Proposition 8. (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Because the legal effect enforces the gravity of the social norm and therefore the committment and therefore people stay together longer and therefore there are less wards of the state?

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that those who aren't married are a greater net drain on the state?

 

[Iron]

Not off my head.
flickflickflick
Who's got my chart? My catholic chart?
Never mind i'll pull it out of here
flickflickflick
...
flcik
...flickflickflick

60% of US marriages last a lifetime, while only 10% of cohabiting couples last over 5yrs: Elizabeth Scott: World wo Marriage 2007 Family Law Quarterly.
It's rather clear that cohabiting rels are less stable than marriage because they dont have the imported social norms. Marriage yeilds less infidelity and family violence and more satisfaction (Krause: Marriage for the new millenium). Also offers financial protection to dependant family members, because there is a social expectation to care for wife and children - it protects the partner who does unpaid family work (dont make me find the stats on women doing most unpaid work at the expense of their employability), rather than expecting the government to provide, say, childcare or pensions: Scott.
So wife and children are vulnerable. The higher breakdown rate of cohabiting rels means that they will turn to the state sooner

 

[withoutaface]

Not off my head.
flickflickflick
Who's got my chart? My catholic chart?
Never mind i'll pull it out of here
flickflickflick
...
flcik
...flickflickflick

60% of US marriages last a lifetime, while only 10% of cohabiting couples last over 5yrs: Elizabeth Scott: World wo Marriage 2007 Family Law Quarterly.
It's rather clear that cohabiting rels are less stable than marriage because they dont have the imported social norms. Marriage yeilds less infidelity and family violence and more satisfaction (Krause: Marriage for the new millenium). Also offers financial protection to dependant family members, because there is a social expectation to care for wife and children - it protects the partner who does unpaid family work (dont make me find the stats on women doing most unpaid work at the expense of their employability), rather than expecting the government to provide, say, childcare or pensions: Scott.
So wife and children are vulnerable. The higher breakdown rate of cohabiting rels means that they will turn to the state sooner

Correlation != causation. Those who see themselves as life partners are probably more likely to marry than cohabitate, yes?

 

[Iron]

The stats on that are solid. 2006, 76% cohabitted before marriage (abs), so if anything that dillutes the already high figures of cohabitation ending in horror.
It's all about enlivening social norms through the state apparatus for the good of the world. We can protect the values this great nation was founded on: Life, family and faith
This Election Day
Everything you hold sacred will need your vote

Vote your conscience

 

[chicky_pie]

Marriage is a rich and symbolic institution you cold robotic cunt

this is so sig worthy, but it will exceed my sig limit, lol.

 

[withoutaface]

The stats on that are solid. 2006, 76% cohabitted before marriage (abs), so if anything that dillutes the already high figures of cohabitation ending in horror.
It's all about enlivening social norms through the state apparatus for the good of the world. We can protect the values this great nation was founded on: Life, family and faith
This Election Day
Everything you hold sacred will need your vote

Vote your conscience

Mmm? But in general cohabitants have one of two ways to go, being breaking up or marriage. I'd say very few decide to cohabitate indefinitely if they feel sure they'll remain together for a very long time.

 

[Iron]

Stop whittling away my precious seconds

 

[katie tully]

And then how many marriages end up in divorce ............. Which is the same as breaking up when one cohabitates, only legally and financially messier?

 

[Iron]

Average Australian marriage that ends in divorce still lasts 12.5 years (abs). ~40,000 divorces in 07, but that's a drop of 6.6% from 06, and a marks a trend of steady decline since the highpoint in 2001. We're heading in the right direction

 

[chicky_pie]

Marrying more than one person is the right way into the future.

 

[Trefoil]

Average Australian marriage that ends in divorce still lasts 12.5 years (abs). ~40,000 divorces in 07, but that's a drop of 6.6% from 06, and a marks a trend of steady decline since the highpoint in 2001. We're heading in the right direction

Maybe there's fewer divorces because there's fewer marriages.

 

[Iron]

It has really just stabilized since the run caused by no-fault divorce laws
But sure, fewer couples are marrying. They're living in sinful, unstable relationships not governed by social norms and it's tearing the West apart

 

[Trefoil]

Not marrying tears society apart?

 

[Iron]

IP search indicates that you are *true's troll.
Xposed.

 

[Trefoil]

Evolution is a lie created by Satan to tempt men into gnetically engineering themselves a vagina so they can fuck themselves in hedonistic glee.

 

[Trefoil]

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California, has called on the Californian Supreme Court to overturn the Proposition 8 amendment.

Fuck yes!

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.ns...preme court to overturn proposition 8_1086208

 

[jb_nc]

50% + 1 to amend the constitution is p dumb. It should be like 3/4 or 3/5.

 

[Iron]

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California, has called on the Californian Supreme Court to overturn the Proposition 8 amendment.

Fuck yes!

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.ns...preme court to overturn proposition 8_1086208

Uh?
I dont think they can just 'overturn' the constitution. They can interpret it in craazy ways (which they already did), but yer. The people are real. the rulings are final.

Nice source btw

 

[Tulipa]

Florida requires at least 60% and even though the ballot to ban gay marriage there passed, it's not a bad idea.

 

[Tulipa]

Uh?
I dont think they can just 'overturn' the constitution. They can interpret it in craazy ways (which they already did), but yer. The people are real. the rulings are final.

Nice source btw

The current legal challenge is:

On November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature.

That might be an interesting legal battle to watch. Ditto for the 18,000 gay couples who married when it was legal.