Quantcast

Public Opinion Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional [INFOGRAPHIC]

SodaHead Infographics 2012/02/13 16:31:53
California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage voted into effect in 2008, known as Prop 8, could soon land in the Supreme Court as smaller courts have decided the amendment might be unconstitutional. It was passed by a tight margin four years ago, and when we asked SodaHeads what they thought about the proposition's constitutionality we found that it hasn't gotten any less controversial. Political views were obviously an enormous factor, but we decided to zero in on other demographics, instead -- gender, age, location. We hope you find the results as interesting as we did! Let's dive.

prop 8
+26
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Herb sjalan 2012/02/13 23:33:55
    Herb
    +1
    thats why has doma been done, as constitutional and still constituttional sign by bill clinton. 1972 supreme court case said marriage should not be changed to fit gay marriage. these people have every right to put an amendment to their states constitution like 36 other states have 26 others have doma laws.
    reply
  • Texas Johnny 2012/02/13 19:49:50
    Texas Johnny
    +3
    Under the 10th Amendment, states have a right to regulate within their own borders and that includes marriage. It is up to the states to decide what or does not constitute a marriage. Once the people vote , the majority's voice must be respected and accepted.
    reply
  • sjalan Texas J... 2012/02/13 23:19:39
    sjalan
    +1
    Sorry, when it comes to equal rights the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment. See the Civil rights decisions of the 1960's.
    reply
  • Texas J... sjalan 2012/02/14 05:24:21 (edited)
  • sbtbill 2012/02/13 19:49:00
    sbtbill
    +2
    Prop 8 is a law based on religion and so is unconstitutional. It is better for religion if it does not get involved in legislated law.
    reply
  • dawn sbtbill 2012/02/13 20:51:20
    dawn
    +1
    sbt--Hogwash--it is not just the religious, but normal everyday folk. Stop lying.
    reply
  • sbtbill dawn 2012/02/13 22:04:00
    sbtbill
    +1
    If not allowing 2 or more people to get married irregardless of sex is not for religious reasons then what is the reason? I am really serious I can think of no secular reason for a law of this nature.

    By the way I consider homosexuality to be a sin, but I do not want the government involved in my religion.
    reply
  • Torchma... sbtbill 2012/02/15 13:54:28
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    State creation of "gay marriage" is Unconstitutional, based on the 1st Amendment.
    It would be creating a state religion.
    reply
  • sjalan dawn 2012/02/13 23:28:09
    sjalan
    +1
    dawn, There are two types of "marriage".

    1. The "civil contract of civil marriage" regulated by the state.

    2. The "religious rite of marriage" regulated by the church.

    Prop8 was an attempt by religious organizations to impose their dogma, doctrine and beleifs upon the entire citizenery via an illegal constitutional amendment.
    reply
  • Torchma... sjalan 2012/02/15 13:56:05
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    Marriage is a RELIGIOUS precept that originates directly from the Christian Bible.
    reply
  • sjalan sbtbill 2012/02/13 23:25:35
    sjalan
    +1
    Prop22 was the preceeding LAW. Prop8 was a state Constitutional Amendment that more than just codified discrimination it made it legal to discriminate, which is a violation of the US Constitutions 14th Amendment.
    reply
  • luke 2012/02/13 19:41:39
    luke
    +6
    ahem
    reply
  • The Patriot RP 2012 2012/02/13 19:40:12
    The Patriot RP 2012
    +1
    Sodahead you're spinning like a top, irregardless about the benefits, marriage has and never will be a right for anyone, by giving this to the Supreme Court you have asked the Federal Government to intervene in something it has no right to intervene in, this is a State issue, you people who continually asked the Federal Government to make decisions for you concerning obscure rights such as marriage are going to wake up one day and find out, you now live in tyranny because you allowed the Federal Government the ability to grant rights and the right to take them away.

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
    reply
  • Mr Wayne 2012/02/13 19:07:50
    Mr Wayne
    +2
    Curious, only the judge in California, not the majority of the voting public; found it unconstitutional.

    Who cares what anyone in another state thinks?
    reply
  • YouSirName 2012/02/13 19:06:04
    YouSirName
    +2
    Unconstituional as long as the government provides benefits to married people.
    reply
  • Tinka123 YouSirName 2012/02/13 21:53:57
    Tinka123
    Precisely.
    reply
  • lee 2012/02/13 19:03:15
    lee
    +1
    doesn't matter.

    rights cannot be voted on.

    only stepped on.
    reply
  • reaper 2012/02/13 18:59:11
    reaper
    +28
    reply
  • Tinka123 reaper 2012/02/13 20:36:39
    Tinka123
    +4
    Perfect.
    reply
  • *Mahoga... reaper 2012/02/13 20:59:24
    *Mahogany Goddess of P.H.A.E.T
    +4
    Amen.
    reply
  • Sabeena reaper 2012/02/14 21:50:39
    Sabeena
    And then comes the courts (part of the government) throwing out the peoples votes telling the people what to believe. But its OK if you agree with it.
    reply
  • reaper Sabeena 2012/02/15 05:58:54
    reaper
    +1
    no one is being told what to believe, you don't like gay marriage fine I don't care. we aren't going to let your religious laws be pushed on to other people they don't apply to.
    reply
  • Sabeena reaper 2012/03/08 19:45:19
    Sabeena
    The caption if it really wanted to be accurate should have the voters of California in the place of the minister and the judge pointing the finger at them. Because that is what happened in reality.
    reply
  • ««Gingey, the Master Debate... 2012/02/13 18:52:18
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    +13
    You should note the difference between conservatives and liberals. So much for conservatives being for "less government."
    reply
  • Inquisi... ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 18:59:24
    Inquisitve Kat
    +4
    They're only for 'less government' when it's not their own governing.
    reply
  • Zeruke ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 19:20:22 (edited)
    Zeruke
    +3
    it seems more that conservative are for less government on economical things but not for social things while liberals are for less government on social things but not on economical things
    reply
  • sheratan ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 19:27:58
    sheratan
    +12
    reply
  • dawn sheratan 2012/02/13 20:58:09
    dawn
    sheratan--I'd rather be a fat slob than a true dunce like you & your buddies. The PEOPLE voted against gay marriage, NOT the government. Nitwits like yourselves are getting the government involved. Stop the lying already.
    reply
  • Omni dawn 2012/02/14 09:56:50
    Omni
    +2
    Too bad we live in a republic, where laws and limitations are put into place.
    reply
  • Karl dawn 2012/02/15 23:18:47
    Karl
    +1
    Do you seriously not get that picture, or do you have a problem with sheratan?
    reply
  • dawn ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 20:53:58
    dawn
    Gingey--What are you talking about??? It is the PEOPLE who are against gay marriage here in Ca. The PEOPLE voted--NOT the government. Get real.
    reply
  • ««Ginge... dawn 2012/02/13 20:59:49
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    +9
    The majority CANNOT take away the rights of a minority. Our country doesn't work that way.
    reply
  • dawn ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 21:15:36
    dawn
    +1
    The majority most certainly can vote against the obscene & perverted. There is a minority here in America that got voted down when the "Christian" perverter Obama got elected in by the majority--we lost. This time you lost, so as you'd tell me "get a grip!". Or maybe "eating sour grapes?". Or maybe as ol' Obama says "Oh yes we can!"
    reply
  • ««Ginge... dawn 2012/02/13 21:17:34
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    +8
    You lost all credibility in your argument when you used the words "obscene" and "perverted." Maybe you should move out of the country if this is such a problem for you.
    reply
  • dawn ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 21:25:50
    dawn
    Ginge--You lost all credibility when you think it's not obscene & perverted--see how that works here in America? Whoever votes the most toward yours or my response in a general election is the winner. And Ca. voted MY way of thinking, got it?
    reply
  • ««Ginge... dawn 2012/02/13 21:29:09
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    +8
    That's incredibly flawed. By your logic, the civil rights act of 1964 would have never happened.
    reply
  • dawn ««Ginge... 2012/02/13 21:41:12
    dawn
    +1
    Ginge--NO comparison there whatsoever--nada, none. Human beings ARE human beings despite skin color. Sex life is just that--sex life. If gays can be married then a man & his goat can be married--now THAT'S a TRUE & FLAWLESS comparison.
    reply
  • ««Ginge... dawn 2012/02/13 22:05:34
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    +8
    No, it's not flawless. A GOAT? What does two consenting human adults have to do with a flippin' animal? That's so dumb!
    reply
  • Karl Marx ««Ginge... 2012/02/14 01:23:46
  • The Thi... Karl Marx 2012/02/14 04:31:27
    The Thinking Woman
    +6
    Me too, I can't stand all this bigotry. And thet claim to be christian. what a joke they are. I am so thankful I am liberal and atheist.
    reply
«« First « Prev ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 30 Next » Last »

News & Politics

2013/05/25 12:27:49

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals