Prop 8

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: loki8481
join atheists and muslims to form a pity party of people who will never be elected potus in our lifetimes?

don't forget the asians.

An Asian might be elected before an atheist or a muslim. If an Asian is POTUS, they get a chauffer, which means 1 less Asian driver on the road.

I predict an Asian will not be elected in my lifetime and that an Asian has an equally bad chance as much as an atheist or muslim.

i don't think anyone would really have a problem with an asian president, however there do see to be a lack of asian politicians.

 

[punjabiplaya]

The only Asian I can think of is Bobby Jindal. Unless you mean oriental then I can't think of any.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
people don't want the black agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that. Blacks are allowed some civil rights and should be content with that.

There. How does that sound to you? About right? That would be you about 50 years ago.

how do you spin so much without getting dizzy?....oh never mind just answered my own question.
You re dizzy.

 

[cirrrocco]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: loki8481
join atheists and muslims to form a pity party of people who will never be elected potus in our lifetimes?

don't forget the asians.

An Asian might be elected before an atheist or a muslim. If an Asian is POTUS, they get a chauffer, which means 1 less Asian driver on the road.

Yeah but an Asian might have trouble winning if they keep referring to the "erection."

OMG!!!..hahaha

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: loki8481

Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union?

it is not. marriage in our culture is a civil contract, and for same-sex couples, it's a focal point amid the things that go along with it, like insurance, adoption, partners being able to visit each other in the hospital, pass down property after their death without needing a will, etc.

So then it is just semantics? Like I said before, I'm all for equal civil rights. Then why don't we just call them civil unions, give them the same rights as "marriage," and be done with it? Or just abolish any references to marriage on the government and call them all civil unions and the same rights?

because it smacks of separate but equal.

I think what he means to ask is: "why not change the term 'marriage' to 'civil union' and apply it to everyone?"

...in that case I do think it pretty much boils down to semantics.

 

[Tab]

I'm somewhat surprised it passed, given how liberal California is but then again I don't live there either. On the flip side, I'm not so sure the public should be voting on issuses such as gay marraige, gay adoption, tax laws(my state) and medicial marjiuana.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
people don't want the black agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that. Blacks are allowed some civil rights and should be content with that.

There. How does that sound to you? About right? That would be you about 50 years ago.

how do you spin so much without getting dizzy?....oh never mind just answered my own question.
You re dizzy.

It's the same damn point and true as all hell.

You can feel however you like but to enact it into law is discrimination. PERIOD.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: daniel49

people don't want the gay agenda shoved down thier throats. Its really as simple as that.

Which people? BIGOTS like you?

Nothing in Prop. 8 has anything to do with who YOU marry. What's being shoved down your BIGOTED throat?

Gays are allowed thier civil unions and should be content with that.

And there you have proven your own BIGOTRY. It's fucking BIGOTS like YOU who insist on shoving YOUR fucking BIGOTED agenda down the throats of gay couples. :thumbsdown: :|

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that "separate but equal" is NOT equal, yet you think gays should be satisfied with exactly that, a "separate but equal" distinction. If you're so convinced that "civil union" is fully equal to civil marriage, then all you're arguing about is a name... a freaking WORD, a semantic distinction that has no significance in law. I guess that would make you anti-semantic. :roll:

Harv you are a moron.
And it takes one to equte being black with being gay.
But why argue with me. I don't even live in Cal..the people have spoken.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: loki8481

Is marriage not, by definition, a spiritual union?

it is not. marriage in our culture is a civil contract, and for same-sex couples, it's a focal point amid the things that go along with it, like insurance, adoption, partners being able to visit each other in the hospital, pass down property after their death without needing a will, etc.

So then it is just semantics? Like I said before, I'm all for equal civil rights. Then why don't we just call them civil unions, give them the same rights as "marriage," and be done with it? Or just abolish any references to marriage on the government and call them all civil unions and the same rights?

because it smacks of separate but equal.

I think what he means to ask is: "why not change the term 'marriage' to 'civil union' and apply it to everyone?"

...in that case I do think it pretty much boils down to semantics.

Exactly. Sorry, my post was worded kind of weird.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How can you amend the constitution in a way that directly contradicts another part of the same constitution?

Is that not the entire purpose of an amendment?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Syringer
http://sfist.com/2008/11/05/de...es_to_invalidate_p.php

Today City Attorney Dennis Herrera today, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, filed "a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California."

Even though the people have spoken, it's a democracy, etc..this is a good move in that it will help preserve civil liberties and rights that would be unfairly taken away from a specific group of people

I don't understand. So immoral acts between same sex . and not allowing marraige is a civil liberty. THat is GAY.

How about all thieves shouldn't they get special treatement . As a group of people. Its likely in their geno to be thieves so they can't help themselves. Were exactly do ya draw the line? I know that you may think its alright to abort a baby . But its murder plain and simple. With out the abort the child lives. Thats taking a life . Once concieved thats it its a done deal . Ya see that little tiny heart beat. Wonderful site. But you believe as you will. But when you guys fall . Its a fall ya won't get up from .

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

Lost for the moment. Prop 8 was pretty close, closer than it would have been even a few years ago. It will be reversed a few years down the road, and bigots like you will join the bigots of previous generations in looking like a bunch of assholes in the history books. If anyone should be giving it up, it's you...it seems pretty clear the direction things are going in on this issue.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

Lost for the moment. Prop 8 was pretty close, closer than it would have been even a few years ago. It will be reversed a few years down the road, and bigots like you will join the bigots of previous generations in looking like a bunch of assholes in the history books. If anyone should be giving it up, it's you...it seems pretty clear the direction things are going in on this issue.

I dont think it is that simple. At least not any time soon. The states that vote on it, pass it. Even the most liberal in the union. Obama doesnt seem to care enough to take it federal. In fact, gay is a HUGE taboo in the AA community, as my fellow Californians proved.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

Good luck with that. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is enshrined in the Constitution itself and is the law of the land.

Unless you actually want judges overruling their Constitution. In which case, please don't cry about W doing so....

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

And in our democracy, the majority doesn't always have a right to tell the minority "the way things are", no matter how much they might want to. That's not a good way for democracy to work, and it sure as hell isn't how our system is supposed to work. The slim majority that voted for this proposition should be ashamed of themselves, but just because they aren't doesn't mean their word should be law.

Democracy has to be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And while I will agree that voting against gay marriage is not the same as slavery, the principle is exactly the same.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Syringer
http://sfist.com/2008/11/05/de...es_to_invalidate_p.php

Today City Attorney Dennis Herrera today, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel, filed "a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8, an initiative constitutional amendment that intends to strip gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry in California."

Even though the people have spoken, it's a democracy, etc..this is a good move in that it will help preserve civil liberties and rights that would be unfairly taken away from a specific group of people

I don't understand. So immoral acts between same sex . and not allowing marraige is a civil liberty. THat is GAY.

How about all thieves shouldn't they get special treatement . As a group of people. Its likely in their geno to be thieves so they can't help themselves. Were exactly do ya draw the line? I know that you may think its alright to abort a baby . But its murder plan and simple. With out the abort the child lives. Thats taking a life . Once concieved thats it its a done deal . Ya see that little tiny heart beat. Wonderful site. But you believe as you will. But when you guys fall . Its a fall ya won't get up from .

:roll:

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

Good luck with that. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is enshrined in the Constitution itself and is the law of the land.

Unless you actually want judges overruling their Constitution. In which case, please don't cry about W doing so....

Prohibition was also in the Constitution. That got repealed too.

Like I said, it's only a matter of time. It could be decades but it is certain that gays will eventually get equal rights, even if it takes them a long time. They are fighting a civil rights battle like so many groups before them.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
there goes a liberal judges usurption of power as he legislates from the bench. Down in flames baby.
And this in Cal of all places.

Gay marriage was passed by the CA legislature twice and vetoed by the governator. One man thwarted the voice of the elected officials of the people. All the judges did was reassert the voice of the legislature.

Are you a supporter of segregation too? I hear it stuck around until some activist judges decided enough was enough.

Because its not like Arnold wasn't elected, or anything.

You lost. Give it up.

Lost for the moment. Prop 8 was pretty close, closer than it would have been even a few years ago. It will be reversed a few years down the road, and bigots like you will join the bigots of previous generations in looking like a bunch of assholes in the history books. If anyone should be giving it up, it's you...it seems pretty clear the direction things are going in on this issue.

Calling people bigots and assholes isn't a good way to gain support for any future changes. You only make people more entrenched in their opinions and think there really is a war, instead of convincing them there is a problem with their way of thought and promoting change.

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
We may have lost this time, but we'll never give up until we get equal rights for everybody.

This is a much better way.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

"To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are." - Bill Rehnquist

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: winnar111
Good luck with that. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 is enshrined in the Constitution itself and is the law of the land.

Unless you actually want judges overruling their Constitution. In which case, please don't cry about W doing so....

Prohibition was also in the Constitution. That got repealed too.

Like I said, it's only a matter of time. It could be decades but it is certain that gays will eventually get equal rights, even if it takes them a long time. They are fighting a civil rights battle like so many groups before them.

It was repealed.....by an amendment of the people. Which is fine. The purpose of this amendment is to overturn and bar any action taken by some judges intent on doing monkey business.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
These people aren't being terrorized, they are being told marriage is for male and female. They have been granted the same protections in the form of civil unions. This is not the same as people owning other people as property or not allowing women to vote.

Ahhh the good old 'separate but equal' argument. That one worked out really well the last time it was tried.

The people of CA want it kept traditional. They are not killing or hurting anyone, they are granting them the same rights as they have in marriage without the name. Point is, the people of CA have spoken twice. It's time the judiciary branch stop working out of class.

They are saying that gay people aren't as good as straight people, and gay love isn't the same thing as straight love. It's legislative gay bashing, no matter how you try to dance around the issue. You don't have to physically hurt or kill someone to be doing something wrong, and using the state constitution to act out your dislike for gay people is WRONG. End of story, move to Saudi Arabia if that's how you like your government. But regardless of what a small majority of Californians think, this kind of thing isn't supposed to be what America is about. If they want to keep it traditional, more power to them, but THEY can keep it traditional in their own marriage without making everyone else behave the same way.

And you people get up on your high horse about "tradition" and "the sanctity of marriage"...how many people who voted for this bill would you imagine have gotten divorced? How many cheated on their spouse? Doesn't seem like "the people" should be passing judgment on gay folks' love, if you ask me.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But regardless of what a small majority of Californians think, this kind of thing isn't supposed to be what America is about.

According to who? You?