
                    Brings in more jobs