# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/341 "2008-11-07T05:42:51Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > The fact that you see hope in ignorance, bigotry and a mingling of church and state well beyond what it should be says all I ever need to know about you. Let’s say I’m wrong. (One of us obviously is.) Why do you think there exists for you and others to demonize me or my position? I think you cannot entertain being wrong because it questions so much of who you are. In other words, the cost to you being wrong is quite great. For me it’s an issue of what is the best policy for society. What should be the age for drinking alcohol, what should the speed limit be, should we outlaw burning the flag, abortion, etc. Is it possible to argue the position and detach yourself from it? Seriously. And ask this not just of you, but of all those who have thrown out accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, etc. I’d really like to know, because this adolescent righteousness is getting really really old. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/342 "2008-11-07T05:49:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say I’m wrong. (One of us obviously is.) Why do you think there exists for you and others to demonize me or my position? I think you cannot entertain being wrong because it questions so much of who you are. In other words, the cost to you being wrong is quite great. For me it’s an issue of what is the best policy for society. What should be the age for drinking alcohol, what should the speed limit be, should we outlaw burning the flag, abortion, etc. Is it possible to argue the position and detach yourself from it? Seriously. And ask this not just of you, but of all those who have thrown out accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, etc. I’d really like to know, because this adolescent righteousness is getting really really old. I’m about to go to bed, because it is 12:44 AM and I have to get up at 7. But let me ask you this, in parting: _Why_ is preserving the word “marriage” the best policy for society? Is it because you’re trying to encourage people who marry to stay together? Is it to strengthen marriage as we know it? Wouldn’t those goals be better served by doing something about easy divorce and adultery than by denying an entire class of people access to the institution? What is it about LGBTetc people marrying that would cause it to be a bad policy decision? I have not yet heard you explain _why_. I’ve heard you assert that denying LGBTetc access to marriage would be the best policy, but I have not heard you explain WHY that would be. And what is “adolescent righteousness” to you is “trying to hang onto equality by our fingernails” to us. Your supercilious, condescending attitude toward us in our hour of mourning isn’t exactly covering you in glory, either. I would also submit that it’s facile to accuse us of not being able to detach ourselves from this and argue it objectively. There is no objectivity in this for us. This is affecting US! It doesn’t do shit to you…of COURSE you can argue your end of it objectively and detachedly. There is nothing in this situation that will strip you of basic equality and civil rights. You are completely unaffected by this. Try to remember that Prop 8 was basically over half of the population of a fairly liberal state telling us that we’re not worth much in their eyes. What really hurts is that LGBTetc people have been HEAVILY active in the Civil Rights movement and in immigration issues. We have stood behind and supported African-Americans and Hispanics in every single one of their struggles. And when it’s our turn, as a group, to need support, they aren’t there. They’re actually helping the other side, by 70% and 53%, respectively. That knife in our back hurts. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/343 "2008-11-07T05:49:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It may happen and I’ll live with it if it does. But I think it is a bad idea so I argue against it. should I act differently. I realize you don’t agree with my position, but shouldn’t I engage and hope to help steer the country in a direction I think is most beneficial? And I wouldn’t be so sure about the future. The article linked to above gives me hope. What could actually be BAD about it? I cannot conceive of how gay people being married does you material harm. It does not harm my marriage either-- it is utterly irrelevant to my marriage IMO, as my marriage concerns only me, my husband, and the government who confers benefits on me for it. I don’t see how it concerns you in the slightest. I would love for you to articulate how it does. What harms marriage is adultery and divorce, and those are both perfectly legal and no one is doing a damn thing to prevent them from happening free from interference from the government. Really, I’d love for you to enumerate the meaningful, material harm that gay marriage would do to you. Not metaphysically, not philosophically, but in concrete terms. I am really listening and want to hear it. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/344 "2008-11-07T05:50:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > For me it’s an issue of what is the best policy for society. Funny, that’s the issue it is for me too. The best policy for a healthy society is for it to evolve. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/345 "2008-11-07T05:55:46Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Funny, that’s the issue it is for me too. > > The best policy for a healthy society is for it to evolve. I don’t understand the people who are so godawful FRIGHTENED every time there’s a change in society. That’s the core of this, is my belief. I can’t see any actual logical reason other than fear of change. The proffered reason for **magellan01** literally just looks transparent to me…there’s nothing there. I can’t see anything…it’s like a cloud of smoke. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/346 "2008-11-07T05:57:32Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > No, I couldn’t. Because I don’t believe in argument by tradition. I don’t believe that something can only be one way forever because it’s been one way in the past. I don’t believe in your argument…it looks like smoke and mirrors to me. > > Simply put, I find your argument to be all but nonexistent. Or, at the very least, completely irrelevant. Tradition is doing things the way dead people did them. I’m not a dead person. Life is change. I can’t even imagine how or why someone would tie themselves so tightly to “the way things have always been” that they would throw people they claim to otherwise support under the bus on this issue. > > We’re looking at this from positions so far apart that neither one of us is ever going to see things the way the other one does. But as far as I’m concerned, I’m right and you’re wrong, because at least my position on it doesn’t deny anyone anything. Okay. Fair enough. But I would just quibble with your claim that your position doesn’t deny anyone anything. I think it deprives individuals, and society at large, of holding onto the concept of an institution they hold sacred, religiously and secularly, if you’ll forgive the oxymoron. Also, your latest post excepted, the attitude of the argument denies something else, as well. You deny people the right to express and opinion and simply be wrong. The demonization of the other side is really a cheap, childish tactic, especially with an opinion that is quite prevalent. Pedophilia is an extreme and repugnant position that might deserve derision. A position like the one one that hold regarding gays—wanting to extend ALL legal rights to them, save marriage—not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/347 "2008-11-07T05:58:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me ask you a question: if I paid you one million dollars, could you give a good argument for my position? No one can; there is none. Not for a million, not for a billion, not for a trillion. It’s pure bigotry; pure malice, and has no justification. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/348 "2008-11-07T05:59:31Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I don’t understand the people who are so godawful FRIGHTENED every time there’s a change in society. That’s the core of this, is my belief. I can’t see any actual logical reason other than fear of change. Yet, I favor every extending every other right to gays. Imagine that. ---
**Author:** ![Bam\_Boo\_Gut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8c91f0/32.png) [@Bam\_Boo\_Gut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bam_Boo_Gut)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/349 "2008-11-07T05:59:40Z")
There’s nothing naturally mognonomus about the human race - if there was was we wouldn’t find people getting married over and over again. Upthread a couple of people have stated that their mum/friend whoever doesn’t know any gay people. Yes they do - it’s your butcher, your baker, your candlestick maker, your doctor, your lawyer, your merchant, your thief. 35 years ago my primary school teacher at my English Church of England school was gay - and the butcher had a statue of Eros in his front garden. It was normal then and it’s normal now, it’s not deviant and nor has it ever been. The Catholic nuns who strapped my mothers left hand behind her back were deviant. There’s nothing sacred about marriage - it’s a contract between **two people.** State of California voters- get yer nose out of peoples love lives you censorious fucks. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/350 "2008-11-07T06:02:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yet, I favor every extending every other right to gays. Imagine that. And I should believe you because ? You’ve already demonstrated you are scum; I see no reason to think you have enough principles to object to lying. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/351 "2008-11-07T06:06:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay. Fair enough. But I would just quibble with your claim that your position doesn’t deny anyone anything. I think it deprives individuals, and society at large, of holding onto the concept of an institution they hold sacred, religiously and secularly, if you’ll forgive the oxymoron. Well, people have to come to grips with the fact the world isn’t flat and they won’t fall off the edge. Some people have to get over their fear and fly on an airplane. Is it really so scary for you? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/352 "2008-11-07T06:25:40Z")
Way back in 1849, California held a constitutional convention. One of the debates at the convention was whether California should adopt a community property system for marriages or a common law property system. California had inherited the community property system from Mexico, but many people who had immigrated from the Eastern US desired to implement a common law system (which was in use pretty much everywhere but the southwest and Texas). Under the traditional common law system, at the time, all property owned by the wife became joint property with the husband when she married him. Under the community property system, property which the wife owned prior to marriage would remain her separate property. There was a rancorous debate at the convention about which system to choose. Here are excerpts from the debate. Notice how many of the arguments parallel the arguments made in this thread. > [@](#): > > _Mr. Lippitt._ … I think that we tread upon dangerous ground when we make invasion upon that system [the common law] that has prevailed among ourselves and our ancestors for hundreds and hundreds of years… > > _Mr. Botts._… I think it [community property] is radically wrong. In my opinion, there is no provision so beautiful in the common law, so admirable and beneficial, as that which regulates this sacred contract between man and wife. Sir, the God of nature made woman frail, lovely, and dependent; and such the common law pronounces her. Nature did what the common law has done–put her under the protection of man; and it is the object of this clause to withdraw her from that protection, and put her under the protection of the [community property] law… This proposition, I believe, is calculated to produce dissention and strife in families… There must be a head and there must be a master in every household; and I believe this plan by which you propose to make the wife independent of the husband, is contrary to the law and provisions of nature–contrary to all the wisdom which we have derived from experience. This doctrine of women’s rights, is the doctrine of those mental hermaphrodites. Abby Folsom, Fanny Wright, and the rest of that tribe… It is often the case that the union takes place between a man of little or no property, and a woman of immense landed estate. But do you mean to say that, under such circumstances, the husband must remain a dependent upon his wife? A dependent upon her bounty? Would you make Prince Alberts of us all? > > _Mr. Lippitt._ … If… the wife is of that class which does not yield [with regards to property decisions], I think it is evidence that the very existence of such a right would only tend to increase and foment every dissension, no matter how trifling the cause may have been in the first place… I have lived in Paris, and I was assured by respectable inhabitants there, that it was an ascertained fact, that two-thirds of the married couples in Paris were living separately… If there is any country in the world which represents the spectacle of domestic disunion more than another, it is France, where this principle [of community property] is carried most completely into effect. > > _Mr. Dimmick._ … Women now possess in [California] the [community property] right which is proposed to be introduced in the Constitution. Blot it out, and introduce the common law, and what do you do? The wife who owns her separate property loses it the moment the common law prevails… At the time the common law was introduced, woman occupied a position far inferior to that which she now occupies. As the world has advanced in civilization, her social position has been the subject of increased consideration, and by general consent of all intelligent men, she is now regarded as entitled to many of the rights in her peculiar sphere that were formerly considered as belonging only to man. This part of the common law is one of those portions belonging to the dark ages… We are told, Mr. Chairman, that woman is a frail being; that she is formed by nature to obey and ought to be protected by her husband, who is her natural protector. That is true, sir, but is there anything in all this to impair her right of property which she possessed prior to entering the marriage contract? > > _Mr. Jones._ … Are we to adopt laws which make man a despot of woman, and give woman no right because she has no representation?.. Sir, the marriage contract is a civil contract–not a sacrament… The law must prescribe the rights of the contracting parties. > > _Mr. Botts._ … “By marriage,” says Balckstone, “the husband and wife are one person in law.” … This is but another mode of repeating the declaration of the Holy Book, that they are flesh of one flesh, and bone of bone. That is the principle of common law, and it is the principle of the Bible. It is a principle, Mr. Chairman, not only of poetry, but of wisdom, of truth, and of justice. Sir, it is supposed by the common law that the woman says to the man in the beautiful language of Ruth: “Whither thou goes I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” This, sir, is the character of that holy ceremony which [other] gentleman have considered as a mere money copartnership. Sir, it is this view of that contract that has produced that peculiar and lovely English word _home_, which it has been said no other people of the face of the earth know… Bear that in mind, you who love your homes… > > J. Ross Browne, Report of the Debates in the Convention of California on The Formation of the State Constitution in September and October 1849; 257-269 (1850). I think some people in this thread are the reincarnation of the esteemed Mr. Botts. Somehow, California survived adopting a community property system, even though it was predicted the foundations of marriage would be destroyed! It’s funny how when it comes to extending rights to anybody, the foundation of marriage is always threatened. Bonus French bashing, too! ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/353 "2008-11-07T06:27:28Z")
> [@Dante](#): > > I’m going to bow out of this conversation, because frankly, **mhendo** argues it better than I could, and because talking to people like **magellan01** makes me feel slightly ill. Literally. Agreed. He has shown himself, once again, to be nothing more than a fuckwit. An ignorant, self contradicting, hateful fuckwit, and nothing more. ☹ There are too many like him. He’s just barely smart enough to be a troll; the others are blind and/or ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/354 "2008-11-07T06:31:01Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I’m about to go to bed, because it is 12:44 AM and I have to get up at 7. But let me ask you this, in parting: > > _Why_ is preserving the word “marriage” the best policy for society? Is it because you’re trying to encourage people who marry to stay together? Is it to strengthen marriage as we know it? Wouldn’t those goals be better served by doing something about easy divorce and adultery than by denying an entire class of people access to the institution? What is it about LGBTetc people marrying that would cause it to be a bad policy decision? > > I have not yet heard you explain _why_. I’ve heard you assert that denying LGBTetc access to marriage would be the best policy, but I have not heard you explain WHY that would be. Here’s my thinking: I feel that the _ideal_ situation for a child is to be raised by a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution that helps foster that result. It is in society’s best interest to encourage the ideal situation for the raising of children. Therefore, it is not wrong for society to show a preference for the institution in its traditional form. In fact, I’d say they have a responsibility to do so. At the same time, we have a group of people who are gay. There is a history of them being treated badly and not being able to enjoy basic rights. It is incumbent upon society to remedy this. They have a right to enjoy the same legal protections and privileges as the straight majority. Some of the desires this group would like to enjoy conflict with what society at large wants. The question is how can the minority enjoy the legal rights and realize their desires when they are in conflict with the wishes of the populace. As far as legal rights, they should be granted. As far as desires, they should be considered, as should the conflicting desires of the majority. Additionally, to what degree should the desires of a small group be allowed to undermine, even in a small way, something that society deems is in its best interest to retain? I see it as a good compromise to afford gays all the legal rights, while denying them the opportunity to “marry”. This compromise would extend to gays all the legal benefits and privileges of marriage, yet would allow the term marriage to convey what is viewed (by some) as the ideal type of relationship for the raising of children, which society has a vested interest in. I think this this would also be an “easier” sell to the larger population. If so, that would go a long way to helping dissolve existing bigotry toward gays. > [@jayjay](#): > > And what is “adolescent righteousness” to you is “trying to hang onto equality by our fingernails” to us. Your supercilious, condescending attitude toward us in our hour of mourning isn’t exactly covering you in glory, either. Uh, you may want to review my initial posts in this thread. The first one is on page 4, with my first opinion offered on page 5. > [@jayjay](#): > > I would also submit that it’s facile to accuse us of not being able to detach ourselves from this and argue it objectively.\*\* There is no objectivity in this for us.\*\* This is affecting US! It doesn’t do shit to you…of COURSE you can argue your end of it objectively and detachedly. There is nothing in this situation that will strip you of basic equality and civil rights. You are completely unaffected by this. Try to remember that Prop 8 was basically over half of the population of a fairly liberal state telling us that we’re not worth much in their eyes. > > What really hurts is that LGBTetc people have been HEAVILY active in the Civil Rights movement and in immigration issues. We have stood behind and supported African-Americans and Hispanics in every single one of their struggles. And when it’s our turn, as a group, to need support, they aren’t there. They’re actually helping the other side, by 70% and 53%, respectively. That knife in our back hurts. (bolding mine) Do you see how that might not be helpful, and frustrating, in a discussion? And I take no pleasure in anyone’s pain. I did not come in here and gloat. In fact, I stayed out of it for quite some time. And when I did come in, it was to offer a counter opinion, which I hoped would be viewed as helpful. I should have known better by now, I guess. But I reject the notion that some of that demonizing the other side is justifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/355 "2008-11-07T06:31:03Z")
Just to be clear Magellan, you think it’s ok for us to have all the rights of marriage but not the name. Basically you want us to compromise our position. However you’re not willing to compromise, even to the point of donating money to groups that want to take away all of those rights. Is that about right? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/356 "2008-11-07T06:34:32Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Well, people have to come to grips with the fact the world isn’t flat and they won’t fall off the edge. Some people have to get over their fear and fly on an airplane. > > Is it really so scary for you? If someone with your intellect is doing the flying, petrified. Then again, if someone with your intellect is driving a donkey I’m scared. You are too dumb to make this worth it. I’ll continue with those smarter than you. In other words, everyone. I am done with you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/357 "2008-11-07T06:37:04Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Just to be clear Magellan, you think it’s ok for us to have all the rights of marriage but not the name. Basically you want us to compromise our position. > > However you’re not willing to compromise, even to the point of donating money to groups that want to take away all of those rights. > > Is that about right? I am more than willing to compromise. If there is a ballot measure to give homosexuals the complete set of rights enjoyed by straights, save marriage, I will vote for and donate to that cause. Does that answer your question? And please keep in mind, I do not agree that there exists a “right” to marry someone of the same sex. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/358 "2008-11-07T06:38:19Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > Agreed. He has shown himself, once again, to be nothing more than a fuckwit. An ignorant, self contradicting, hateful fuckwit, and nothing more. > > ☹ There are too many like him. He’s just barely smart enough to be a troll; the others are blind and/or ignorant. Oh yeah, stupid head. You’re a Stupid Head!!! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/359 "2008-11-07T06:38:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If someone with your intellect is doing the flying, petrified. Then again, if someone with your intellect is driving a donkey I’m scared. > > You are too dumb to make this worth it. I’ll continue with those smarter than you. In other words, everyone. I am done with you. Can’t address the question again, I see. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/360 "2008-11-07T06:38:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I am more than willing to compromise. If there is a ballot measure to give homosexuals the complete set of rights enjoyed by straights, save marriage, I will vote for and donate to that cause. Does that answer your question? > > And please keep in mind, I do not agree that there exists a “right” to marry someone of the same sex. That doesn’t answer my question. You want us to compromise on marriage but are unwilling to compromise even if it means we don’t get those rights. That’s the sense I’m getting from you. You’ve already said you are fine with the rights, so what you said is not really a compromise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=19)