Yes on California Proposition 8 (2008) Part 1

This was stolen from youtube user BORNTWYCE. The user decided to disallow comments and ratings, so we decided to repost to allow a discussion.

Officially Great Affinity has a non-discrimination policy against those of either sexual orientation, Proposition 8 is against our policy. Great Affinity is officially against proposition 8.

-Unruh Act Protects homosexuals
www.dfeh.ca.gov/about/filebin/UNRUHRALPH_Doc.pdf
http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/51.html

-You CAN opt you children out from any objectionable teachings in school. If you like here is the form
http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Opt-Out-From-PJI.pdf

-Schools do not teach gay marriage
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96032318
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/594383.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/no-prop-8-mormon-scholars/story.aspx?gu...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayschools19-2008oct19,0,6474352.story

Legal Marriage is not about love, spiritual connections, fidelity or morality and none of those words appear in the california family code.
FAMILY.CODE SECTION 300
a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary.
The words, "love", "holy", "god" (without "acts of" in front of it), "sacred" cannot be found in california family law.
In addition marriage does not require monogamy,


==================
Great Affinity is hiring!
Title: Director of Human Resources
Salary: $27,040 Annually
Oversees: All employees, including 1099 contractors, customers, clients, the Prime Director, and department Directors.
Responsibilities: Ensures an effective relationship between the company and it's employees by helping employees with issues involving payroll, management, other employees and other company aspects
Qualifications: Associate of Arts Degree or higher in History, Sociology, Psycology, Human Resources, Management, Business AND/OR Expirence working as a Director, Jr. Director, Assistant, Apprentice or Secretary or assistant thereof.
Applicant must be 16 years or older at time of the first day of work.
Great Affinity does NOT drug test, run employment or education background checks, does not call previous employers, does not run criminal record checks and never discriminates against those who have bad credit.
Reports to: Prime Director Alexander James Frémont
(who is also the Director of the Productions Department)
How to Apply: Submit a resumé by:
*Using the contact form at GreatAffinity.com
*Emailing it to greataffinityandyou@yahoo.com
*Mailing it to AJ Frémont 4616 W Sahara Ave # 102 Las Vegas, NV 89102-3654

Great Affinity is an equal opporotunity employer and does not use race, colour, religion, those over 40, sex or national origin, Religious Creed, Ancestry, Marital Status, Pregnancy, citizenship status (where not required by law), Sexual Orientation, sexual identity, Genetic Information, Lawful use of products off the job, Use of a service animal, The exercising of a right under either federal or state law, Those under 40 but over 21, Those under 21 but over 18 when alcohol and driving are not involved, Those 16 or 17 except where Hazardous duties, alcohol, tobacco or law prohibits.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• gay
• marriage
• proposition
• 2008
• homosexual
• fag
• equal
• same
• sex

[wetdream09]

the people can vote all they fucking like about anything they want, but not the constitution!! you don't mess with that shit to be discriminatory! sorry bigots!

[ofelixdacat]

@Aegius But it still did redefine marriage for the whole entire country. Per the 14th amendment, interracial marriage was now legal in all states, yet a majority of people at the time were against it. Interracial marriage is still legal to this day, & there are millions of interracial couples. Their lives have NO effect on me or anyone else whatsoever, & hasn't caused any catastrophic problems which is why banning it in the 1st place was pointless. Race has no effect, neither does gender

[ofelixdacat]

@Aegius Traditionally, Marriage was the joining of two strangers of the same race, who didn't know or love each other, for the sole purpose of producing children. AND the wive was the sole property of the husband, she had no rights, and no say, & the husband could do whatever he wanted to her,including beating her.

Obviously, that definition has changed, and continues to change. Definitions change all the time, & the definition of marriage is no exception.

[ofelixdacat]

@Aegius Exactly, why not? What someone wants to do with their own personal life is THEIR choice, THEIR Decision, and have absolutely 100% no effect on you whatsoever, however I don't see millions of people pushing to have incestuous marriage legalized, however there ARE millions who do want same sex marriage legalized. Don't like it? Don't marry someone of the same gender as you, it's not hard. Millions of gay couples are currently married in 6 states, & that has NO effect on you whatsoever.

[ofelixdacat]

@Aegius No, and the Republicans who authorized it probable didn't intend for it to govern property ownership, housing, schools, and other things in which the 14th amendment is used to prevent discrimination. The idea of Segregation of public schools didn't exist when the 14th amendment was written, neither did the idea of interracial marriage. It is still relevant to today's laws. Discrimination is still discrimination, even if it didn't exist 142 years ago.

[Aegius]

@ofelixdacat The 14th Amendment of United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Did the Republicans who authored it and pushed for it had any intention of redefining marriage, when they authored it? No. The notion of redefining marriage as man:man or woman:woman has only been around for 15 years in fact. There is no relation to the history of the 14th Amendment & same-sex marriage. None. Period. End of story.

[Aegius]

@ofelixdacat & since you bring up discrimination: why not allowing someone to marry the sibling or parent? That's discrimination. Why not more than one person? Banning that is ALSO discrimination. 1 man+1 woman is the tradition of English common law and was upheld in Mormon Church vs. United States in 1898, Loving v Virginia and every other ruling, so it is part of Constitutional Law per case law. That is how it has ALWAYS been defined equally to BOTH sexes, so there is no discrimination per sex

[Aegius]

@ofelixdacat Interracial marriage is now legal indeed per Loving v Virginia, but it doesn't redefine marriage from 1 man: 1 woman to man:man or woman: woman. The definition of marriage didn't change w/Loving v Virginia. The definition of marriage applies to both sexes equally, so there is no discrimination of sex. In fact marriage isn't referred to in the 14th Amendment anyway, so it really doesn't apply. However traditional English common law does apply & that ALWAYS was male:female only.

[ofelixdacat]

@Aegius 1man +1woman IS discrimination against gender, which is against the constitution. 1man +1 woman of the same race is also against the constitution,which is why interracial marriage is now legal. The 14th amendment pertains to protecting everyone's rights regardless of race or gender. Banning marriage for someone due to gender is discrimination is a violation of the 14th amendment, bottom line end of story, The 14th amend. is why interracial marriage is legal, so it does pertain