July 22nd, 2011 
Admin Question by Universalist: What are your thoughts on California amending it’s constitution to take away rights from people?
Don’t constitutional amendments usually guarantee rights to people, not take them away?
There’s something not right about that.
Yes they had the right to marry in Cali, now they do not. What do you call it when you had a right before but now you don’t? It’s called having a right taken away.
Best answer:
Answer by T-Bone
To answer your question;
It is the will of the people.
Give your answer to this question below!
Posted in 
Tags: 
I think it’s what the majority of voters wanted. It’s called “Democracy-In-Action.”
Passing Prop 8 did not take any rights away from anyone! Gays can still enter into civil unions and be entitled to the same rights as married people. The government should not be sticking its nose into spiritual matters; isn’t that what you libs are always whining about?
The only reason gays want to get married is to undermine our cultural traditions and to corrupt the minds of our children when they teach immoral behavior in our schools!
I voted yes on 8!
This is what happens when you make an end-around…
This is a clear example of Tyranny of the Majority.
marriage is not in the constitution (when Bush wanted this added he was voted down). nothing was taken away, the right was just not given.
you spoke of a constitutional right, that was never given.
and actually the people of California voted twice against the right (under state law), a judge overturned the people’s vote on the ref., which is still legally questionable. certainly a battle ahead.
T-Bone is right.
Which is why the founders built in all the checks and balances and only gave white male landowners the right to vote. To keep the majority from tyrannizing the minority.
It’s much better to leave these issues to legislatures, all these voter initiatives are “democratic” but they subvert our elected officials. We elect them to be experts on these matters and to deal with stuff we don’t have the time for or the knowledge of because we’re busy working, raising families, etc…
What right do you speak of – surely not the “right” to redefine marriage.
Usually.
The Cali supreme court could find the Proposition unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause within the California constitution. You would have to vote to cross out THAT section in order to uphold this position. Not sure if a case would have to be put forth or if they could do that themselves.
I never understood why they would want to marry in the first place.
Thank God California finally did something right. May the Lord shed His blessings upon them. We always hear of the bad side to California, this is a very good side.
I don’t think that not forcing people to recognize gay marriages as equal with traditional marriages could be termed “taking rights away.” It could actually be termed, “ensuring the rights of conscience and liberty” to not equate the two. How can someone have a “right” to force someone else to accept gay marriage? This amendment just ensured that no one would be forced to recognize and applaud something they disagreed with. Sort of like the amendment that outlawed slavery. I would not agree with slavery. I don’t think it violates anyone’s rights if an amendment is passed that makes it so I do not have to accept the practice of slavery in my nation.
Similarly, it does not violate anyone’s rights to pass an amendment that makes it so I do not have to accept the practice of gay marriage in my nation (state whatever, im not from CA)
I think it’s mean-spirited and serves no real purpose. But then, I would assume that voting “yes for marriage” as billboards kept advising me to do would mean “yes” for anyone who wants to get married. It meant the opposite, however – let’s keep people from getting married. The whole thing is very strange to me.
Gee, how about an amendment to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other? Oh I guess THAT sort of prejudice is wrong, huh? It wasn’t considered outrageous 50 years ago. The anti-gay folks are just behind the times. Again. The time has come for adults to decide for themselves who to marry.
As someone who lives in CA and actually voted on this . . . . .Prop 8 didn’t “take” anything away. This was more about semantics than anything else.
Its only a matter of time before some activist judges try to repeal this AGAIN.
Under the domestic partnership act, Gay couples have all the legal benefits as hetero couples. FYI.
It’s a shame.
For the first time in the history of this country, state constitutions (and as some would have it, the US Constitution) are being used to limit the rights of individuals and not guarantee them.
What people fail to understand is that constitutions are not written to follow the will of the majority but to guarantee the rights of the minority. Take some time and read some of the Constitutional Papers (the blue print for the US Constitution) and you will see what their true intent was.
Personally (I am not homosexual by the way) but I fail to see the relevance of the location of someones sex organs in determining who you love or what possible threat gay marriages pose to heterosexual marriages.
You live your life the way you see fit and let someone else live theirs the way they choose as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
Get used to it the worst is yet to come!