The precedent this will set one way or another is a hell of a lot more historically important then even a black guy in the White House. That was inevitable, whether it was Obama or someone else. This, however... what happens here and what happens immediately afterwards will show a lot about how our country handles itself. This is as important as the work that opened the equality towards blacks. If this passes, and is then upheld, it sets a VERY VERY dangerous precedent. This goes WAY beyond just gay people.

You'd think people would care enough to express _some_ opinion on this?

What gay people do in private is none of my business, anymore than what straight people do. I want, no...demand that they have the same rights and privileges I have. I came away from the public/private education of my youth with the notion that this nation was founded upon equality in law and in life. Have I been sadly misinformed?

Even if the law passes, I guarantee you it will come up again in the next election cycle. You can't legislate gay people away.

Even if the law passes, I guarantee you it will come up again in the next election cycle. You can't legislate gay people away.

#2 | Posted by dutch46 at 2008-11-05 02:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not a law, Dutch. It's a Constitutional Amendment. That's a lot more severe, and a lot harder to "legislate away", to subvert your term.

It is beyond ironic that on this day that represents so much hope for positive change, a few citizens of this country took it upon themselves to decide what rights other citizens might or might not have. I hope Prop 8 is defeated in the end, but if it is not, then its passage must serve as a reminder that the forces of narrow-mindedness and fundamentalism which have driven this country to the brink of ruin are still active in our midst, and that they will come roaring back at the first opportunity.

To all of you in California who voted for Prop 8:

I hope some day it will be possible to deny you the means to put the rights of other Americans up to a popular vote. The word "inalienable" was put in the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Those of you who feel that the "will of the people" has anything whatever to do with anyone's rights are beneath contempt.

I thought California would see through the ruse easily but maybe I was wrong on this one...I hope not.

If you look at where the money comes from, you find it come from very ultra rich Christian fanatics and no where else. It it these people who must be single out for who they are and held to the light for what they do and labeled. Until that is done, and those are exposed, they will continue to do damage

Sorry RCADE, I beg t differ with your interpretation of where the vote came from. Based on the article you posted there is o factual information prove that primarily conservative counties. The article said 84% voted. That means, of the remaining 16%, you are already down 3%, you basically need to do 25% better at least-

If you look at where the money comes from, you find it come from very ultra rich Christian fanatics and no where else. It it these people who must be single out for who they are and held to the light for what they do and labeled. Until that is done, and those are exposed, they will continue to do damage.

if they disagree we should take away their right to vote and any judge should be able to overturn any thing the people may have voted for.

Bigotry and or Homophobia are alive and well it seems. Civil Rights must not and should not be legislated against or for. I hope the supreme court of California strikes this down too.

Larry

In San Francisco, an eye-catching local measure to bar arrests for prostitution was soundly rejected.

and gays think they have problems,where are the rights of people trying to make a living.

My husband and I are crestfallen, but we remain strong. We will survive.

Our only solace is that finally there is
an African-American in the White House. Perhaps
Obama will outlaw homophobism and hatred.

We can hope.
We can change.

Be Well.

Sooner or later America will grow up, it is just taking a little longer than we would like. Keep the faith!

Let's hope so Danni. There is no reason whatsoever that two adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into wedded bliss. I do hope the Supreme Court of California drop kicks this too.

Larry

Based on past experience with Cal props, it'll be challenged in court, up to the Cal supreme court and end up on the ballot again in the future.

Well at least two things positive came out of last night...

California is going to ban Gay Marriage and so is Florida...

If they disagree we should take away their right to vote and any judge should be able to overturn any thing the people may have voted for.
#8 | Posted by semtex111

Isn't it great that we live in a country that allows dissent without disenfranchising those with different ideas than us? Following your advice would turn the US into a facist state faster than anything Bush and pals did during their 8 years.

The word "inalienable" was put in the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Those of you who feel that the "will of the people" has anything whatever to do with anyone's rights are beneath contempt.

#4 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore
* * * *

Interesting. If my right to the pursuit of happiness includes smoking in my apartment, the state of California says I can't. My right to liberty doesn't include opening a sports bar with a smoking section.

Maybe a little consistency is in order.

How can someone with the word "right" not once, but twice, in their handle, be so wrong?

Smoking bans aren't to stop you from smoking. They are in place so that people who don't smoke don't have to suffer health problems from your decision to inhale poisons. As far as I'm concerned, hey, go somewhere and smoke till your tumors come out your ears (of course, you'll expect me to pay for your healthcare costs, socialist).

Until you can show a consensus about verifiable negative effects and harm as a result of gay marriage, you have no point whatsoever in your argument.

"Perhaps Obama will outlaw homophobism and hatred."
Posted by skip_wellington

No he won't turn on his best friends.

To which I should have added:

... Which is why you concocted this strawman argument to begin with. You have no proof, but you and others like you want to mask your homophobia so you'll feel better about yourselves. Of course you'll reply that "just because I'm against gay marriage doesn't mean I'm a homophobe." Yes, yes it does. There are no other rationales, because you cannot demonstrate a negative effect to anyone save yourself's satisfaction.

Bullshit Evash, I can be completely against something because I dont agree with it and not be Homophobic...

It just ez for you to stereotype people and to brand them because you believe it helps your argument. It doesn't it actually has a negative affect. No different than injecting race into an argument. you CAN be against gay marriage without be homophobic...

wont matter what the vote is

with an all dem government the will of the people in THIS case will be thrown out

much like the first amendment rights of people to listen to who they want on the radio airwaves
its all coming as a part of the liberal fascists agenda

This tempers the joy of last night. The Democrats celebrated wildly and deservedly, boogied a bit after John conceded and Barack called for unity. (Yeah, sure ...)

And this morning? Hate won after all in California. We decided that chickens should be treated humanely, that teens should not have to tell possibly vengeful parents upon terminating pregnancies, but that those who prefer their own gender are - well - a bit short of "equal."

Catholics and Mormons poured millions into this. They should be ashamed. herm

wont matter what the vote is

with an all dem government the will of the people in THIS case will be thrown out

much like the first amendment rights of people to listen to who they want on the radio airwaves
its all coming as a part of the liberal fascists agenda

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-11-05 11:11 AM | Reply

The will of the people in this instance MUST be overturned if it is in favour of restricting the Civil Rights of the Majority on the Minority. Sorry that You don't get this. Someday You might.

Larry

Sad that millions of Americans allow their bigotry to dictate the rights of others. Gay marriage will eventually make it to the Supreme Court, and the one positive of an Obama administration is that the SC might actually get it right.

I dont agree with it and not be Homophobic...

It just ez for you to stereotype people and to brand them because you believe it helps your argument. It doesn't it actually has a negative affect. No different than injecting race into an argument. you CAN be against gay marriage without be homophobic...

#21 | Posted by armyof1 at 2008-11-05 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sorry there is NO Legitament reason to be against Gay Marriage other than Bigotry and Or Homophobia. THAT is it. PERIOD.

Larry

Bomb, kill, rape, pillage, torture, take people away in the night... BUT DON'T LET THE FAGS MARRY!!!

The fact that californians are still this hypocritical and fucking stupid is embarassing.

The overwhelming majority of Californians voted "yes" on Proposition 8 -- to make it an amendment to the California Constitution that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

More than 60% voted the same way on California's Proposition 22 a few years back to keep marriage between a man and a woman until the activist judges decided to overturn the law and change it. So AGAIN yesterday Californians had to teach these activist judges a lesson.

Everyone thinks California is so liberal and wacky but take a look at --

Hi Bigotted CalifChris How does it feel to be bigotted against Your fellow Countrymen?? Oh and it will be overturned the SSupreme Court of California said so.

Larry

Why don't gays just work on getting all the rights they'd get under a "marriage" (tax breaks, etc.) applied to civil unions and leave marriage alone? I don't think anyone would protest gays getting equal rights under a civil union. It's just that "marriage" has a different meaning (religious, cultural, etc.) to the majority of people and we want marriage to remain as it's been for centuries.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-11-05 11:25 AM | Reply

Same fucked up bigotted statements were made when Heterosexual Blacks wanted to Marry. Let's face it You don't believe in Equal Rights CalifChris. You do not believe in Justice for all. You still have that norrowminded bigotted attitude that has plagued this Country since it's inseption. One day The United States of America will be free. ONE DAY

Larry

"no activist judges can change anything ever again."

The US Supreme Court can still tell all of you bigoted Californians that your constitutional amendment conflicts with the US Constitution, and strike it down. Hopefully that happens sooner rather than later.

"More than 60% voted the same way on California's Proposition 22 a few years back to keep marriage between a man and a woman until the activist judges decided to overturn the law and change it. So AGAIN yesterday Californians had to teach these activist judges a lesson."

My God I hate the whole "activist judge" bullshit. Just fucking say it-you disagree with their ruling. Do you have any actual LEGAL reasoning for doing so or is it just your gut emotional reaction?

You do realize that the job of the Supreme Court is to strike laws from the book, popular will or not, that violate the Constitution. How can you, in any way shape or form argue that denying rights to a select group of individuals is allowed under the Constitution?

Sorry, do try again. When you can offer up a reasonable argument against gay marriage, then maybe you won't be called a homophobe. Fact is you can't. All you've said is "I don't like it." That's not cutting it. That's not a viable alternative. You cannot cite an example of a provable negative effect. Instead you bring up strawmen such as "Well, it'll lead to puppies marrying kittens."

a pervert is still a pervert to most ppl..........

a blowjob is not a wedding ceremony so get over it........

Sorry there is NO Legitament reason to be against Gay Marriage other than Bigotry and Or Homophobia. THAT is it. PERIOD.

Larry

#26 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-05 11:17 AM | Reply |

Yea I guess my personal RIGHT to be against it because I don't agree with it doesn't count... How LIBERAL of you...

It has nothing to do with homophobia, no I do not agree with homosexuality; however, as a person, a gay/lesbian should never be treated harshly simply because they are GAY.

However, we DO live in a democracy and the PEOPLE have spoken and the constitution has been modified.

However, we DO live in a democracy and the PEOPLE have spoken and the constitution has been modified.

Posted by armyof1 at 2008-11-05 11:43 AM | Reply

And it will be overturned like it's supposed to be. Bwhahahahahahha You obviously do not get it. The Constitutional Amendment that was voted upon will be overturned because it violates the California Constitution. As a matter of fact it violates the US Constitution as well. Now how do You like them apples.

Larry

I think that is judges legislating from the bench, which goes against the constitution.

The people do not want it. The amendment is to CHANGE the constitution. The people obviously feel that the union of a man and a Women in marriage is sacred.

i know that is hard for you people to understand since nothing is sacred to you, but there are still people with convictions, morals, and ethics in this country. You haven't removed them yet...

"my personal RIGHT to be against it because I don't agree with it doesn't count"

You're right - it doesn't. Just because you don't like something does not mean it should become illegal. Your arguments echo those against interracial marriage back in the 50's and 60's. That nonsensical ban, supported by the will of the people, was struck down by the Supreme Court, and yours will be too.

"However, we DO live in a democracy and the PEOPLE have spoken and the constitution has been modified."

And we have a judicial branch for this exact reason, to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. The will of the people is not infallible and like it or not, this will be struck down by the courts.

The people do not want it. The amendment is to CHANGE the constitution. The people obviously feel that the union of a man and a Women in marriage is sacred.

i know that is hard for you people to understand since nothing is sacred to you, but there are still people with convictions, morals, and ethics in this country. You haven't removed them yet...

Posted by armyof1 at 2008-11-05 11:52 AM | Reply

Sorry it is YOU who does not grasp the truth. Truth is Civil Rights should never be legislated. They should and must become automatic at birth. This Prop 8 will be overturned and You will still be flailing Your arms about manically.

Larry

"i know that is hard for you people to understand since nothing is sacred to you, but there are still people with convictions, morals, and ethics in this country."

Ah the sign of a lost argument: stake your claim on th e moral high ground and simply insist you're right.

You haven't given a single argument against gay marriage beyond "I just don't agree with it."

Oh and if One Man One Woman Marriage is so sacred why so many divorces??? Your argument is pfffft into the thin air like it should be with all the other rubbish.

Larry

Interpretation of the Constitution.

If the State Legislatures have laws on the books that benefit husband-wife but not husband-husband relationships and this is unconstitutional, take it to the court - Article III

If it is a right granted by the Constitution and violated by these laws, then let the court settle the issue.

If the right doesn't exist in the Constitution, then look to Article X - State Legislatures have the right to legislate the issue.

It's like Abortion. The issue went to court. It went to the highest court in the land and judgment was passed.

According to our Constitution, to overrule the Supreme Court, you must either change the law to make it Constitutional or change the Constitution.

Balance of the branches.

"It's discrimination" - prove it in court and let the court agree with your interpretation.

I don't like Roe v Wade's explanation. I agree with parts, but their conclusions stretched and I believed they went too far. In the end, though, I accept Roe v Wade if they'd enforce it.

The supporters for "Yes On 8" were out in force for the past several weeks. They, and their signs, could be seen everywhere. They mounted a far more aggressive and impressive campaign than all of us who opposed Prop 8. And that is why they won. However, given the nature of this issue, I highly doubt that this will be the last word on gay marriage in California.

hey Larry............

NO ONE LOVES A COCKSUCKER OVER 40...........

get off your knees and get a life.............

have a nice day ;-)

Since I only turn 37 next Monday Guess that means You ain't talking to Me then correct??

Larry

Oh and if One Man One Woman Marriage is so sacred why so many divorces??

Because in real life nothing is perfect. see you people want to compare everything to a fairytale land that you think exists. it doesn't real life is different that the fantasy land you people live in.

and JPW, Being fundamentally against it is my RIGHT... I can be against something because I DONT agree with it and that is enough. Are you against drug use? Are you against gambling, are you against (insert whatever)?

The point is that the PEOPLE are against it...

tick tick tick..........

Sounds to me that if California is too dumb to vote the right way on gay marriage, maybe they're too dumb to vote for president, too. Why celebrate their Obama vote, yet criticize their closed-mindedness on gay marriage?

I wonder how many open-minded Obama voters threw the gay marriage crowd under the bus. Maybe they're not as progressive as they like to think. Or maybe there's only so much affirmative action you can squeeze onto one ballot, before folks start to gag. Even Californians.

Even Obama is against gay marriage. No surprise that many of his supporters don't either.

don't either=are too

You can be against anything and everything as far as I am conserned. It's when You try and push Your anti views onto another that's when the problem starts. Sorry You just do not grasp this ArmyOf1. If You believe in Freedom and Justice for all how does that square with Your wanting to limit a certain segment of the population their civil rights??

Larry

" there's only so much affirmative action you can squeeze onto one ballot"

Affirmative action?!? This is equal rights.

My gal and I (male) were considering getting married. A little less interested now (considering getting married in Canada, just to show solidarity).

Note that neither of us is a Christian, nor are we necessarily planning to have a child. We decided to get a ballot initiative to let the people of our state vote on whether we should be allowed to.

"On May 15, 2008 the California DOMA was found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court as a violation of equal protection; the decision came into effect on June 16, 2008.[3][4] A proposed constitutional amendment overriding the Court's decision has been placed on the 2008 California general election ballot and was passed" WIKI

A Constitutional Amendment will change the State Constitution. The California Supreme Court cannot determine that a State Constituional Amendment is unconstituional unless it doesn't follow proper procedure to amend the State Constitution.

Now, if it violates the US Constitution, then a court could challenge the issue, but the Federal gov't DOMA would probably be considered.

"Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. " WIKI

The people of California have spoken. The amendment has passed. Get over it. Same goes for President Obama. The people have spoken. He takes office in January. Hopefully, he will do the country good and not ill. Next chances for change are 2010 and 2012. By then we should know whether to hold 'em or fold 'em.

"Being fundamentally against it is my RIGHT... I can be against something because I DONT agree with it and that is enough."

I didn't say you couldn't BE against it, but if you're going to enforce your OPINION onto others by making it law, well then you'd better have more than "I just disagree with it" as a reason. Both things you listed above (drugs and gambling) have well documented negative affects on people and society as a whole and therefore, being against them is not merely a matter of opinion.

"Why don't gays just work on getting all the rights they'd get under a "marriage" (tax breaks, etc.) applied to civil unions and leave marriage alone?"

Because sooner or later we will not be treated as second class citizens and we will not stop until that day comes. No one could have predicted a black president a few years ago and the same will be true about gay rights.

If you don't believe in equal right fer everybody then you simply don't believe in equal rights period.

While the amount of people in Caleeforneeya who don't get this simple fact are perhaps in the majority today then will definitely be in the minority in the future.

Progress can be held back but ultimately it can't be stopped.

Black folks struggled fer their equal rights fer centuries and are still struggling in many ways against deep rooted prejudice but progress, as we saw last night, is definitely being made.

Gay folks aint going away.

As Spud likes to esplain to his more religious neighbour folk...

God, keeps cranking out them Gay Babies.

Either God is making a shiatload of "mistakes" or they are making a HUGE one by wanting to deny Gay Folks their equal rights.

This makes 'em blink.
This makes 'em think.
Some of them even come to see the justness of the statement.
The morality of equality, as it were.

/Spud is actually an athiest/recovering Catholic but in a debate you go with wotever analogies works.

Be Well.

If You believe in Freedom and Justice for all how does that square with Your wanting to limit a certain segment of the population their civil rights??

ok so then is polygamy fine.

What about the people who want to marry kids at age 16.. is that ok...

What about cannibalism..

if you are going to gie one group rights then you have to allow for ALL who want special privileges.

This is WHY we have LAWS in this country. they control what the PEOPLE want socially, economically, politically, etc...

If you dont agree with the decisions of the people that is your right. but live MACV said, deal with it. try and change it in 2010, 2012, etc.. until then its the law and you MUST abide by it...

Oh and I guess since you are all for personal choice I guess you support the pharmacists that, because of their RIGHT to freedom of religion, they refuse to sell the morning after pills. basically the same concept.

Curious: What is the Constitutional percentage for California to Amend?

Article V of the US Constitution establishes how an Amendment to the Constitution is drafted and ratified. It isn't an easy number to meet which was intelligent. A revolving Constitution would tear the US apart.

Is 50% all they need in California? If that's the case, there's the problem. I definitely don't support a vote taking or providing rights without a great proportion of Americans support behind it.

All strawmen and comparing apples to orange ArmyOf1. Let's face it You have no Good reason to deny Homosexuals their rights Yes they have the right to marry but it's not being protected because of Bigots like You ArmyOf1.

Larry

Wow you just don't get it, do you?

"if you are going to gie one group rights then you have to allow for ALL who want special privileges. "

They're not looking for special privileges, they're looking for the SAME privileges other couples receive.

"Oh and I guess since you are all for personal choice I guess you support the pharmacists that, because of their RIGHT to freedom of religion, they refuse to sell the morning after pills. basically the same concept."

No, it's not anywhere close. If a pharmacist wants to open their own pharmacy and refuse to sell contraception ect, that is absolutely their own prerogative. I think it's incredibly wrong and arrogant of them, as they are basically overruling a doctor/patients decisions because of their own personal beliefs, but I'd rather let the market put them out of business. However, when they take a job at a chain store and refuse to dispense medications against their employers policy, they are wrong and should be disciplined like any other employee would be.

"What about the people who want to marry kids at age 16.. is that ok..."

Its legal in most states, with parental consent.

ok so then is polygamy fine.

Let the polygamists (straights, you know), take that up within the realm of constitutional law. Has nothing to do with gay marriage, but keep trying...

What about the people who want to marry kids at age 16.. is that ok...

Our country doesn't have equal rights distributed equally.

18 year old male - Selective Service
18 year old female - nope
18 year old male - alcohol-nope, too immature.
30 year old male, drunk driver, was mature enough?
18 year old male - drafted
18 year old female - nope
16 year old wants to marry - varies by State
Drinking age used to vary in the States

Illegal narcotics - because of law.
Illegal alcohol - because of an amendment to the Constitution. Later reversed.

Why isn't there a required amendment to the Constitution for drugs?

Section 8, Clause 1: shall be uniform
Section 9, Clause 4: census or enumeration

16th Amendment - destroyed it. No uniformity, no application of tax in proportion. Gone.

Right to Liberty and Posterity - Eminent Domain

"If you dont agree with the decisions of the people that is your right. but live MACV said, deal with it. try and change it in 2010, 2012, etc.. until then its the law and you MUST abide by it..."

Oh...we will continue to pursue equal rights, whether it takes one year or fifty, time is on our side. And no, until our rights are equal we do not have any duty to abide by an unjust law and will continue to marry in any jurisdiction we can or just do it unofficially yet in the face of those who would choose to deny our rights. Many gay people will strive to make a mockery of this amendment and if anything could reduce the "sanctity" of marriage it is this choice to create two classes of human beings. Many straight couples are going to find that their gay friends ask them directly how they voted on this amendment and don't be surprised when they say "adios former amigo."

You people just keep spinning and spinning that straw. You will go all over the map rather than admit why you really don't like gay marriage. You don't like gays. Why don't you try being honest? You can't admit it 'cause you know I'm right. There are no reasons other than bigotry. You will lose, you will die off like the dinosaurs. Future people will hold you in the same regard as white supremacists and other regressives. The Constitution has never been ammended to reduce the rights of a group of Americans, which is what you are trying to do.

ok so then is polygamy fine.

What about the people who want to marry kids at age 16.. is that ok...

What about cannibalism..

~Army of Nuns

Wow, that is one heaping plate fulla FAIL right there.

Where to begin?

Lessee...

Polygamy is wrong on many levels.

The biggest argument Spud has against it is that if you study the practise of it it ALWAYS leads to child rape and incest.

/You don't approve of those things do ya?

Funny thing about the "polygamy=gay rights" argument to Spud is that the only people dumb enuff to try and make it are religious folks who hate and/or fear gays.

The reason that is so funny fer Spud is cos the only people who argue FOR polygamy in this day and age ARE retarded religulous folk.

Polygamy is also wrong because in practise you end up with women who are not free within their societies but rather are a form of sex slave to their menfolk, deliberately kept away from books and all forms of learning as well, and that's just wrong.

Marry at 16?

See the whole anti-pedophile argument up above.

/Unless you want to try arguing for pedophilia?

Cannibalism?

Cos it's murder, duh!

Spud assumes that the argument there, if there is one at all is that it is a choice and why shouldn't cannibalism be allowed if people want it to be?

Here's the deal, sunshine.

Yer "Why not allow all choices?" argument is bunk.

Gayness aint a choice 99 times outta a 100.

Religious intolerance and personal ignorance are choices.

Gay people can't choose to be straight.

People can choose to be intolerant haters and ignoranuses.

You, for example, have chosen to be both intolerant and ignorant.

Good luck with that choice/snark>

Just as an example of yer ignorance how about the fact of you coming to a left leaning debate site with a buncha long discredited talking points that make you look like the moron you are.

There's a clear indicator right there.

Face it son, you've brought a spoon to spork fight agin!

Spud FTW!

Be Well.

"Our country doesn't have equal rights distributed equally."

Oh then, since there are other examples of inequality it makes the anti-gay amendment fine and good.

"Our country doesn't have equal rights distributed equally."

So you're ok with adding one more item to that list? That's funny, one would think you'd be interested in trying to fix the other issues you name instead of adding another.

Nudity in public.

Why do people have a problem with this?

Is it causing any harm? If your only reason is you don't like it, then say so. It's a choice and as an adult that should be enough.

Yet, there are people out there that will require you to wear clothes in public.

What is wrong with being naked in public (other than looking dang ugly)

Hi Bigotted CalifChris How does it feel to be bigotted against Your fellow Countrymen?? Oh and it will be overturned the SSupreme Court of California said so.

Larry

#29 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-05 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

...that's not how the law works, Larry. No judge can declare the Constitution Unconstitutional. The US Supremes have to step in and do something. The California Supremes can't do shit. It's not up to their branch to ignore the Constitution.

Nudity in public?

What the fuck does that have to do with gay marriage?

I also believe, however, that it is illegal to be naked in public. Why? You want that law changed? Have at it.

Care to be relevent to the discussion?

The word "inalienable" was put in the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Those of you who feel that the "will of the people" has anything whatever to do with anyone's rights are beneath contempt.

#4 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

...read the whole thing why don't you...

the quote is ..."endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" ... so you are arguing about about Your God Given right for gays to marry? Show me where you got that idea!

It would be just like a gay liberal to argue that God told you to be gay and in the next sentence argue that there is no God.

Danni and JPW. The point is, it took the Legislature to pass those laws. If you think they are Unconstitutional - take it to court.
If you think they are wrong, change your Legislators.

If the Constitution leaves the issue in the hands of the States, then majority rules. That sucks. But, like I said, there is inequality in abundance. Most Americans actually like the inequality that is in the books.

I know quite a few people that have no problem with 18 year old boys drafted to go to war, 18 year old girls that don't have to, and that if you are 45, you can't be drafted and get to stay home.

You want equality, expand the draft to both genders and any age. It shouldn't matter. If you want to add conditions (like mental, physical), then equality isn't what you want.

Nudity in public?

What the fuck does that have to do with gay marriage?

I also believe, however, that it is illegal to be naked in public. Why? You want that law changed? Have at it.

Care to be relevent to the discussion?

#74 | Posted by evashogouki

Come on Eva, explain why nudity is illegal in public. Explain why it should be illegal. I'm sure the reasons rank up there with same-sex marriage.

I expect people to say, "It's wrong." But, what other reason could you give? Don't have to worry about shoplifters, concealed weapons (unless, of course...yuk).

"If the Constitution leaves the issue in the hands of the States, then majority rules."

Unfortunately, the majority doesn't rule as the court's purpose is to overturn laws that are unconstiutional. However, upon further reading, the court may not be able to overturn this as it is a constitutional amendment. Will have to see how this pans out.

"Most Americans actually like the inequality that is in the books."

Myself included. I never said all inequality should be changed, particularly when there is valid reasons to argue. In this instance, though, I see no good reason for the inequality to exist and therefore I think it shouldn't.

"If you think they are Unconstitutional - take it to court."

Oh you can be sure it will be going to court, over and over, amendment after amendment....equality is a long struggle...society will give before the gay community does. It is just a matter of time and how long society wishes to continue discrimination that it will later be ashamed of.

What I find hilarious are those who say they are gay friendly yet can't understand why gay people take it personally when they learn that they voted for this amendment. You vote for discrimination then expect to be considered a bigot.

"That's funny, one would think you'd be interested in trying to fix the other issues you name instead of adding another."

LOL I just hugely contradicted myself. WHoops.

Is that the way it works? Anyone who disagrees is a racist (last week) or a bigot (today). Try to imagine other people feeling just as strongly about an issue as you do -- just not agreeing with you.

This is going to be a long 4 years ...

This won based on lies and scare tactics....shame, shame, shame...

Bigotry is alive and well.

Now those of us who are not bigots or bigoted by a religious belief still have work to do. We have already started. We need to know what it will it require to remove/reverse such amendments as these? We need to pursue equality for all.

We need to make sure the sacrifices of those who are gay who have and are serving currently in the military that this service means something fully to them and to us.

It is not surprising that those who voted to support equality for gays were more educated, were younger, and were not easily cowed by narrow bigoting perspective in the human pantheon. It dose not stop here.

To study in detail how these votes on this issue in Arizona, in California and elsewhere break down is interesting and not so much revealing that there are thousands who believe that a society of humility, graciousness, intelligence and equality always will be worth pursuing, and that the bullying days of anyone needs to be over.

#79 | Posted by danni

Taxes should be equally charged to every American. If the tax rate is 10%, that is across the board. There should be no breaks for anyone.

You see, breaks for anyone means inequality. Different tax brackets is inequality.

What you think is a fair distribution of tax and equal responsbility, someone else thinks otherwise.

Since, Danni, I think you like the idea of rich people paying more, your a bigot - one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinion and prejudice.

People with more money should have to give more of it up. Those with little money should receive money from those that were forced to give it up. Those with none should not be required to give anything up, but receive a share.

"Taxes should be equally charged to every American. If the tax rate is 10%, that is across the board. There should be no breaks for anyone. "

Oops, that's not really equality. Every one paying 10% means some people are paying more than others. Let's have a flat amount of tax. Everyone has to pay $1000 per person. There- that's equal.

Everybody but the homophobes among us can dry their tears - this is a long way from over. For one, California voters have placed themselves in a legal position that will almost surely be a problem - they have ratified an amendment to their Constitution that is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. They think they've won, but in reality, nobody won but the lawyers. This will go back to the courts, trust me.

In addition, I don't know why in Hell everyone thinks a Constitution is so flexible, and amendments to it so sacrosanct - it's just the reverse. The Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition - to the U.S. Constitution is the example. The amendment was eventually seen for what it was - an abrogation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution itself - and repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.

The religious fanatics in California who pushed this vicious proposition through will eventually be seen as having done Americans a great service - their manhandling of this nation's legal system will, sooner rather than later, force America to make such propositions illegal, on the grounds that no citizen should ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, have any means to limit the civil rights of another citizen.

"explain why nudity is illegal in public."

Because there are a large number of people who are offended and upset when strange nude bodies are thrust into their line of vision. On the other hand, gay couples are not thrust into anyone's line of vision at any higher rate just because they are married. As a result, your comparison is meaningless.

Gay folks are perfectly willing to pay the tax they owe. If we are high income earners then we'll pay a higher rate same as anyone else, well...except that we can't get the same Joint Status tax rate which means that gay couples have to pay higher rates than straight couples. That is fairness to some, not to us.

Our country doesn't have equal rights distributed equally.

18 year old male - Selective Service
18 year old female - nope
18 year old male - alcohol-nope, too immature.
30 year old male, drunk driver, was mature enough?
18 year old male - drafted
18 year old female - nope
16 year old wants to marry - varies by State
Drinking age used to vary in the States

Illegal narcotics - because of law.
Illegal alcohol - because of an amendment to the Constitution. Later reversed.

Why isn't there a required amendment to the Constitution for drugs?

Section 8, Clause 1: shall be uniform
Section 9, Clause 4: census or enumeration

16th Amendment - destroyed it. No uniformity, no application of tax in proportion. Gone.

Right to Liberty and Posterity - Eminent Domain

#66 | Posted by Petrous at 2008-11-05 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Let's see here. Selective Service for Males and not males doesn't have anything to do with equality but basic common sense. It's been the way of Man since the dawning of Man that the Man was the protector He was the defender of the Family. The Woman was the Nurturer and care giver. Alcohol is not an intergral part of the Human Needs made famous by Arabahm Moslow. It's someone that is not naturally needed compared to companionship. So age factors on what someone is capable of understanding the consequences of their actions is not being nonequal. Being a 30 Year old Drunk Driver is a choice He made not part of the natural function of a Human body so strawman. Males being Drafted and Females aren't. Is part of that the Man is the Protector of the Family Unit NOT the Female. Age of consent is about being old enough to understand ones actions and responsibility. It's a Maturity Factor NOT part of being equal. Drinking age does NOT have anything to do with the Fundamentals of ones being. Another Strawman. Do You have any others??

Larry

Oh and Petrous Taxes are Fees that are paid in order to live in a civilized society. It has nothing to do with civil rights another Strawman argument.

Larry

Let's see here. Selective Service for Males and not FEmales

I believe the reason Prop 8 will pass is not due solely to the religious right but of the concerns of a majority of mainstream people in the state of California that simply believe that a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.

As you have noticed, no one is saying that there should not be civil unions which is the same thing by another name. They are saying no gay marriage. It really is simple.

A minority population cannot force its will on the majority. Our country works on a majority basis with protections for the minority. So civil unions are that protection. The gay community just does not think it is good enough.

Larry,

Normally I disagree with you on this issue. I believe that the people have a right to decide the moral issues that affect them. To me, this is an issue like drug legalization or alcohol sales, it is local. I think that the people have a right to reject behavior because they believe it to be wrong. I think that is what happened here. That said - God forgive me....

LARRY IS HALF RIGHT. The California court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to its own constitution unconstitutional. HOWEVER, I think that when this law is challenged in Federal Court, it will be reviewed by the rational basis test, as homosexual is NOT a suspect class. I think that the federal court will determine that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. While marriage is a state's issue, a state cannot circumvent the rights of others by amending the constitution. While it is true that the will of the people controls, the court's duty is to protect the rights of the minority. If it goes to the Supremes (not its first stop) I give it 65% chance of being overturned for the same reasons that were expressed in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage is a "fundamental right".

I do think that it opens the door to a polygamist challenge next, though. Anything else is merely laughable.

Larry. Go to Church. We have agreed on a matter of law. This plus the events of yesterday surely mark the End of Days. Hope all is well with you.

Had a discussion with a guy in my office about Amendment #2, here in Florida it's basicly the same as California's #10 and he was surprised when I got a little angry when he started telling me that he supported the Amendment. Based his opinion on his religion. I just said "you go ahead and follow your stupid religion, just don't expect me to." Needless to say he knows what I think of him now.

I believe the reason Prop 8 will pass is not due solely to the religious right but of the concerns of a majority of mainstream people in the state of California that simply believe that a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.

It used to be the saying back a couple Hundred Years or so a Traditional Marriage was between one WHITE Man and one WHITE Woman. Your point??

Larry

Larry,

Normally I disagree with you on this issue. I believe that the people have a right to decide the moral issues that affect them. To me, this is an issue like drug legalization or alcohol sales, it is local. I think that the people have a right to reject behavior because they believe it to be wrong. I think that is what happened here. That said - God forgive me....

LARRY IS HALF RIGHT. The California court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to its own constitution unconstitutional. HOWEVER, I think that when this law is challenged in Federal Court, it will be reviewed by the rational basis test, as homosexual is NOT a suspect class. I think that the federal court will determine that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. While marriage is a state's issue, a state cannot circumvent the rights of others by amending the constitution. While it is true that the will of the people controls, the court's duty is to protect the rights of the minority. If it goes to the Supremes (not its first stop) I give it 65% chance of being overturned for the same reasons that were expressed in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage is a "fundamental right".

I do think that it opens the door to a polygamist challenge next, though. Anything else is merely laughable.

Larry. Go to Church. We have agreed on a matter of law. This plus the events of yesterday surely mark the End of Days. Hope all is well with you.

#94 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2008-11-05 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Well fuck I screwed THAT one up. Its going good here. Hope the same for You. Now I am off to check on arangements.

"I do think that it opens the door to a polygamist challenge next, though. Anything else is merely laughable."

Which is why the people who rammed Prop. 8 through should have been very much more careful what they wished for. They've opened Pandora's Box, and now they've lost control over what flies out.

Mary,

Don't know how you get from here to there. Prop 8 BANNED gay marriage. I think that anything that expands marriage opens that door.

Larry,
I am Hispanic (Mexican American) born in 1964 and my brown father had to constantly defend himself against my mothers white family (and I mean physical fights). My own white grandmother would not even come to our house we had to go to hers as she would not go to that "Mexicans" house. I hear your argument and have lived it so do not try to be condescending to me.

Gay marriage is not the same thing at all. I understand you are passionate about your cause but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As we all know California is one of the most progressive states in the union and they have voiced their opinion.

I think in order to elevate your civil rights argument you need to prove that marriage is a right and not a privilege. Otherwise I think CalifChris is correct in saying that you should work to strengthen civil unions.

I don't think anyone would protest gays getting equal rights under a civil union.

I guess you haven't read the Arizona and Florida amendments that also passed, have you? The Arkansas amendment banning gay adoption must also have slipped your gaze.

Prop 8 passed because Karl Rove's politics of fear and hatred still have some life in them. This campaign was won on lies and fear. Way to go, Christians...

Is there any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that a ban on mixed-race marriage would have EASILY passed in any election decades after the California Supreme Court ruled against anti-miscegenation laws? Is there any doubt that a popular election would have stripped Chinese and Japanese citizens of their rights thoughout most of the 20th century?

Civil rights cannot be subject to referenda.

I think in order to elevate your civil rights argument you need to prove that marriage is a right and not a privilege. Otherwise I think CalifChris is correct in saying that you should work to strengthen civil unions.

#100 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

IT IS A FUNDASMENTAL RIGHT Check out the Loving Case and educate Yourself.

Larry

Oh and yes it is the same gay marriage as well as racial inequality. Please do educate Yourself more thoroughly upon the subject matter please.

Larry

Prolix,

Why were your parents allowed to marry against the wishes of your mother and, more to the point, against the wishes of the vast majority of California's citizens?

"Let's see here. Selective Service for Males and not males doesn't have anything to do with equality but basic common sense"

Larry, common sense? Whose? Some people would tell you it is common sense to have marriage only between a guy and gal. Some would tell you it's common sense to have nudity laws in public. Some would say it's common sense to have age of consent laws set at 16, or 18, or even 21.

But, whose common sense? Since society differs on what is common sense, what is moral, what is ethical, what should be illegal and legal, then the people choose.

I expect the Amendment to the State Constitution to be challenged in court. I agree with A Citizen that the issue will be based on Article XIV. The Loving Decision by SCOTUS is defeat this Amendment.

Silly question,
Because they were adults.

I wish the Legislatures decided benefits and how they can be shared and establish the laws that way and remove marriage as a requirement.

Marriage, and civil unions, should have absolutely nothing to do with any granted priviledge or right under the State or Federal gov'ts.

If they'd change the laws of contracts, this whole issue could be buried. Who cares if the two of you are married, joined by union, or simply say 'you are together'?

In PA, I remember common law marriage. Didn't need a marriage certificate. You just had to act it out long enough.

I thought this country was about the pursuit of happiness? I thought all men were created equal. Unless we have equal rights we have no equality.

Bobsf,
Why don't you explain the family values on display at the San Francisco Folsom Street Fair since your being cheeky.

In PA, I remember common law marriage. Didn't need a marriage certificate. You just had to act it out long enough.

#107 | Posted by Petrous
* * * *

Imagine if they were to do that here. Two guys live with each other long enough, the law recognizes them as married. Wouldn't that be ironic? And also befitting the equal-protection-under-the-
laws clause?

Petrous,

Thank you. The difference between Loving and this case is in Loving you were dealing with a "suspect class" that requires narrow tailoring of the law and strict scrutiny. (The highest standard of review.) Homosexuality is not a "suspect class" and therefore the correct test will be the rational basis test. The rational basis test is a much lower standard (is there any rational relational relationship between the law and some state interest). Under that review, and the current law, the court could easily find that the interest is the moral well-being of the community and that the law is rationally related to that interest. Should the court find that, they will uphold the law.

Larry are you saying that sex and the pigment of your skin are the same?

One can choose to express their sexual desire in public but one cannot hide their skin color.

Larry are you saying that sex and the pigment of your skin are the same?

One can choose to express their sexual desire in public but one cannot hide their skin color.

Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 02:37 PM | Reply

Who one is attracted to is just as much a part of who they are as the color of ones skin. If You don't believe THAT then when did You choose to be straight??

larry

rightisright how angry are you over the Obama presidency?? I know you despise the poor and now you are forced to help them.

Larry I agree with this statement, but you did not answer my question.

"The difference between Loving and this case is in Loving you were dealing with a "suspect class" that requires narrow tailoring of the law and strict scrutiny"

While your description of their ruling is correct, that was only "part I" of their ruling. Part II held that without regard to strict scrutiny, the Lovings were deprived of liberty without due process. The court noted that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." I feel that Part II of Loving v. Virginia could still be used as an argument in favor of gay marriage.

Larry I agree with this statement, but you did not answer my question.

Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 02:44 PM | Reply

Because it's an absurd question.

"Mary,

Don't know how you get from here to there. Prop 8 BANNED gay marriage. I think that anything that expands marriage opens that door."

Citizen:

Here's how I got from here to there:

Since the religiosos of California have rammed through a piece of dirty work that abrogates the rights of others (a thing that is finally, flatly and forever against the Constitution of this nation, whatever actual practice might be), that dirty work will be reviewed, litigated against, and re-heard in both California's courts, and Federal ones. Eventually, the principles of American law will have to be applied to the issue, no matter anyone's prejudices. Our laws provide equal rights and protections to all, pure and simple.

What those religiosos have failed to see is that they have been instrumental in realizing their own worst fears. Since their ramming-through of Prop. 8 will cause the issue of Constitutional rights to be reviewed over and over again, they themselves will have provided the thin end of the wedge. Once gays get the right to marry, other issues will come up under that precedent, and may very well provide for polygamy and the like, for who is to say what rights another should have and not have?

The Californians who supported Prop. 8 should have left well enough alone. Now that they've made a Supreme Court battle all but inevitable, they will have no one but themselves to blame when issues they never dreamed would come up are presented. Again I say, they should have been very much more careful what they wished for. Today, those people feel good. It won't be long before they feel like KKK members did in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act of that year was passed.

Joe,

And that may be enough. Like I said, I am about 65% sure the Federal system will over turn the amendment.

Mary,

I agree with you. An affirmative statement would be stronger than the sound of silence.

How so?
You see I am brown wherever I go. You and your partner can choose to express your love wherever you go. If you chose not to express your love in public then I would guess you are two white guys (I could be wrong here, sorry) who will not have trouble getting a seat at a diner in rural America (I have).

Don't get me wrong, if you are in a loving relationship I say more power to you and I wish you happiness for the rest of your life. I also agree that you should be able to express your love without fear.

But, and here is the but; the US has many other significant issues regarding race alone and that the US is not ready to comprehend GLBT marriages.

"US is not ready to comprehend GLBT marriages."

then the US will have to get used to a perpetual challenge to the status quo. Eventually society will tire and gays will recieve equality. Hey, at least we aren't rioting and burning down cities.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with PDA's and EVERYTHING to do with the rights accorded Straights suchj as Survivor Benefits Social Security Benefits. God I wished the all eloquent Danforth was here. He could lay it out for You better than I ever could. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with showing affections towards one another.

Larry

I thought this country was about the pursuit of happiness? I thought all men were created equal. Unless we have equal rights we have no equality.

Equal rights for transgenders, transsexuals and bi-sexuals? They fall under the sexual orientation category along with gay and lesbian? Why not include every fetish?

.......so I guess the Mark Foley-Rush Limbaugh wedding plans are off........

.......I didn't think that marriage was a going to last anyways......Rush likes the boys a lot younger......like 10 or so.......

"Equal rights for transgenders, transsexuals..."

Yes.

"...and bi-sexuals?"

Now your talking about changing contract law, and the concept or conferring superseding rights (if you mean polygamy).

"Why not include every fetish?"

You're confusing legal recognition of a relationship with possible activities within that relationship.

Equal rights for transgenders, transsexuals..."

Yes.

"...and bi-sexuals?"

Now your talking about changing contract law, and the concept or conferring superseding rights (if you mean polygamy).

Please explain why bi-sexuals are included with gays,lesbians, and transgenders? Not according to me or contract law. According to every advocate and group which includes their classification?

Please explain why bi-sexuals are included with gays,lesbians, and transgenders? Not according to me or contract law. According to every advocate and group which includes their classification?

Because, as the Diceman once said, either you suck dick or you don't.

Yep, bigotry and homophobia are alive and well in California, of all places.

I was so hoping Prop. 8 would fail, so that our country could then move onward and upwards toward an even freer society. You see, I'd like to marry my horse before it dies. I guess that's not going to happen now, thanks to a bunch of fundamentalist bigots in California!!!

Let freedom ring! Expel California from our United States! It's time bigots be punished!

Florida as well. I cannot believe the amendment passed here yet Obama carried the state. That just blows my mind.

Larry,

"It has absolutely NOTHING to do with showing affections towards one another."

Again we agree. It is about the MONEY and what you have to do to get it. In a straight relationship you have to do NOTHING to be in line to make decisions, inherit, get tax deductions, insurance, etc. The argument is "Why should a gay person have to do a damned thing extra to be afforded the same things?"

Let's at least boil the problem down to what it is actually about. (Now as a byproduct, it cannot be denied that some acceptance will be FORCED upon those that reject the behavior because of the status of being "married". That is why civil unions are not enough.)

There are many parallels to the civil rights struggle of the 60's. And while Danni correctly points out the gay superiority to the behavior of their black predecessors (Hey, at least we aren't rioting and burning down cities.) the argument is the same. The water comes from the same pipe, why do we need separate fountains. The sewer goes to the same place, why do we need separate bathrooms? If the state is going to be forced to afford the same protections why do we need different names? (And perhaps in addition to money, that is what this is about forcing people to equivocate the behavior to "normal" behavior and thus legitimize it.) Along the same lines, when things don't work out and they end up "scratching each other's eyes out" and come to see me, will the "divorce" have a different name also?

You see, I'd like to marry my horse before it dies.

Posted by TheOneBS

I sure wish you would, Theo, cuz that sex you've been having out of wedlock is a sin, doncha know.

Our great Golden State voted yesterday to free the pregnant teen and the chicken, beating back a parental consent constitutional amendment while mandating humane conditions on poultry farms.

We failed to free gays, last permanent underclass in the nation. I really am appalled by seeing three states continuing the blatant homophobia with meddling where they have no business meddling. herm

"You see, I'd like to marry my horse before it dies."

Not hard to see who's wearing the iron shoes in that family.

I really am appalled by seeing three states continuing the blatant homophobia with meddling where they have no business meddling

Yeah! Curse the damn Scooby gang! Damn meddling kids and their damn meddling states.

"Please explain why bi-sexuals are included with gays,lesbians, and transgenders? "

Bisexuals are treated the same as gays by the public at large when they're having a relationship with a person of the same gender. Ultimately, the gay rights movement is not attempting to also allow bisexuals to practice polygamy.

"Ultimately, the gay rights movement is not attempting to also allow bisexuals to practice polygamy." - Danforth

Bi-phobic bastards. Some people are so small minded. I'll bet they really believe that one size does fit all.

Polygamy would require changing the marriage contract and the concept of conferring superseding rights. By definition, one cannot confer superseding rights on more than one person.

Same-sex marriage, while it may make our narcissistic society feel even better about itself, will no doubt corrode much of what marriage has been through the millenia, and will likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay-marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage. Surveys of men entering same-sex civil unions in Vermont indicate that 50% of them do not value sexual fidelity, and rates of sexual promiscuity are high among gay men. No matter, such promiscuity is turned into a virtue by the same and said to "promote a pluralist expansion of the meaning, practice, and politics of family life in the United States."

Yes, change the definition of marriage and you have to change the definition of family and every other institution that arises from this basic institution in culture.

Hey, but at least we can have legal sanction of our homo-erotic orgasms! That is, afterall, our civil right....no?

Polygamy would require changing the marriage contract and the concept of conferring superseding rights. By definition, one cannot confer superseding rights on more than one person.

Then in other words a bi-sexual must choose the gender they want to marry?

NOBODY has a Right to declare Homosexual Marriage will corrode Heterosexual Marriages. The Heterosexuals have done that all by their lonesomes. With 50% plus divorcve rates You have no right to declare that.

Larry

"Our great Golden State voted yesterday to free the pregnant teen and the chicken, beating back a parental consent constitutional amendment while mandating humane conditions on poultry farms."

Yes, Herm, we made some good progressive steps, but failed on gay rights. Patience my friend. This amendment would've passed by over 60 percent 4 years ago. Another 4 or 8 years, as older voters die off and younger voters take their place, equal rights for gays will come about. And it will happen a lot sooner than for most states.

Then in other words a bi-sexual must choose the gender they want to marry?

#140 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Since a Marriage is between 2 People then Yes of course the Bi Sexual has to choose which person they want to Marry. Easy Peasy.

Larry

Danni,
You should never stop trying to attain a level of rights equal to all others and I commend you for doing so. As far as razing a city, you missed my tongue in cheek remark about the SF Folsom Street Fair above (yes I am from CA and know all about it).

Larry,
I am not saying that personal displays of affection are the issue and I agree with you regarding survivor benefits that is why I suggested strengthening civil unions.

You have to crawl before you walk, and walk before you run. It will be a progression that will get you where you want to go.

Here is some food for thought, Danni this is for you too.

Saul Alinsky stated that before you can gain entry into any community to organize around any particular issue you must be asked in to that community by its leaders. You cannot demand to be asked in to a community and you simply cannot take your place in that community, the retribution will be too harsh (see prop 8).

What will you do to be asked in?

Marriage brings with it procreation of children. To equate homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, placing them on the same level, is a sham.

How? Well let's see, Deon and Deshawn can't have a chile unless one of them arranges something with a surrogate female outside of their abominable union. The same could also be said of Gorgotha and Trollup; if they too wanted a child, they would need some male stud from outside their abominable union to make a child NOT BORN from that union.

But I waste my time. Homo-erotic orgasms are what define a society now, and if we can add a child....well then we can provide pseudo sanction to our abominable union by trying to mimick the legitimate union.

Ummmmm sorry no crawling for Gay Rights They should and must be automatic. Sorry You bigotted folks do not get it. Someday You too will wake up and stop the bigotry and or homophobia.

Larry

So heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, or who are past child-bearing age should be prohibited from marrying?

Or for that matter, couples who choose not to have children at all?

Marriage brings with it procreation of children. To equate homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, placing them on the same level, is a sham.

How? Well let's see, Deon and Deshawn can't have a chile unless one of them arranges something with a surrogate female outside of their abominable union. The same could also be said of Gorgotha and Trollup; if they too wanted a child, they would need some male stud from outside their abominable union to make a child NOT BORN from that union.

But I waste my time. Homo-erotic orgasms are what define a society now, and if we can add a child....well then we can provide pseudo sanction to our abominable union by trying to mimick the legitimate union.

#145 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-05 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You tell that to an old couple of 80 Years who get married for the first time. You tell them since they can't procreate that their marriage is a sham. Let's face it You are a bigot and or homophobe who has no legitament reason to deny Gays and Lesbians their Constitutional Right to Marriage.

Larry

Saul Alinsky stated that before you can gain entry into any community to organize around any particular issue you must be asked in to that community by its leaders. You cannot demand to be asked in to a community and you simply cannot take your place in that community, the retribution will be too harsh (see prop 8).

What will you do to be asked in?

#144 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sorry but when You are born You do not have tyo ask tyo be a part of a community. You are automatically part of the commmunity at birth.

Larry

You miss the point. Having children is not the requirement for marriage. Marriage is what is foundational to procreating and rearing of children. But when our society makes light of marriage, where divorces are a dime a dozen, where single parents are a dime a dozen, where dysfunctional kids are a dime a dozen...etc., it's just another step in the decline of marriage as an institution to bless same-sex marriages.

What the hell is marriage anymore when society has so bastardized its meaning? Hey, but if it feels good and gives sanction to my orgasm, then let's bastardize is some more. Indeed, to say otherwise is bigotted and homophobic..

Hey since You are part of an interracial Couple should You of had to go through steps in order for Your marriage to be recognized?? Just curious.

Larry

I still haven't heard one of the gay rights advocates here explain in a lucid manner why a marriage between two is more legitimate than three (for bisexuals). I mean I see Danforth quoting law that defines marriage and I understand the superseding rights theory (although I think it is disingenuous.) My question is if three consenting adults want to marry, why can't they? Saying that a bi-sexual MUST choose is as -phobic as saying that a gay man can marry any woman he wants. It is a construction of law. You want to change the law and I am asking why you arbitrarily draw the line where you do?

You miss the point. Having children is not the requirement for marriage. Marriage is what is foundational to procreating and rearing of children. But when our society makes light of marriage, where divorces are a dime a dozen, where single parents are a dime a dozen, where dysfunctional kids are a dime a dozen...etc., it's just another step in the decline of marriage as an institution to bless same-sex marriages.

What the hell is marriage anymore when society has so bastardized its meaning? Hey, but if it feels good and gives sanction to my orgasm, then let's bastardize is some more. Indeed, to say otherwise is bigotted and homophobic..

#151 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-11-05 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Well Gee I thought the Reason for Marriage is to officially declare ones Love for Another. The Procreation happens later. WOW So You mean that we are to procreate before Marriage and that We must have procreation first and foremost on our minds when we get Married?? Unbelievable.

Larry

Yes, citizen. And we can go a step further. I'd like to know why I can't marry my horse?

Since a Marriage is between 2 People then Yes of course the Bi Sexual has to choose which person they want to Marry. Easy Peasy.

Larry

Larry,
You forget the definition of bi-sexual. I believe it means both sexes. Since they are considered in the same category as gays and lesbians would it not discriminate them by having to chose one gender or the other? When they supposedly want both?

still haven't heard one of the gay rights advocates here explain in a lucid manner why a marriage between two is more legitimate than three (for bisexuals). I mean I see Danforth quoting law that defines marriage and I understand the superseding rights theory (although I think it is disingenuous.) My question is if three consenting adults want to marry, why can't they? Saying that a bi-sexual MUST choose is as -phobic as saying that a gay man can marry any woman he wants. It is a construction of law. You want to change the law and I am asking why you arbitrarily draw the line where you do?

#153 | Posted by A_Citizen at 2008-11-05 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Marriage happens between 2 people Bisexuality does not mean You are Marrying 2 people to euqal three. marrying more than 2 people does not qualify as a Marriage but a ganging together of people.

Larry

"What will you do to be asked in?"

What haven't gay and lesbian people done?
Military service...yep
Public service...yep
Good citizens...yep
Taxpayers...yep
Hardworking...yep

I don't know what gay people could do that we aren't already doing.

Larry, your logic demonstrates a typical narcissistic view of marriage, and hence why you do not understand what I'm saying. Your arguments are juvenile.

DANNI, since when is marriage to be viewed as a reward for being a good citizen who pays taxes and works hard?

Can the same tax payer marry his horse for the same reason?

You forget the definition of bi-sexual. I believe it means both sexes. Since they are considered in the same category as gays and lesbians would it not discriminate them by having to chose one gender or the other? When they supposedly want both?

#156 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No I didn't You automatically assume a Bisexual would want to get hitched more than one in the same time frame. The 2 are NOT the same. A Bisexual is free to choose one person or another Male or Female. Sexual Attraction isn't the same as a contract between two parties.

Larry

Bisexuality - being attracted to both Sexes.
Marriage = contract between two people
Bisexual Marrying one of each without divorcing the other is MULTIPLE Marriages Hense they are not being compared to a singular Marriage.

Larry

Great post for CC #28--

Great maps there too.

I agree--change the laws where they can be and gay folks can make contracts.

CA has domestic partnerships and employers pay health benefits to another worker's partner.

To get into the hospital--get a power of attorney signed. That is the craziest law/rule from hospitals btw.

But Marriage is between a man and a woman and now in the state's constitution.

It passed in FL and AZ too.

What happens to the folks who married after the court ruled in May is being litigated as we post. Someone just filed a lawsuit this morning.

The court should have given a stay on marriages pending the result of the this Proposition--but they don't think that way--they like chaos in the courts.

This is not a civil rights issue--this involves two same sex people who want to be together--fine--ok--but it is not marriage in the biblical sense or the traditional sense found in society.

CA is so diverse it is amazing that this passes, and the prop for the chickens getting bigger cages passes but the minor daughter can get an abortion without her parents knowledge.

I guess when someone's daughter dies from a negligent abortion and the parents were not told--there will be a lawsuit to put the industry out of business--or change their own policies to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

No I didn't You automatically assume a Bisexual would want to get hitched more than one in the same time frame. The 2 are NOT the same. A Bisexual is free to choose one person or another Male or Female. Sexual Attraction isn't the same as a contract between two parties.

Larry

You just wrote they have to chose. If they are classified in the same sexual orientation as homosexual and heterosexual how is it they are not being discriminated by having to choose one gender or the other if they want to marry?

Bisexuality refers to sexual behavior with[1] or attraction to people of both sexes, or to a bisexual orientation. People who have a bisexual orientation "can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex"; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[2] It is one of the three main classifications of sexual orientation, along with a heterosexual and a homosexual orientation. Individuals who do not experience sexual attraction to either sex are known as asexual.

Yes they have to choose one partner NOT Multiple Partners Crispee. You are comparing apples to Oranges. But Nice try I'll give You that.

Larry

Separate but Equal is not Equal at all Murphy. It makes a mockery of both a Heterosexual marriage as well as a Homosexual one as well. Sorry You don't understand this but Bigotry and or Homophobia are still alive and well in America I see.

Larry

Larry,
Slow down there. I am not a bigot or homophobe. I do see those epithets being thrown around at people you do not agree with.

The gay community has passed its days of crawling during the Stonewall riots and is walking with its head held high.

Now you are trying to run. But this takes practice and sometimes a coach as the faster you run the harder it gets or the longer you run the more tired you become. Life is a marathon. It takes years of practice and many hours on the pavement. Some will finish some won't. It is not always a competition though. Most runners due so for themselves.

See where this is going?

And you are wrong about community. You must be asked in even as a child. When you are born you are only a member of a family. Hopefully your family is part of a community.

Would you allow me into your community after this discussion today? I would gladly allow you into mine.

Yes they have to choose one partner NOT Multiple Partners Crispee. You are comparing apples to Oranges. But Nice try I'll give You that.

Larry

I am trying to get an explanation why they are in the same category as gays and lesbians when it comes to special rights. Or their right to choose who they want to marry. It appears they are neither gay or lesbian or hetero.

This is not a civil rights issue--this involves two same sex people who want to be together--fine--ok--but it is not marriage in the biblical sense or the traditional sense found in society.

CA is so diverse it is amazing that this passes, and the prop for the chickens getting bigger cages passes but the minor daughter can get an abortion without her parents knowledge.

I guess when someone's daughter dies from a negligent abortion and the parents were not told--there will be a lawsuit to put the industry out of business--or change their own policies to protect themselves from a lawsuit.

#163 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-05 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The Fuck it ain't Civil Rights You God Damned right it's Civil Rights. Oh and Murphy You know I love You but Keep Your religion out of Civil Matters and I'll keep mine out of civil matters. Y

Larry

Now you are trying to run. But this takes practice and sometimes a coach as the faster you run the harder it gets or the longer you run the more tired you become. Life is a marathon. It takes years of practice and many hours on the pavement. Some will finish some won't. It is not always a competition though. Most runners due so for themselves.

See where this is going?

And you are wrong about community. You must be asked in even as a child. When you are born you are only a member of a family. Hopefully your family is part of a community.

Would you allow me into your community after this discussion today? I would gladly allow you into mine.

#167 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Civil Rights must not and should not be stepping stones to equality. If they are born with them then they should be automatic and not up for debate.

Larry

"Florida as well. I cannot believe the amendment passed here yet Obama carried the state. That just blows my mind."

It does not blow mine. What happened shows - with crystalline clarity - what is right with our system today, and what is wrong with it.

The election of Barack Obama was the natural, inevitable result of effective, Constitutionally-based civil rights legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Something that was unthinkable when JFK was President has happened because enlightened legislators of 1964 set aside centuries of prejudice to make it lightning-clear that the Constitution's protections applied to Americans of every race.

Unfortunately, we now have legislators and an electorate who think that "the will of the people" has something to do with people's rights under the law. Our voting, legislative, and judicial processes are being misused to promote and institutionalize bigotry and hatred. I assure you, had such tactics been permitted in 1964, Barack Obama would not have attended Harvard, would not have become a Senator, and would have stood about as much chance of becoming President of the United States as Vladimir Putin does. Indeed, his parents' relationship was subject to the same insanity that today's gays must tolerate - they were "legal" in some parts of the U.S., and not in others.

What I find comforting in all this is that the sheer viciousness of the right on this issue is what will render them hoist on their own petard one day, very soon. The hatred of white supremacists was so stomach-turning that eventually decent people began to examine their own prejudices, and found them needless and distasteful. That is what led to the moment we celebrated last night, and that is what will lead to liberty and justice for all, even those of us who love members of our own sex.

Selah.

I am trying to get an explanation why they are in the same category as gays and lesbians when it comes to special rights. Or their right to choose who they want to marry. It appears they are neither gay or lesbian or hetero.

#168 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Who one is attracted to falls under the categoryuu of Sexual Orientation. Who they Marry falls upon who they choose to ghet hitched to. Oh and they aren't looking for Special Rights Crispee. Just their Fundamental rights they received at Birth. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Larry

Larry, would you be in favor of two brothers being married?

"I still haven't heard one of the gay rights advocates here explain in a lucid manner why a marriage between two is more legitimate than three"

That's a great question, A Citizen. I think the argumenat would be that while gay marriage bans restrict a specific class of people from marrying, polygamy laws do not keep any person from being married.

For comparison, let's say there was a law on the books that said each American can own one gun. But for some reason when gay people tried to buy a gun, they were not allowed to do so, and then states started amending their constitutions to say that gays could not own guns. It would not be logical to say that allowing gays to own guns would somehow lead to people wanting to own two guns, or three guns. However, that is precisely the argument being made by people who say that allowing gays to marry would create some logical basis for polygamists to marry.

Gay marriage bans exclude an entire class from taking advantage of the current law. Polygamy bans prevent the addition of more and more people into what is already an allowance of an equal right to marry in the first place. Polygamists are not prevented from marrying. Gays are.

For such a progressive state which backed Obama heavily, do people on the DR find it puzzling why this measure would pass there, of all places?

#171 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-05 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Because this Country is still filled with Bigotry and Homophobia OohRah. THAT'S why. Churches need to keep out of the Secular Societies affairs. THAT is what.

Larry

Selah!

My favorite definition is of that word is, "Imagine that!", from an old Stanford professor.

Larry,

What I am asking is more general...why the arbitrary number two. I mean bisexuals may want both partners. Mormons may want to return to polygamy. Why deny people the right to have a second spouse?

To me your argument that "Marriage happens between 2 people" has as much backing and validity as the statement "marriage is a union between one man and one woman." Your statement that bisexuals should be forced to choose the partner they marry makes as much sense as someone saying a "gay man can marry any woman he chooses, where is the discrimination?"

Point being, regardless it is arbitrary.

BS, the reason you can't marry the horse is the horse is incapable of entering into a contract. Now, I think if you want to fuck your horse, you could challenge the bestiality laws under the same logic the sodomy laws were struck down...privacy of the bedroom and all. It would at least be an interesting argument...but it is a legal impossibility to marry an animal.

Larry,
We all live in the real world where civil rights is subjective to who you are. I know it is not right but that is how it is every day we walk this earth. You also know that all civil rights struggles began with one step by one leader.

Would you let me in to your community?

Would you let me in to your community?

#179 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e
Kinda of a stupid question. This IS a Free Country after all well it's supposed to be anyhow.

Larry

A_Citizen 2 is a Marriage(Union) (3+ is a croud)

Your statement that bisexuals should be forced to choose the partner they marry makes as much sense as someone saying a "gay man can marry any woman he chooses, where is the discrimination?"

Thanks for articulating my point Citizen.

California voted against gay marriage 61.4 to 38 in 2000.

This time, 52 to 48.

The writing is on the wall. It's just a matter of time.

Laters

"A_Citizen 2 is a Marriage(Union) (3+ is a croud)"

No, no, dear Larry.

Two's company. Three's a menage.

One last thought. a Marriage is two halfs of a plastic easter egg coming together. 3 or more is not a Marriage because You have an odd man out or woman whichever the case may be.

Larry Ciao

I actually wonder why we don't allow polygamy too? What is the argument for that?

Larry,
I am surprised at you. Here you are asking for inclusion yet you will not state if you would accept me in your community. You say it is a stupid question. No it is not a stupid question because it is the same question you are asking for with gay marriage. You are asking to be a part of the married community. I've already told you I would except you into mine. What are you afraid of?

And no. It is not a free country. There is always a price to pay...

"Why don't gays just work on getting all the rights they'd get under a "marriage" (tax breaks, etc.) applied to civil unions and leave marriage alone?"

#28 | Posted by CalifChris

In the eyes of the State a marriage is a civil union. Period.

In the eyes of the State, marriage is not a sacred rite, it is merely a contractual agreement bound with a license.

Unfortunately, the term marriage has become the overarching term whether the joining is performed in a judge's office, a restaurant, on the top of a mountain, sky diving from 20,000 feet, in a cathedral, or in the temple. The difference is that the marriage performed in the religious setting has no civil legality unless the license, the legally binding document, has been purchased from the State.

If the churches (general term) wish to deny or perform gay marriages, that is the private sector and has nothing to do with the State. But if the State at the behest of the People (rather some of the People), deny a specific consenting adult group certain accesses to the system that other people enjoy, then that is a violation of equal treatment under and access to the law. Remember the 3/5 Rule?

Your argument has no merit.

You may well be correct, NULL. At least it's our decision and not forced upon us by the courts.

As you well know OORAH the Courts will be involved. Just like Prop 187 our liberal AG and Governor decided no to fight the lawsuit. Today we have Jerry Brown and I would expect this to be another non issue to the AG office. Looks like a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars putting it to a vote.

Hey Dumpling,
Hahahahahaha! Fuck you.

Congrats Obamabots. The better run campaign won.

"Why don't gays just work on getting all the rights they'd get under a "marriage" (tax breaks, etc.) applied to civil unions and leave marriage alone?"

#28 | Posted by CalifChris

Wouldn't it be simpler if you simply got over your bigotry, started minding your own business, and let others live their own lives?

Wouldn't it be simpler if you simply got over your bigotry, started minding your own business, and let others live their own lives?

#195 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-05 05:01 PM

You mean as opposed to someone from out of state telling someone from another state what their law should be? Does New York allow same sex marriages? Maybe you should be talking to them instead of someone three thousand miles away.

Congrats Obamabots. The better run campaign won.

#194 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-05 04:57 PM | Reply

I wish you lived in a country where McCain was President for the next 4 years---don't you?

Hey Chair.

Sorry about that Cynthia chick.......maybe next time.

You mean as opposed to someone from out of state telling someone from another state what their law should be? Does New York allow same sex marriages? Maybe you should be talking to them instead of someone three thousand miles away.

#196 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:04 PM | Reply

No, I mean as an American who believes in freedom and justice and equality for all. That's what Americans stand for--something you simply will never understand. Gay marriage hurts no one. Voting against freedom for other Americans should be cause to revoke your citizenship. It has nothing to do with out of state--it has everything to do with what America stands for---FREEDOM---love it or leave it.

"Congrats Obamabots. The better run campaign won.

#194 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-11-05 04:57 PM"

Nah, it was more like the guy who didn't have one foot in the grave and one finger on the button won. The loser was certifiably insane, and his wife is an alien.

"...prove that marriage is a right and not a privilege."

Marriage is neither a right, nor a privilege. Though it can certainly be construed as punishment at times.

A True Marriage is a state of mind. Not a piece of paper. Not a religious rite. Those do not compel people to marry, nor do they compel people to stay together (except of course in those cases where the beliefs of a person in the Church overrides rational throught).

Marriage, aka civil union, exists mostly to provide a legal vehicle for financial transactions.

101 - by the way, what's up with Rob? Has he been away from this asylum long, or?

**** Congrats Obamabots. The better run campaign won.
.....#194 | Posted by 101Chairborne ****

.....you are damning us with feint praise.....

......but the magnanimity is appreciated......

......I hope Obama does enough for America that one day, you can look back, and say, perhaps the better man did win after all.......

Monte,

Rob is done for good.

He showed up on the Obama victory thread, gave his kudos and announced that he was leaving for good.

Thanks, Jeff. Did he go out with a flourish, or a wimper? I'm about to go on another Sabbatical too. I think I get about 50% more work done every day that I avoid this habit.

No, I mean as an American who believes in freedom and justice and equality for all. That's what Americans stand for--something you simply will never understand. Gay marriage hurts no one. Voting against freedom for other Americans should be cause to revoke your citizenship. It has nothing to do with out of state--it has everything to do with what America stands for---FREEDOM---love it or leave it.

#199 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-05 05:08 PM

Like I said argue to your own State. BTW... It has everything to do with our State and not the Federal Government. Let me know when the Federal Courts get involved or Congress passes a same sex marriage law. Until then it has everyting to do with the individual State.

"Can the same tax payer marry his horse for the same reason?"

#160 | Posted by TheOneBS

To repeat ad naueum: an animal is not a sentient being, nor can it provide consent. I don't even think a horse can even sign its name on the license.

So, dare I go there, if and when we make contact with ET and the boys and girls, how do you feel about marriage between human and ET?

"You mean as opposed to someone from out of state telling someone from another state what their law should be?"

But enough about out-of-state Mormons providing $20 of the $25 million for the campaign....

***** "Can the same tax payer marry his horse for the same reason?"
....#160 | Posted by TheOneBS *****

.........you never know..........

.....someone may marry Ann Coulter..........

"You mean as opposed to someone from out of state telling someone from another state what their law should be?"

#208 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-05 05:19 PM | Re

To repeat... Does your State allow same sex marriages? Shouldn't you be putting your time fighting your own State as opposed to another State?

#160 | Posted by TheOneBS

This idiot returned?????

"But enough about out-of-state Mormons providing $20 of the $25 million for the campaign....

#208 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-05 05:19 PM"

Oh, Snap!

" I'm about to go on another Sabbatical too. I think I get about 50% more work done every day that I avoid this habit.

#205 | Posted by mOntecOre "

You've been on a sabbatical for months you loafer. You owe us some trash talk time!

Everybody but the homophobes among us can dry their tears - this is a long way from over. For one, California voters have placed themselves in a legal position that will almost surely be a problem - they have ratified an amendment to their Constitution that is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.

- MarytylerWhore

Stopped reading there. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about reality. An Amendment to the Constitution cannot be Unconstitutional. Ever. In any way, shape, or form. It AMENDS the Constitution. Figure it out.

"You've been on a sabbatical for months you loafer. You owe us some trash talk time!

#213 | Posted by nullifidian at 2008-11-05 05:25 PM"

If you all would pay half my salary, I'd love to hang out. Maybe if Joe ever gets a job, he could pitch in.

Uh

But a state's constitution is subject to the US constitution.

Having gone thru more than a few of these propositions, it ain't over yet.

An amendment to a state constitution can violate the US Constitution. California's bigoted citizenry could vote tomorrow to amend their constitution and allow slavery. That doesn't mean what they are doing is "constitutional." Figure it out.

Let me know when the Federal Courts get involved or Congress passes a same sex marriage law. Until then it has everyting to do with the individual State.

#206 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:16 PM | Reply

It has absolutely nothing to do with the state. It is a very personal thing. Either you are a bigot who doesn't understand the concept of America with Freedom, justice, and equality for all---or you are an American.

Your wide stance has been made perfectly clear. You hate America and everything it stands for--freedom--justice--
equality for all. Maybe you should GTFO of America and find a country that thinks like you to---Pakistan is nice--go for it--we don't need any more bigotry in this country--take yours with you.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the state. It is a very personal thing. Either you are a bigot who doesn't understand the concept of America with Freedom, justice, and equality for all---or you are an American.

Your wide stance has been made perfectly clear. You hate America and everything it stands for--freedom--justice--
equality for all. Maybe you should GTFO of America and find a country that thinks like you to---Pakistan is nice--go for it--we don't need any more bigotry in this country--take yours with you.

#218 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-05 05:33 PM |
So according to your skewed post all but three states citizens stand for freedom and justice and the rest are bigots and should GTFO of America? Including you? Glad to see you are still on your meds.

Bob, Why do you chose to live in a State that discriminates and doesn't stand for justice, equality and freedom for all? Do you hate America? Why don't you venture north? They accept all types of Wierd Harolds.

"Why don't gays just work on getting all the rights they'd get under a "marriage" (tax breaks, etc.) applied to civil unions and leave marriage alone?"

Actually, Chris, gays did work on that. Unfortunately for them - and for the right - the fundies among us turned gay rights into such a wedge issue, with such toxic connotations, that no Federal legislator in his right mind would have touched it, except to vote for DOMA (the odious Defense of Marriage Act).

That has had two results. One is that the time fundies could have bought by yielding on civil partnerships has been squandered. Gays are generally peace-loving, "go-along" sort of people who might have taken quite a long time to demand full and equal marriage rights if they'd been granted full civil partnerships under Federal law. But the other result is that the resolve of gays has now hardened as a result of fundies' absolutism; nothing less than full marriage will do now.

If I were you, I would never underestimate the resolve of gays. These are people with thousands of years' practice at finding ways to express love (or at least lust) in spite of laws, churches, violence and imprisonment. Considering that Prop. 8 has been voted upon at precisely the point in our history that we've elected a President with personal experience of institutionalized bigotry, who is not in favor of DOMA and who has pledged to restore the honor of our Constitution, I think fundies just made the biggest mistake they possibly could have made.

or you are an American

Most Americans realize that this is a democracy and in democracies, we allow the people to decide by vote on things.

Unless it violates the Constitution, voters decisions should be respected.

This is America afterall.

On the Gay Marriage vote, it hasn't gone over well in a lot of States for the same sex crowd.

I agree with another poster, they need to take another angle and fight for the rights that married people get. They could even come up with their own catchy name for it. I hear they are good with things like that.

I've said it before, gays are the new blacks.

It's still in vogue to denigrate them and try to make laws preventing them from enjoying the same rights and freedoms that others have.

The same argument being used now was used back when blacks couldn't marry whites, and the same types of total morons and bigoted small minded buffoons are against it.

If there was only a pill that fixed stupid.

72,
Does your State allow same sex marriage?

I find it troubling that ANYONE would fight so hard to get fucking married in the first place.

Bob, Why do you chose to live in a State that discriminates and doesn't stand for justice, equality and freedom for all?
#220 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:40 PM
Why do you live in a country that is going to be run by a mulsim terrorist pinko commie?

Shouldn't you be moving to a non terrorist appeasing non muslim non commie country?

Crispee OC-
What do you think of a amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman? (I don't care whether you think this is presently viable, but whether or not you would support such an amendment)

72,
Does your State allow same sex marriage?

#224 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:43 PM
My state has a governor that supports civil unions and the SC overturned a similar stupid gay marriage ban recently.

Why do you live in a country that is going to be run by a mulsim terrorist pinko commie?

Shouldn't you be moving to a non terrorist appeasing non muslim non commie country?

#226 | Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-11-05 05:45 PM |

According to your buddy Bob if a State discriminates against same sex marriage, their citizens are....

As for your other gibberish I can't come down to your level and make heads or tails of your tirade.

Betelg, how embarrassing would that be for us, when future generations look back and see an ammendment that prohibits rights?

What backwards Neanderthal cretins they will surely think of us. It's just embarrassing.

Big deal.

The supremes of california have already ruled that any attempt to change the constitution would be rejected.

The mormons spent a lot of money wasting everyone's time.

California State has said My Marriage is still good and that the Proposition did not meet the strict requirement of what is neccessary for an amendment.

In other words, once again the 'majority's animus towards gays' won't trump gay's right to equal access and due process.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAA

As for your other gibberish I can't come down to your level and make heads or tails of your tirade.

#229 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:49 PM

Yes, it seems you can't stand you own medicine.

An amendment to a state constitution can violate the US Constitution. California's bigoted citizenry could vote tomorrow to amend their constitution and allow slavery. That doesn't mean what they are doing is "constitutional." Figure it out.

#217 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-05 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The US Supremes have already stated several times they do not want a piece of this, and cannot have a piece of this. They have stated repeatedly they are NOT prepared to recognize a Federal right to Gay Marriage. That means it falls to the States to decide individually. Get it through your head, Joe, all of you. The Supreme Court of the US is not interested in this issue. The Supreme Court of California cannot declare this Unconstitutional. If this passes, the odds of it being brought down by ANYTHING short yet another amendment is almost zero.

Every one of you people who think the US Supreme Court is gonna ride to your rescue isn't paying any attention at all. They are not prepared to ride roughshod over any state's Constitution like that. Do you understand what a horrifyingly dangerous precedent that would set if they did? The US Supreme Court cannot and never HAS made rulings on _State_ Constitutions. This isn't going to just "go away" because you want it to. The law does NOT work that way. The separation of power does not work that way.

The ONLY thing that can save Gay Marriage in California or anywhere, is an amendment to the US Constitution itself assuring a right to marriage to any pair of adult citizens. Cause as it stands right now.. it does not such thing. In fact, the US Constitution does not mention a million other things as well. Why? Because these things are left to _State_ Constitutions and _State_ laws.

Short version:

THE US SUPREME COURT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL STATE. ONLY THE US CONSTITUTION CAN DO THAT, AND IT MUST BE EXPLICIT IN DOING SO.

Crispee OC-
What do you think of a amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman? (I don't care whether you think this is presently viable, but whether or not you would support such an amendment)

#227 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-11-05 05:47 PM

I would support it.

Dumpling, you live in a fantasy world. The California Supremes cannot block an Amendment to the Constitution. Do you even have the vaguest idea of how the separations of power work?

Crispee OC-
Then why the states rights bullshit?

"Stopped reading there. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about reality. An Amendment to the Constitution cannot be Unconstitutional. Ever. In any way, shape, or form. It AMENDS the Constitution. Figure it out."

Soheifox:

No, you figure it out. What if we slapped an amendment on the Constitution that reinstated the bigotry of Jim Crow laws? The Constitution itself expressly provides that such laws are not to be enacted. We might append such an amendment to the Constitution, but that does not change the Constitution itself, and since such an amendment would be contrary to the intent of the Constitution, it would not survive legal challenge.

I know you feel that everything you needed to know, you learned in high school, but trust me, you're in the deep end of the pool, and your inner tube is leaking fast. We actually tried to amend the U.S. Constitution with unconstitutional legislation once, with the Eighteenth Amendment, more commonly known as Prohibition. This abrogation of citizens' rights was eventually repealed, with the addition of another amendment, the Twenty-First. The impetus for the Eighteenth Amendment was precisely the same as that for Prop. 8 and DOMA - fundies thought they had the right to tell everyone else what to do - and for a brief, unconstitutional moment, they succeeded. Fortunately, our system and Constitution are resilient, and legality was restored to both nation and document when the Twenty-First Amendment was added to it.

I would pity you people your ignorance if it weren't so widespread and dangerous.

Gay marriage is an OXYMORON!!!

FACT!!!!

Rasta,

"I thought this country was about the pursuit of happiness? I thought all men were created equal."

That document is meaningless. We no longer live by it and haven't for over 100 years. Those that do (or are related to someone who did) are called traitors. You should read it some time.

Not only does it recognise that certain truths are self-evident, but it recognises that in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one party to DISSOLVE the ties bind them to another and assume a SEPARATE AND EQUAL station. (Sounds like 1860 to me...but that could just be my Southern ancestry talking.)

Mary:

Attend a civics course.

The hilarity of it is you're so stupid you don't even realize you tried to say one thing, and then brought up Prohibition, which actually proves my point. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN UNDO AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO IT.

You're a complete idiot. The Supreme Court didn't make the amendment that repealed the earlier one! It was passed the exact same way every other amendment was.

As for your other gibberish I can't come down to your level and make heads or tails of your tirade.

#229 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:49 PM

Yes, it seems you can't stand you own medicine.

#232 | Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-11-05 05:51 PM

Are you sharing Bobs meds? Was the sarcasm over your little head? I didn't tell you to make an ass out of yourself and post your self serving trash. It is ironic you show the same ignorant hypocrisy wasting your time on another States issue when your own State has the exact same laws.

"........you never know..........

.....someone may marry Ann Coulter.........."

Skizziks:

Please leave bestiality out of the discussion.

"THE US SUPREME COURT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL STATE. ONLY THE US CONSTITUTION CAN DO THAT, AND IT MUST BE EXPLICIT IN DOING SO.

Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 05:52 PM"

Um, what? Who do you think interprets the US Constitution? If the US Supreme Court rules that an individual state's constitution violates the US Constitition, then the state's consititution would be null and void. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

THE US SUPREME COURT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL STATE. ONLY THE US CONSTITUTION CAN DO THAT, AND IT MUST BE EXPLICIT IN DOING SO.

Posted by soheifox

Not really sure WHERE to start with this one.......but here it goes.

The US Consitution DOES NOT DO ANYTHING. It is a collection of words.

The SCOTUS however is tasked with upholding that collection of words and overrides decisions that are in conflict with them.

Maybe you had a point that I missed, but I thought I should correct what you ended up typing.

Crispee OC-
Then why the states rights bullshit?

#236 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-11-05 05:54 PM

Because each State has the right not to ammend the US Constitiution. What else do we have if the Federal Government has not made it legal or illegal?

Oh, Monte was all over that too....

Hey, Manypaths? Monte? You're also misunderstanding the danger of this thoroughly. The Supreemes do "interpret" but they do not OVERTURN. The California Supremes could "interpret" the new, amended Constitution to allow "Civil Unions" but until that Amendment is repealed, there is absolutely no way Marriage can be legally recognized in any other way besides what the Constitution says. You both fail Junior High level Government class here. This is what I was saying all along and it's becoming true nnow: Idiiots like Dumpling thought they could sit by and let this thing pass because it would be stricken down but they are WRONG.

The Supremes can "interpret" the Constitution, but you cannot outright DEFY it. Is not an ability they have. Is not within their power. That is one of the checks the Legislative Branch has over the Supreme Court. They can appeal to the will of the people and create an overriding law of the land.

You both live in a fantays world where the Supreme Court holds the final word. That is not so. That never has BEEN so. It takes extreme measures to do so, but that's exactly what California _did_. Unless the US Constitution is Amended to explicitly grant that right, there's nothing the Judicial Branch can do. At all. Because the US will not trample on State's rights like that.

The Supreme court cannot do exactly what I said it cannot do. Get out of your fantasy world. We have checks and balances.

THE US SUPREME COURT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL STATE. ONLY THE US CONSTITUTION CAN DO THAT, AND IT MUST BE EXPLICIT IN DOING SO.

#233 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Last time I checked the States in the Union Ratified the US Constitution. If they have done so and their States Constitution violates the US Constitution it goes BuBye like so many bigotted excuses.

Larry

You both live in a fantays world where the Supreme Court holds the final word. That is not so. That never has BEEN so. It takes extreme measures to do so, but that's exactly what California _did_. Unless the US Constitution is Amended to explicitly grant that right, there's nothing the Judicial Branch can do. At all. Because the US will not trample on State's rights like that.

The Supreme court cannot do exactly what I said it cannot do. Get out of your fantasy world. We have checks and balances.

#248 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WRONG the US Supreme Court holds Final say if they so choose to get involved. They are the SUPREME COURT for a reason.

Larry

Huh oh. Did you go to the same law school as Joe, Soheif? Because your consititutional analysis is gibberish. (That's a legal term - check Black's Dictionary if you don't believe me. I'm sure you have a copy right on the shelf.)

Maybe you had a point that I missed, but I thought I should correct what you ended up typing.

Seriously. Anyone coulda had someone filibuster somewhere, to keep this Proposal form ending up on the ballot. There were a hundred different ways to stop this, at least, but everyone was so stupid they thought they could just ignore it and the court would make it go away. They won't. They _can't_. Now the only thing that can be done is yet another amendement.

Montecore:

I don't know what else to say to you. Our system of checks and balances is _extremely_ clear on this. You're just wrong. A cursory glance of even the Wikipedia article on Checks and Balances will show it. A glimpse into a 3rd grader's Social Studies textbook shows it. Our Constitution itself spells it out somewhere in the articles. No matter how much you say otherwise, just doesn't make it true.

The Supremes do not have the kind of power you seem to think they do. No one branch of the government does. Everyone can ultimately appeal directly to the people to overcome another branch, and that's _exactly what they did_.

So according to your skewed post all but three states citizens stand for freedom and justice and the rest are bigots and should GTFO of America? Including you? Glad to see you are still on your meds.

#219 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 05:36 PM | Reply

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. What kind of heroin are you taking? Millions of Americans stand for FREEDOM, EQUALITY, and JUSTICE for all. You just aren't one of them. I don't consider you to be an American, or a citizen of my country.

You need a country where Bush can be elected again, or where McCain is the new President.

WRONG the US Supreme Court holds Final say if they so choose to get involved. They are the SUPREME COURT for a reason.

Larry

#250 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-05 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Uh, Larry? The US Supreme Court has already stated repeatedly this isn't their case to judge. They constantly kick it back down. Because if they did make a ruling on it, that is trampling over states rights. The Constitution itself is very clear in that any rights it does not explicitly allow are up to the States. The Supreme Court has stated over and over that this _is_ one of those rights. They have stated repeatedly they are not willing to state the US Constitution explicitly allows Gay Marriage on a Federal level. Don't you get it? They won't do it. They have already refused. They have already interpreted that the US Constitution says this is up to the States. It's done. They already stated they do not care. They are not riding to the rescue.

Besides, what do you expect them to do? Amend the Constitution giving themselves the power to override the rights specifically set for the state? If something is not a Federal issue, then it just isn;t. They said it's not. You people didn;t pay any attention and now you're trying to tell the dog to close the chicken coop door, after the chickens are already gone. It's the wrong person to ask, and it's not their job anyway. Maybe in a few years when there's new Justices there, but the current ones ALREADY SAID THEY DON'T HAVE THAT JURISDICTION.

The Legislative Branch has to amend the Us Constitution to explicitly GIVE the US Supremes the right to rule on _State_ Constitutional matters.

Everyone can ultimately appeal directly to the people to overcome another branch, and that's _exactly what they did_.

#254 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 06:18 PM | Reply

You are mistaken. Ever heard of the Civil War? Many in the South thought as you do. They were proven mistaken. The people of a State can not override the U.S. Constitution. The people of California can not approve slavery---or bigoted laws that are against the US Constitution

The Legislative Branch has to amend the Us Constitution to explicitly GIVE the US Supremes the right to rule on _State_ Constitutional matters.

#256 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What if we slapped an amendment on the Constitution that reinstated the bigotry of Jim Crow laws? per Mary

Precisely Mary--there is a US Constitutional Amendment that was passed to address the civil rights of people to be protected --no discrimination--based on gender, race, religion.

Sexual orientation is not mentioned and most think it is a choice.

------------

There are now like 39 or 40 states that define marriage as union between one man and one woman.

Oh and a little clue for You. The SUrpeme Court has declared a Man has a FUNDAMENTAL right to Marriage. So You see You have no clue. If they have declared that He posesses that right and it's found in the US Constution then State Constitutions forbidding such are Null and Void.

Larry

Hey Murphy how so very wrong that You are.

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. What kind of heroin are you taking? Millions of Americans stand for FREEDOM, EQUALITY, and JUSTICE for all. You just aren't one of them. I don't consider you to be an American, or a citizen of my country.

Ah that hurts Bob. But you take my tax money when you get your entitlements. Let me know when you have changed your own State before trying to infect mine. Other wise shut the hell up. I don't give a rats ass what some clown from Buffalo thinks about laws which effect me in California. I don't want nutcases like you moving here. I can't think of any State that wants fools who believe the moon is made of cheese.

"Don't you get it? They won't do it. They have already refused."

Courts change.

And what is considered a "fundamental right" changes over time as well.

I can't think of any State that wants fools who believe the moon is made of cheese.

#262 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-11-05 06:35 PM

I think Utah still takes them!

Murphy:

(And all the rest of you righties):

You're hopeless. You have not the understanding of our Constitution and our system of checks and balances that a fourth-grader should have.

Of course, neither did the President you elected twice nor your most recent candidate, which is why you're here regurgitating the same old misconceptions instead of celebrating.

I'm full.

Precisely the thought many libs have - if we can just get more activist judges.

The legal precedent didn't/hasn't changed. What may change, however, is a SCOTUS willing to overstep its bounds.

I suppose if that happens we're looking at a US Constitutional amendment. That's a very big hill to climb and one the SCOTUS can't overturn.

#267 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-05 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I just love You Bigots and Homophobes. Label them activist Judges when they go against Your prejudices. Never fails does it. SIGHHHHHHHHHH

Larry

Damn them activist Judges who allowed Heterosexual Blacks to be able to Marry. Damn those activist Judges who sides with Interracial Marriages. Someday it will be Damn those activist Judges who allowed Gays and Lesbians to have their Constutional Guaranteed right to Marry. Never fails then the United States claims to be all about Freedom and Justice for all. What rubbish.

larry

"Precisely the thought many libs have - if we can just get more activist judges.

The legal precedent didn't/hasn't changed. What may change, however, is a SCOTUS willing to overstep its bounds.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-05 06:44 PM"

Sorry, Ooo, but you lost the right to try to make this into a "liberal" thing when the Supreme Court decided the recent Second Amendment case. (You know, the "Right Wing's Roe v. Wade"?) Result-oriented judges come from the entire political spectrum, and they always have.

You got it, Larry. And Oorah still wants to give a piece of his mind to the one who said Blacks can go to the same school as Whites. Damn activist judges!

You got it, Larry. And Oorah still wants to give a piece of his mind to the one who said Blacks can go to the same school as Whites. Damn activist judges!

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-11-05 06:53 PM | Reply

Yeah I know. It's sad that Bigotry and Homophobia are alive and well even today. Aren't we supposed to go FORWARD and not backwards??

Larry

Gay marriage is an OXYMORON!!!

FACT!!!!

#238 | Posted by James_Dean at 2008-11-05 05:56 PM

James Dean is a MORON!

FACT!!!!

Marriage may be defined to be between just a man and a woman this year. Anyone with common sense knows that won't last. There really is no such thing as a "traditional" marriage. These things are always relative to the time you are living in.

This was just a last gasp by the Religious Right and because they dumped so much money into this Proposition they managed to fool good folks once again. Sadly a lot of money has been wasted on this that could be used on REAL issues. And it will cost a fortune to repair this damage but it will happen. Maybe not this year or next but I will bet within about 5 years this will be reversed if indeed it does happen...in fact it may never even take effect!

this just in-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2008

Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It Pass

Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution's Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone

SAN FRANCISCO The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

Oh and a little clue for You. The SUrpeme Court has declared a Man has a FUNDAMENTAL right to Marriage. So You see You have no clue. If they have declared that He posesses that right and it's found in the US Constution then State Constitutions forbidding such are Null and Void.

Larry

#260 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-05 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Uhh. Try harder, Larry. They've specifically stated repeatedly they would not declare any such thing. They've specifically declined to rule on the Massachusettes case, for exactly that reason. They've specifically refused to step into the California case the first time this happened in California when the right wing whackjobs tried to appeal to them, for the exact same reason. The US Constitution declares no such thing. Never has. The current Justices refuse to take cases based exactly ON that. They stand behind President Clinton's original act, which is that it's up to the states. THEY AGREE IT IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE.

Here's a time line to help you all understand this better... which needs to be updated to reflect today's events.

Sexual orientation vs race. They aren't the same thing. That's the crux of the issue in terms of protection.

Unless you're Michael Jackson you can't choose your race.

Which SCOTUS case are you referring to? I think there were a couple recently.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-05 06:58 PM | Reply

Sure they are. a Personal sexuality is just as much a part of themselves as the color of their skin. Don't know why You don't grasp this very fact. Oh and nice racial dig against Michael Jackson. He has a legit disease that causes His skin pigment to go.

Larry

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

#274 | Posted by donnerboy at 2008-11-05 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

^5

Sexual orientation vs race. They aren't the same thing. That's the crux of the issue in terms of protection.

A minority is a minority and any minority deserves equal protection under the Constitution. If this get to the Supreme Court again can you guess what will happen?

I can!

*blah blah something about 4th grade understanding*

#266 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2008-11-05 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Mary, using my language doesn't make you any less wrong. There's nothing that can make it clearer. Nothing. It's all there, black and white, in our system of checks and balances. You're just plain wrong. Repeating what I said with a reversed position doesn't make you any less wrong. It does, however, make you ridiculous.

Donnerboy: That was shot down ages ago. They can refile that suit all they want, but that was tried back when Prop 8 was first introduced. It failed then, it'll fail now. ALL The California Supreme did was allow the name of the Proposition to be changed. That was it. That's all. This had to be stopped before it was started. You all sat on your lazy asses and didn't do that.

Now either the US Supreme Court must miraculously change it's mind about what, exactly, it thinks it's powers are (not likely. The precedent it sets is HIDEOUSLY dangerous) or an overriding Amendment must be made to the US Consitution.

Or a repealing one to the California.

You do not understand. You continue to assign positions to the US Supreme Court ones they do not take. You keep assigning them powers they have stated they DO NOT HAVE. If The Supreme Court says the Constitution does not allow them to rule on these matters; that's the end of it. The opinions of Larry Mohr and Montecore are ONLY relevant if they can initiate Legislative action to amend the Us Constitution. Get it now?

#275 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

#261 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-05 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You know if these bigots and homophobes spent half as much money and time trying to limit peoples Civil Rights by working on their own backyards this Country would be in such better shape.

Larry

"...nor (shall any state) deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Hasn't California done just that?

I can understand the SCOTUS not stepping in before, because no pro-active action had been taken. Now it has.

Marriage is (and abortion should be) something left to the states to determine themselves because it's not specifically addressed in the US constitution. Same for the age for marriage, driving, etc.

#281 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-05 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nope sorry. You would have some states banning Heterosexual Black Marriages and such. Plus the States should really have ZERO say about a Woman's fundamental right to reproductive privacy. Just the way it is.

Larry

You know what? Fuck it. I'm done.

You know why the Republicans keep kicking the shit out of Democrats in the legal arena? Because Democrats at large haven't got the slightest clue how the system works. At one TIME, in the 60's, the average leftist had a clue, but not so anymore. In fact, it was probably such a time period that TAUGHT them how to do these things. The modern Republicans spend their time finding ways to USE the laws to fuck everyone over, and the Democrats waste their time living in a magical world of ponies and unicorns where the system works however they WANT it to, instead of actually working the way it does.

This is the same as the imbeciles who weren't scared by the amendment that would declare a fetus a human being. They didn't fucking get it. If that passes, abortion becomes illegal. Sloppily enough, it also means every miscarriage has to be investigated by the police, and I suppose not taking enough Folic Acid could lead to a manslaughter charge. Roe V. Wade would become immaterial, because a higher authority would have made that invalid.

But instead of fighting where the fights need to happen, keep drifting along, crying for hope and change, but never actually doing what it takes to ACHIEVE any change. Meanwhile, the Republicans will slowly continue to _actually_ change things until one day we're all worshiping the same god and thinking the same way, having painted ourselves into a corner only armed revolution can fix.

And that shit almost never actually ends up putting in a better system then what was there before. America got lucky once. You really think that'll happen again?

Larry

You always get so upset over California's "no gay marriage" vote and so does BuffaloBob and think anyone who doesn't want it is a bigot. Well, hey, I'm no bigot. If you and BBob want to tie the knot in a civil union I'll be happy to attend your nuptials. Just make sure you have a really fun reception with a great band and good food! I'm ready to party. Are you guys registered at any particular department store so I'll know if you need a toaster or whatever.

Meanwhile, instead of always butting into the business of the people of California -- who have TWICE voted against gay marriage -- why don't you two work on legalizing gay marriage in your own states of Kansas and Ohio and leave us Californians alone. See ya at your wedding. lol!

Hey CalifChris it's because the People of California are Our Brothers and Sisters as Countrymen and Countrywomen are they not. Isn't this the UNITED States of America. How can one stay silent when ones brother or sister is screaming for their equal rights?? Just a thought.

Larry

It failed then, it'll fail now. ALL The California Supreme did was allow the name of the Proposition to be changed. That was it. That's all. This had to be stopped before it was started. You all sat on your lazy asses and didn't do that.

sat on our lazy asses? No, we don't have the millions of dollars that was dumped on this to make it pass. What we do have is the Constitution. Something you may have forgotten...Just because we pass a Proposition in California does not make it LAW. It has to also be Constitutional!

Remember...It ain't over until it's OVER!

When good folks realize how they were hoodwinked by the MORMONS (there is some TRADITIONAL marriage for you!) there will be some backlash.

Californians Against Hate released figures Tuesday showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed $6.9 million to pass a a similar law, Proposition 102, in Arizona...

We don't like outsiders mucking around with our Constitution!

So, we shall see who wins out in the end won't we?

Oh and CalifChris if Buffalo Bob and I were trying to get married(Double Perish the thought) You won't let us because of Your narrowmindedness. So how can we get Married if You won't let us??

Larry

"and leave us Californians alone. "

You don't speak for Californians. You speak for a rapidly dwindling thin majority which will undoubtedly become the minority in a few years.

"You know what? Fuck it. I'm done."

awwww don't be such a wussie! Like I said it ain't over till it's over...didn't Obama teach you anything?

You know why the Republicans keep kicking the shit out of Democrats in the legal arena?

You mean like they just kicked the shit out of Obama... you mean like that? Yea, those Republicans are so awesome!

"MONTE-
Sexual orientation vs race. They aren't the same thing. That's the crux of the issue in terms of protection.

Unless you're Michael Jackson you can't choose your race.

Which SCOTUS case are you referring to? I think there were a couple recently.

#273 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-05 06:58 PM"

Most of the research suggests that sexuality is something folks are born with, not a choice. The Sup Ct may at some time decide that gays deserve equal protection.

I'm talking about the recent case where they decided the 2nd Amendment conferred a right to own guns to individuals, not just state militias. Google it, and you will find some very smart conservatives railing on the Sup Ct for their activisim on this case. You gotta respect those who stick to their principles, even when it results in a decision they don't like.

"Now either the US Supreme Court must miraculously change it's mind about what, exactly, it thinks it's powers are (not likely. The precedent it sets is HIDEOUSLY dangerous) or an overriding Amendment must be made to the US Consitution.

Or a repealing one to the California.

#279 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-05 07:05 PM"

Let me try to explain it to you. It may be that we agree, and are just talking past each other, but I don't think so. If, for instance, the good people of Wyoming were to pass an amendment to their state constitution that made it illegal for women to vote, the US Sup Ct could strike that amendment down simply because it violates protections guaranteed to all US citizens in the US Constitution. No change to the US Constitution would be necessary, and they wouldn't "repeal" the amendment to Wyoming's consititution. They would simply strike it down as unconstitutional.

Can we agree on that?

"leave us Californians alone. See ya at your wedding. lol!

#286 | Posted by CalifChris "

Our beach!
Our waves!
You're not local.
GO HOME!

But seriously, Chrissy, STFU.

Nulli

You don't speak for Californians. You speak for a rapidly dwindling thin majority which will undoubtedly become the minority in a few years.

You say the same thing every time the subject of gay marriage comes up in California and every time the voters prove you wrong.

It doesn't matter if the demographics change as Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, etc. do NOT approve of gay marriage in California so get over it.

Work on getting more perks and rights for gay people in civil unions and just call it a day. Why do you insist on having to use the word "marriage" if gays in civil unions would be able to get all the same rights (tax deductions, etc.) as a married couple. Most people wouldn't object gays in a civil union being able to file a joint tax return or have a say in each other's health directives, etc. It's just most people want the word "marriage" and the cultural and religious meaning of the word "marriage" left alone and have it only apply to a marriage between a man and a woman.

You're an atheist so why should you give a damn about whether or not it's called a "marriage." Calling it a "marriage" only means something to people who are religious. Drop insisting on calling it a marriage and just have a civil union will all the same rights given to a heterosexual married couple. What's wrong with that?

You're an atheist so why should you give a damn about whether or not it's called a "marriage." Calling it a "marriage" only means something to people who are religious. Drop insisting on calling it a marriage and just have a civil union will all the same rights given to a heterosexual married couple. What's wrong with that?

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-11-05 07:50 PM | Reply

So Athiest Heterosexuals can't get Married?? You mean their Heterosexual Marriages are a sham?? Boy better let those Atheists know that. Oh and the United States of AMerica IS a SEDCULAR NATION. See the Treaty of Tripoli.

Larry

SECULAR NATION^

Why do you insist on having to use the word "marriage" if gays in civil unions would be able to get all the same rights (tax deductions, etc.) as a married couple.

Umm because that is what they would be... married! And they are entitled to all the rights granted therein.

So why do you insist on denying the gay folks equal rights? Why do you insist that this DENIAL needs to be in our State Constitution? What did they ever do to you? Did the gays destroy your marriage CC or did someone try and poke you in the butt and you did not like it?..no you did not like it one bit!

Or perhaps is it a little of that old time religious bigotry in disguise? What is it to you really?

Donner - CC is a woman! If someone tried to poke her in the butt it might be sodomy, but it wouldn't be gay.

"You say the same thing every time the subject of gay marriage comes up in California and every time the voters prove you wrong."

From 62 percent to 52 percent. You're on the wrong side of history.

BTW- CC I am from California too in case you did not know that. And I am from the REAL California and we approved of Gay marraige overwhelmingly here. We are not so easily fooled by the Mormons up here.

60% of us voted against this hateful ballot measure.

Donner - CC is a woman! If someone tried to poke her in the butt it might be sodomy, but it wouldn't be gay.

#299 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-11-05 08:00 PM

lol that is funny! I guess I walked into that one...but still it makes me wonder why someone who is not REALLY affected by the sexual orientation of someone else would deny others equal rights in this day and age. It must be SOMETHING! Maybe a lesbian tried to mount her?

hmm this is making me hot just talking about it! I better "get off" now!

Gays do have equal protection--for jobs and health benefits and they can ride the bus anywhere and they even have their own special hate crime laws.

And they can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex.

It is a gov't thing to reinforce the family and those to procreate together.

------------------

Here is the exit polling for Prop 8--

bigotry alive and well

Would it aid your fantasy Donner if I told you she had a nice set of C-cups?

"It is a gov't thing to reinforce the family and those to procreate together."

Not, it's not a "government thing" dipshit. It's none of the government's business.

The license is issued by the state gov't. The tax benefits are given by the IRS--again the gov't.

Dipshit.

The license is issued by the state gov't. The tax benefits are given by the IRS--again the gov't.

Dipshit.

#307 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-05 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If we are the Government aren't we licensing ourselves. So in escense it's not another persons business than that of one Him/Her and their Spouse to Be and their God or no God of their choice.

Larry

Does anyone actually believe the result of this vote changes anything? It doesn't. No matter how you slice it, the gay community has made enormous strides over the last eight years. In part, I believe, it is a reaction to the intolerance and bible thumping coming out of D.C. under the Bush admin.

Larry,
The reason there will be no gay marriage can be summed up in three words;
Folsom
Street
Fair.

Those of you who do not know what this is just use the Google.

The reason there will be no gay marriage can be summed up in three words;
Folsom
Street
Fair.

~Prolix

Gay Pride festivals replete with leatherboys and open sexuality is not a reason against gay marriage just an indicator that you find gay sex icky.

It certainly aint an argument that trumps folks right to equal treatment under the law.

Not even close.

Be Well.

The reason there will be no gay marriage can be summed up in three words;
Folsom
Street
Fair.

Those of you who do not know what this is just use the Google.

#310 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-11-05 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So You have a problem with people of Homosexuality getting together for a Fair?? How come You don't care when Rednecks get together and bare their fat asses and bellies rolling around in mud. Or how about Country Hicks getting together just like the Rednecks and having a big old blast while being half clothed and sometime not. How come You don't care when fat asses stick out of peoples drawers when they walk down the street. Let's face it You scared little bigot that's why.

Larry

There are naked Redneck parades?

"There are naked Redneck parades?

#313 | Posted by MURPHY "

Why, you interested in participating?

There are naked Redneck parades?

#313 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-05 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why?? Do You want Me to come to Your street and walk up and down in My shit kickers with spurs with a piece of straw in My Mouth and a big old grin on My face??

Larry

Hell I'll even wear a cowboy hat in Your honour Murphy. What do you say??

laters. Murphy email Me if interested.

"There are naked Redneck parades?"

Posted by MURPHY

Your ankles are the reason; get 'em up!

There are naked Redneck parades?

#313 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-11-05 09:11 PM

aren't they called Biker Rallies?

"Sloppily enough, it also means every miscarriage has to be investigated by the police"

Not to mention every menstrual period.

In this country, the few over turn the majority, which is unconstitutional.

The whole idea of a supreme court is unconstitional, can't americans interpret the constitution for themselves.
Why do we need a supreme court? This makes it so a few people choose the laws for the many, which is unconstitional.

Montecore-

Fuck off.

"Montecore-

Fuck off.

#322 | Posted by JOE "

Hahahaha. Hey Joe, how did your party, the Losertarians, do yesterday? Win a few dog catcher offices? Get a percent or two in the Presidential race?

Did I ever say they would win anything? And since when should one's support of a political party be based on how much power they have?

Wow. Bob Barr got 0.7 percent of the vote in his home state of Georgia. The Losertarians are on their way!

Hahahahahaha.

Munty-

Your post #293 looks a lot like my #217. You don't know any more about the Constitution than anyone else. My guess is it only comes up when you're exercising the right to a jury in your slip-and-fall cases, you ambulance chasing scumbag.

To those who champion Gay Marriage Bans. I say Congratulations. You have cheapened the very meaning and ideal about what Marriage is supposed to be about. Love Honour Fidelity. Congratulations also to those who believe that their Marriages are Sacred and Special unto themselves. Not too many years ago maybe 200 I am not sure exactly how long. The very same argument was made against Heterosexual Blacks from marrying. They used the same bigotted excuses that You have made against Gay Marriage. It wasn't but 40+ Years ago that interracial Couples wasn't allowed because it violated the Sactity of Marriage. After all You didn't go around mixing with people that weren't Your kind. The same holds true today. Your bigotted and or Homophobia will someday Lord willing and the Courts decide to take up the cause will right a wrong. They will correct Your short sightedness. They will correct the injustice that has befallen YOUR Countrymen/Women. I say Congratulations for living in Your bigotted hate filled world of intolerance. Your days are slowly coming to an end. Goodnight.

Larry

Montecore-

Fuck off.

#322 ~JOE

Is that yer closing argument, shyster?

Wow, just wow.

Not particularily effective but memorable certainly.

Be Well.

In this country, the few over turn the majority, which is unconstitutional

~pRick

Oh look, the morons back.

Read a book, dude.

America was founded specifically in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".

Do you have an argument against gay marriage other than that?

Cos it would be Spud's distinct pleasure to rip it to shreds, ya unevolved mouth breather.

Spud likes tutoring wankstains like yerself in the ways of righteousness.

Is fun fer Spud.

Learn that.

Be Well.

I thought Barack Obama was going to bring peace and unity.

Those of you who believe that an age old societal standard should be thrown out because you feel it is wrong sure sound very hateful and lacking in unity with those you disagree with.

I thought you were all about everyone voting and every vote being counted. The people of California have voted twice but I guess that is only if those votes agree with your position. The Federal position on this issue is that it is up to each State so the Supreme Court would not be able to overturn this California Amendment unless Barack Obama gets rid of the Defense of Marriage Act.

That sounds very intolerant if you ask me.

For a very good and logical argument on why homosexual marriage is not discrimination, please read Thomas Sowell's latest column.

The constitutional amendment part bothers me in how it's handled, though sometimes the "marriage" part bothers me - not because i have any problem whatsoever with gays getting married (they're not special, they should be just as miserable as the rest of us :) ), but because I think the social union concept is ok, because I respect separation of church and state, and my respect goes both ways, even if i have no respect for the religions themselves.

I say, let the religious nutters keep the word marriage, make that only a word for a ceremony held in a church, and meaningless as a civil union. Then make everyone, gay and straight partners, who wish to formalize their relationship apply for a civil union, which has all the legal entitlements and responsibilites that marriage once had.

"Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

"Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

"None of us has a right to other people's approval"

Thomas Sowell from article above

unless you are Elton John? or ?

"Is that yer closing argument"

No, Iceback, it was a response to a cheap shot taken when I wasn't here. See the rests of my posts on this topic in multiple threads if you're interested in my opinion - my guess is that you'd rather pretend I never said anything about it. Carry on.

This is anti-california.

It does not represent the CA that I grew up in(HS class of 73, Merced). To actually care about what other people are doing when it does not concern you.

GET A FUCKIN LIFE.

The only explanation that I can fathom is east coast transplants (uptight assholes) are reaching critical mass.

We'd prefer if you leave us "nuts" alone and go back to NY.

As a civil matter any persons wishing to marry should not face discrimination. I don't care if we call it marraige, civil unions, or domestic contracts.

Churches or church officials should not be required to perform such marriages. Judges and civil employees authorized to perform marriages should be required to perform these marraiges.

My only concern with polyandry or polygamy is how do we prevent the child sexual abuse that seems to follow these practices and how do we insure that all parties, including all other spouses, are in agreement as to this union?

If someone wants multiple spouses at one time, more power to them and my wishes for a lot of luck.

The concept of God's Law only applies to those who believe in God.

cowboy said: The concept of God's Law only applies to those who believe in God.

Yep, and the concept of constitutional law only applies to those who believe in the constitution. And that is ultimately why we are where we are. Folks want the Constitution to be a "living" document, one that blesses any and all behaviors, calling them a "right."

I wonder what will be the next abomination our "living" constitution will allow us to wallow in?

America the Beautiful has become America the Carnival.

Hail Bacchus! Walle Bacchanalia!

I was not aware that the Constitution addressed marriage.

"I was not aware that the Constitution addressed marriage."

The Supreme Court said "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

I guess they disagree with you.

The Constitution does not 'directly' address marriage.

'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"' does not suggest that we limit the institution of marriage in any way. In fact if it is a 'basic civil right' why should we attempt to limit it.

In fact if it is a 'basic civil right' why should we attempt to limit it.

So I should be able to marry my sister? or my brother? or how about my mother? Can I marry both my brother and my sister?

Yes, let's not attempt to limit marriage, for it is a "basic" civil right. And basic means basic. No limitations.

I highly the founders of this country would have been ok with gay marriage

I highly doubt that the founders of this country would have been OK with gay marriage

I highly doubt that the founders of this country would have been OK with gay marriage

#343 | Posted by timbci

They weren't OK with women or Blacks having rights either, but we managed to advance our culture in spite of that.

#2 | Posted by dutch46 at 2008-11-05 02:02 AM

What gay people do in private is none of my business, anymore than what straight people do.

I want, no...demand that they have the same rights and privileges I have.

Homosexuals do have the same rights and privileges at law as anyone else. It is their psychological impulse that causes them to require additional privileges. They want the fact that they do not comprise a complementary physiological unit with another person, with the capacity to effect such a union as the nexus of the marriage relationship, to be ignored, and a new category established.

Why should a category be established to accommodate a psychological deviation from the norm?

I came away from the public/private education of my youth with the notion that this nation was founded upon equality in law and in life. Have I been sadly misinformed?

Your statment is vague and ambiguous, so it's difficult to discern the thought you intended to convey.

The implicit premise that homosexuals are denied rights available to others, is false. There was no right granted anyone to secure the state imprimatur for a relationship with another person of the same sex. Now there are some states that do provide for recognition of this untraditional and perverted relationship that is contrary to the physiological makeup of the participating individuals.

Even if the law passes, I guarantee you it will come up again in the next election cycle. You can't legislate gay people away.

Fellow, why are you so "het up" regarding this matter? What's your dog in this hunt? Do you have any idea why this elicits such strong feelings in you?

I think that both using pot and the oxymoronic concept of "homosexual marriage" now are legal in Massachusetts. So, if you want someplace congenial to your feelings, you might want to relocate and enjoy the surroundings there. I suppose, however, that the feds could still bust you for pot on federal charges, and I don't know if the feds will recognize "homosexual marriage" for federal purposes, such as taxes and whatever. Rest easy though as Obama will probably provide for federal recognition by fiat.

Actually the original draft of the Declaration of Independende did give rights to Blacks

Uhm, sure thing.

As marriage is a legal construct as someone earlier posted, what is the basis for extending it to include two same sex persons, yet continuing to limit it to two people?

Why not permit polygamous "marriages?" Why not permit a menage a trois?

There are reasons in terms of consequences that I shall not enumerate here now.

And since marriage is said to require extension to meet the psychological needs of individuals, why "two" individuals? Why is two the magic number? Why not empower marriage for the psychological satisfaction of "one" individual? After all, it impairs the happiness of the sole practitioner, who may want to marry a doll and participate in sex with it, or possibly an animal? Why is not the happiness of an animal over as important as the happiness of two people in a relationship. Marriage fosters closeness.

There may be some problems extending equitable medical coverage to a doll repair undertaking, or to a veterinarian, but what the heck. Once we're over the initial barrier, and extend marriage on the basis of making people psychologically happy, we can remove other barriers.

Why the magic number two? Why not three? Or more? And more to the point, why not "one," a person with a "significant other" object or animal if it will contribute to his or her happiness? and we shouldn't under this thesis, restrict the relationship to opposite sex animals.

If we're going to be "progressive," let's reduce the matter to the absurdity that it is.

Now the solo practitioners of autoeroticism are another thing. But we can address their "rights" later.

We are a "rights" mad society, and very confused as to what should be "a right" and why.

"what is the basis for extending it to include two same sex persons, yet continuing to limit it to two people?"

Contract law, and superseding rights.

Here is the thing. We are talking A Marriage meaning one Marriage. more than 2 would be Multiple Marriages. It's not comparable because You are talking about adding more than 2 life forms into the mix.

Larry

I read the stats for the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. I can't recall with particularity, but it's something like 85 per 100,000 among blacks, 35 per 100,000 among Latinos, and 10 per 100,000 among whites. I wonder what it is among homosexuals. If you are statiscally attuned and prudent rather than being propelled by amatory impulses and a compelling libido, you might want to consider exposure to very harmful disease as a factor in your sexual activities.

Public policy would require recognition of single sex relationships of one person to the exclusion of relationships with others as worthwhile as a prophylaxis for limiting the spread of venereal (and other) disease.

Also, possibly there again should be laws against miscegenation to reduce the spread of diseases among disparate populations. But this would only further endanger those in the non-white category mating with someone of another race or ethnicity. While Latinos would be imperiled mating with blacks, but reduce disease exposure mating with whites. And blacks are in a bad spot. the only way they can reduce exposure is to not engage in sex with needle users and those with homosexual lifestyles.

Life is inded fraught with peril. And the solicitation of governmental intervention, expanding its interference by broadening categories of relationships that are recognized, can create unanticipated problems.

Let it be.

One "right" begets another. Then the absurdity is apparent. Same sex "marriage?" Indeed. Harrumph.

Actually the original draft of the Declaration of Independende did give rights to Blacks

#346 | Posted by timbci at 2008-11-06 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WRONG since the Constitution declared Blacks 3/5ths a person the Declaration of Independence declared all Men are created equal. Since they are not fully a person they can not(At that time) be declared a man. Do try again.

Larry

You can not possibly declare You can have a Marriage unto Yourself. Even as barbaric as Your attitude is Johnson about the penis into vagina consumates or completes a Marriage there is no way in hell a single person can make His or Her solitary Marriage legit. You are just full of balderdash and that is it.

Larry

I highly doubt that the founders of this country would have been OK with gay marriage

#343 | Posted by timbci

They weren't OK with women or Blacks having rights either, but we managed to advance our culture in spite of that.

#344 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-06 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nor savages aka Native AMericans where many a republican gets their cheap tobacco from.

Larry

Race or Ethnicity Estimated # of AIDS Cases in 2006
White, not Hispanic 10,929
Black, not Hispanic 17,960

#349 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-06 12:24 PM

"what is the basis for extending it to include two same sex persons, yet continuing to limit it to two people?"

Contract law, and superseding rights.

Here is the thing. We are talking A Marriage meaning one Marriage. more than 2 would be Multiple Marriages. It's not comparable because You are talking about adding more than 2 life forms into the mix.

Danforth and Larry. Remember that you are creating "rights" not only between two individuals, but between the individuals contracting, and the state, and third parties.

How does "contract law" negate the the undertaking of contractual obligations. If I am "married" to my horse, then by virtue of that relationship the state may compel my employer (a third party) to provide a health insurance policy that provides veterinary coverage and compensates a third party for service to my "partner."

Contract law operates in this way in our society. It's nothing new.

And Larry, this demurrer on the basis of "two life forms" ignores precedent.

Even now "other life forms" are governed by laws. Infliction of cruelty upon dogs and cats, for example, constitute crimes. And provision is made for euthanasia of dogs and cats for purposes of public policy. A pet can have a trust fund established and be the beneficiary. The trustee is obligated by contract to provide for the non-human. The idea of a pet as a cestui que trust has a long history in Anglo-American jurisipudence.There are no novelties in extending provisions of the law to cover non-human creatures.

Your objections indicate something analgous to racism, or sexism, or ethnicism, or chauvinism. This specie-ism is inherently discriminatory, and is an attempt to roll back the clock with regressive thinking, and embrace anachronisms which deprive non-human creatures of rights, rights they now have, and which were hard-won under the law.

I'm somewhat taken aback that those of you with an advanced view of society, in the vanguard of advancing change, and conferring the extension of protections, and with a love of living creatures, would even consider restoring a system which deprives creatures of rights with the implication that conscious sensate feeling creatures are not part of the world we seek to ennoble.

Johnson You are a waste of time. Goodbye. You use so many words to say zilch.

"Remember that you are creating "rights" not only between two individuals, but between the individuals contracting"

Wrong. Those rights already exist, just ask the Supreme Court. But currently, one segment of society is prohibited from benefitting from them.

Face it.

Same sex marriage is not allowed because the majority of the people believed it should be allowed.

It can be traced to religion as a primary reason. People simply don't accept it.

It's like polygamy. The majority of the people believed (and may still today) that it is wrong and should not be legalized.

This country is based on legal and illegal, not right and wrong - although our laws usually begin with the right/wrong reasoning.

I cannot give you a reason to deny same-sex marriage if you set the bar at equality. When equality is the bar, you have to establish reason for deliberate inequality. Our country does have legalized inequality - it's based on our beliefs and not really reasoning.

Here's my example: Drinking age. 21 years of age. Why 21? What is the real reason? If it has something to do with maturity and decision making, why would you allow an 18 year old to be drafted and be allowed to vote? If an 18 year old is tried as an adult for crime, why not buy a drink?

There is no reason for that proves 21 is better than 18. Not when you consider voting and the draft and whether they are tried as an adult for crimes. Age doesn't really make the difference in these categories - but the People of the US chose representatives and 21 is the set age. Is it really fair? It is right or wrong?

It was a choice where to draw the line for age.

It is age discrimination in my mind. An 18 year old, who can be tried as an adult, drafted to go to war and die for their country, make the decision to vote for someone, is definitely mature enough to buy a drink.

Same sex marriage is an issue of the conscience of Americans. The legality of the issue rests with the courts and let it be decided there.

I know what I believe on many issues, and some I'm not sure. Some, such as the UN Charter, I'm more aware of thanks to Larry. But, if the issue is deciding if something is Constitutional, there's only one way to be absolutely sure. Let the Constitution be your guide - go to court.

soheifox,

The State of California has passed a Constitutional Amendment. It states:

"The Governor shall be granted the authority to enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money (not just in gold or silver coin), emit Bills of Credit, pass any Bill of Attainer, ex post facto Law, and Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, and grant any Title of Nobility."

Now, take a good look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

Do you think the US Supreme Court will allow this State Constitutional Amendment to stand or will it declare the State Amendment to be null and void?

When you figure out that answer, determine if SCOTUS can determine if this Amendment violates the US Constitution.

"Munty-

Your post #293 looks a lot like my #217. You don't know any more about the Constitution than anyone else. My guess is it only comes up when you're exercising the right to a jury in your slip-and-fall cases, you ambulance chasing scumbag.

#326 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-06 12:40 AM"

Ha ha ha. Nice to see I still Lil' Joe's tiny balls by his short and curlies! Get a job, Lil' man. Even if you have to be a paralegal or something, it may give you some self-worth and help you get rid of some of that raging anger, little punk.

Petrous - you said "Same sex marriage is not allowed because the majority of the people believed it should be allowed."

Wasn't there a majority at some point that didn't think women should vote? How about a majority if people at one point thinking slavery was ok?

Just because the majority think it is ok does not make it ok.

MDLO,

The term is "tyranny of the majority." It was one of the things our founding fathers tried to protect against with things like supermajorities and such. This is why, in many cases, 51% is not enough to win.

Larry and Spud,
The reason I brought up Folsom Street is that this is the image that will be portrayed as a reason not to grant gay marriage.

I challenge you to find any other fair in the US that will allow heterosexual couples to have sex out in the open in front of police and not get arrested. I can show you pics of men enjoying circle jerks with four or five guys, guys masturbating out of two story windows and spraying his orgasm into a crowd below and so on, and so on.

This material was sent to me via an email from a PAC and it is very powerful. Now I know not all gays act the same but when dealing with politics the lowest common denominator will always be an albatross around your neck.

Look, my wife's most cherished childhood friend is currently in a lesbian marriage with a pretty cool son who was born through invetro, so I do understand. I am merely critiquing the political aspects surrounding Prop 8.

A little calm reflection with allow you to see my point.

When you figure out that answer, determine if SCOTUS can determine if this Amendment violates the US Constitution.

Its a good question. The forefathers made a point of limiting black votes, although somewhat reluctantly if you have read much. They also made a point of preventing women to vote. Both of these things existed in the Constitution. These have obviously been rectified. Nowhere in the constitution does it ever mention gay marriage, or marriage at all, for that matter. Beyond those original missteps, everybody was equal. The government involvement in marriage only came about because people didn't want whites marrying blacks and vice versa. It was for control purposes only. We are doing the same thing now - nearly 200 years later. The forefathers believed in an individual's right to pursues life, liberty and happiness in whatever way they wanted (unless you were black or a woman).

Johnson

What special priviledges do homosexuals seek that would not apply to you and everyone else?

I think you are mistaken when you say they seek special priviledges.

Can you explain these special priviledges?

Wasn't there a majority at some point that didn't think women should vote? How about a majority if people at one point thinking slavery was ok?

Just because the majority think it is ok does not make it ok.

#362 | Posted by mdloftroad

Article XIV didn't give women the right to vote.
Article XV didn't either.
It took Article XIX to give women the right to vote. That right didn't exist prior to the Amendment to the Constitution.

Is voting a right like marriage?

Question.

Article XV states voting shall not be denied due to race, color, or condition of servitude.

Article XIX states voting shall not be denied on account of sex.

I haven't been able to find it. Where in the Constitution does it state, "Only White Men can vote"

Why is anyone asking the government for rights? I thought people were born with all rights, and it was up to government to protect those rights. No--wait a minute---that's not right.

All rights come from the government. The right to vote comes from the government. The right to breath comes from the government. These rights may be taken away at any time.

Petrous - thanks for the info. Does the constitution mention marriage at all?

Johnson's points and arguments have dismantled the homoerotic b.s. on this board. Well done Johnson! Well done!

Johnson's points and arguments have dismantled the homoerotic b.s. on this board. Well done Johnson! Well done!

#371 | Posted by TheOneBS

Wow! Theo really loves johnson!

This could be put to rest easily. Allow "Unions" between gay people that give the same property rights, visitation, child, inheritance, rights etc. That way everyone can have the same "rights" and anyone who wants the term marriage to define 1 man/woman bonded according to the church. Seems to satisfy both sides, IMO.

#370 | Posted by mdloftroad at 2008-11-06 04:23 PM

ahh yes... sounds a lot like Separate but Equal to me.

If civil unions and marriages are to be essentially the same could you please explain to me why we would need a Constitutional Amendment to define a word? I am sure the Christian Right would disagree with you. Their aim is to deny rights to gays not help them have equal rights no matter what you want to call it.

Remember that you are creating "rights" not only between two individuals, but between the individuals contracting, and the state, and third parties.

Rights are not "created".

We hold these truths to be "self-evident"... remember?

Except to the Christian Right that is... nothing is "self-evident" unless it is evidently in a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of self-loathing illiterate men.

Remember that you are creating "rights" not only between two individuals, but between the individuals contracting, and the state, and third parties.

was supposed to be quoted! (I didn't say it)

#352 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-06 12:40 PM

WRONG since the Constitution declared Blacks 3/5ths a person the Declaration of Independence declared all Men are created equal. Since they are not fully a person they can not(At that time) be declared a man. Do try again.

So, it was the slave states that promoted the personhood of blacks.

It had very little to do with valuation of blacks as humans. That was not at issue. It was strictly a materialistic issue involving power politics and securing gain and advantage.

" It was strictly a materialistic issue involving power politics and securing gain and advantage."

Not unlike the denial of equal rights for gays.

So, it was the slave states that promoted the personhood of blacks.

Rot in hell.

#377 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-11-06 08:00 PM

Not unlike the denial of equal rights for gays.

Gays want special rights established for psychological conditions that result in aberrant behavior. Homosexuals are entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex as can any other person qualified to marry by age, or whatever other limitations apply. That their particular psychology causes them to decline to take advantage of this opportunity, is a matter of their own choosing dictated by their psychological orientation.

That homosexuals are affected by aberrant drives that predispose them to eschew marriage, does not deprive them of anything available to other persons. Homosexuals are striving to create a new "right" based on psychological predisposition rather than natural complementary physical natures.

If homosexuals were to be cured through genetics or some other remedies devised, they can elect to marry an utilize existing laws the same as anyone else. In fact, a homosexual despite his predisposition may marry a person of the opposite sex today for whatever reason, should he choose to do so. So what right is denied him that is available to anyone else? He certainly has the right to marry.

#378 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-11-06 08:01 PM

So, it was the slave states that promoted the personhood of blacks.

Rot in hell.

Just what disturbs you concerning the fact that it was the slave states that wanted to have full representation for slaves as persons?

One of the DR left's primary arguments for gay marriage is that it's a civil rights issue... comparing discrimination against gays with past discrimination against blacks.

California blacks voted 70 - 30% to ban gay marriage. Apparently those who've been victims don't agree with you. Why?

Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-06 08:24 PM | Reply

Because they have forgotten how they were discriminated against after their rights were protected and was used to having their equal rights to marry vote and be declared a whole person. Just like when a kid gains recognition to have equality within the Family unit. They more often than not pay no reflective thought to where they came from. Just like when people are promoted for a career advancement 99% of the time they forget where they came from because they get the big head and forget that they were peons once before. Same thing here with blacks denying equal rights to their gay and lesbian Countrymen.Women.

Larry

#379 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-06 08:24 PM

California blacks voted 70 - 30% to ban gay marriage. Apparently those who've been victims don't agree with you. Why?

Unanticipated consequences.

One action affects other things and with a magnitude that is greater than anticipated. The Lorenze Effect in another form?

Johnson-
re: Just what disturbs you concerning the fact that it was the slave states that wanted to have full representation for slaves as persons?

What disturbed me is your rather perverse stand alone sentence as independent paragraph (ie, your point):

So, it was the slave states that promoted the personhood of blacks.

That statement would get your ass thrown out of my house, unless you were being ironic.

You aren't ironic.

"Homosexuals are entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex"

Grrrreat.....the cruelty defense.

"He certainly has the right to marry."

Riiiiiiiiight. A person of your choosing, not their choosing.

"Gays want special rights established "

Bullshit. You can't name one "special" right gays want which my wife and I didn't get the moment we said "I do".

Do you really think California blacks "have forgotten" how they'd been discriminated against? Or are they willfully ignorant in your view?

Or, perhaps, is it possible blacks resent their discrimination being equated with the gay marriage issue?

On a day when blacks voted roughly 95% for Obama, these same folks voted to retain traditional family values, apparently.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-06 08:43 PM | Reply

Yes I do because not so many Years ago a Traditional Family was one WHITE Male and one WHITE Female. If they resent the fact that their discrimination being equated with gay marriage have forgotten that Equality for all means exactly that equality for all.

Larry

Because they have forgotten how they were discriminated against after their rights were protected and was used to having their equal rights to marry vote and be declared a whole person. Just like when a kid gains recognition to have equality within the Family unit. They more often than not pay no reflective thought to where they came from. Just like when people are promoted for a career advancement 99% of the time they forget where they came from because they get the big head and forget that they were peons once before. Same thing here with blacks denying equal rights to their gay and lesbian Countrymen.Women.

Larry

#382 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-06 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, now Larry apparently speaks for the black population of California, having analyzed the entire group and affirms that they have forgotten their legacy. Impressive.

It just couldn't be that blacks don't buy the struggle for gay rights as similar to or the heir of their civil rights struggle and that an overwhelming majority of blacks believe marriage is defined as the bond between one man and one woman. Nah. That couldn't be it. What gives them the right to think that?

For those that oppose Gay Marriage give Me one good reason one that Gays and Lesbians shouldn't have their right to Marry protected?? I don't want religious bigotry as an excuse nor that You don't like it(I am 100% for the banning all Guns on a personal level. I believe society would be better off if that dastardly weapon had noty been invented. I do however more strongly believe that I have no God Damned right to dictate to any Law abiding Citizen to own a gun for their own personal protection and or for sport or collection) So give Me one good reason why They should not be married.

Larry

Does that make blacks ignorant homophobes? Or do you reserve that term for people like me and you simply cut them some slack because, after all, they're blacks and really don't "get it" like white libs?

#389 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-11-06 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nope they are bigots/Homophobes just the same OohRah.

Larry

It just couldn't be that blacks don't buy the struggle for gay rights as similar to or the heir of their civil rights struggle and that an overwhelming majority of blacks believe marriage is defined as the bond between one man and one woman. Nah. That couldn't be it. What gives them the right to think that?

#388 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2008-11-06 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The Black Struggle for equality is no different than the equality for gay marriage. When one segment of the population is denied their civil rights then they have denied the rest of society to be equal. Civil Rights are Civil Rights no matter which class of people.

Larry

It just couldn't be that blacks don't buy the struggle for gay rights as similar to or the heir of their civil rights struggle and that an overwhelming majority of blacks believe marriage is defined as the bond between one man and one woman. Nah. That couldn't be it. What gives them the right to think that?

#388 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2008-11-06 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The Black Struggle for equality is no different than the equality for gay marriage. When one segment of the population is denied their civil rights then they have denied the rest of society to be equal. Civil Rights are Civil Rights no matter which class of people.

Larry

#392 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-06 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently, 70 percent of the blacks in California who voted on Prop 8 don't agree with you, Larry. To whom should we give credence on the black perspective on gay marriage, Larry or the black population? Duh!

Don't You get bigotry from Heterosexual same raced black against Interracial Marriages?? straight(As in straight black)black dude or dudette. Why are You with that whitey gurlllllll Why are You with that white boy sistahhhhh. Or the White being prejudiced against another white dude or dudette being hooked up with a black woman/man. Why are You with *Darky* Why do You love that N word. Why don't You stick with your own kind. It's the same bigotry as bigotry/homophobia is that these blacks project towards Gay and lesbian marriages. Bigotry/Homophobia IS Bigotry/homophobia. no difference.

Larry

Don't You get bigotry from Heterosexual...

It's the same bigotry as bigotry/homophobia is that these blacks project towards Gay and lesbian marriages. Bigotry/Homophobia IS Bigotry/homophobia. no difference.

Larry

#394 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-06 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Homophobia = a term coined to cast the view that homosexuality is morally repugnant in terms of a psychological disorder...a.k.a. a load of nonsense.

Psychologist and gay activist George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He describes the concept as a medical phobia:

a phobia about homosexuals.It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

I find unclogging backed up toilets and stepping in dog excrement extremely repugnant. Guess I have an irrational fear of toilets and dog walks.