Prop 8

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
...
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 .

Still haven't learned english yet, eh? You know, you might be taken more seriously if you did.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: SergeC
The current prop amends the constitution of the state of CA, though. It doesn't just pass a law.

I cannot believe people here in CA voted for this abomination :/

Do you think that californias large hispanic population (near 40%) might have something to do with this?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The whole point of a Constitution is that it is supreme. Trying to use the courts to circumvent the constitution is democratically dishonest. Pro-gay-marriage people need to wait and try and convince the electorate for the next round of measures.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects gay marriage. Unless you can come up with a better legal argument, you're the one being "democratically dishonest".

You don't get it. Courts interpret statutes and constitutions. In this summer's decision, the CALIFORNIA supreme court said the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION _statute_ banning gay marriage was unconstitutional pursuant to their interpretation of the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. That is fine.

BUT NOW the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION has been amended to explicitly override the california supreme court's decision. The CALIFORNIA supreme court cannot overrule the CALIFORNIA constitution. Hence, going back to the CALIFORNIA courts is silly. THe only route is to go to the federal level where they will get no love from the current conservative US SUPREME COURT.

The bottom line is that the courts can't trump the constitution. That was the whole point of this constitutional measure. It's like saying that the US Supreme court could rule the 14th amendment unconstitutional. They can't.

 

[SirStev0]

how is that divorce rate in California?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The whole point of a Constitution is that it is supreme. Trying to use the courts to circumvent the constitution is democratically dishonest. Pro-gay-marriage people need to wait and try and convince the electorate for the next round of measures.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects gay marriage. Unless you can come up with a better legal argument, you're the one being "democratically dishonest".

You don't get it. Courts interpret statutes and constitutions. In this summer's decision, the CALIFORNIA supreme court said the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION _statute_ banning gay marriage was unconstitutional pursuant to their interpretation of the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. That is fine.

BUT NOW the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION has been amended to explicitly override the california supreme court's decision. The CALIFORNIA supreme court cannot overrule the CALIFORNIA constitution. Hence, going back to the CALIFORNIA courts is silly. THe only route is to go to the federal level where they will get no love from the current conservative US SUPREME COURT.

The bottom line is that the courts can't trump the constitution. That was the whole point of this constitutional measure. It's like saying that the US Supreme court could rule the 14th amendment unconstitutional. They can't.

Proposition 8 can be legally challenged in CA courts on the grounds that the change is sweeping enough to require a "revision" of the constitution and not an "amendment". This is what's happening right now.

Also, to compare the CA method of amending their state constitution to the process of amendment for the US Constitution is tantamount to spitting on the graves of the men who wrote it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The whole point of a Constitution is that it is supreme. Trying to use the courts to circumvent the constitution is democratically dishonest. Pro-gay-marriage people need to wait and try and convince the electorate for the next round of measures.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects gay marriage. Unless you can come up with a better legal argument, you're the one being "democratically dishonest".

You don't get it. Courts interpret statutes and constitutions. In this summer's decision, the CALIFORNIA supreme court said the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION _statute_ banning gay marriage was unconstitutional pursuant to their interpretation of the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. That is fine.

BUT NOW the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION has been amended to explicitly override the california supreme court's decision. The CALIFORNIA supreme court cannot overrule the CALIFORNIA constitution. Hence, going back to the CALIFORNIA courts is silly. THe only route is to go to the federal level where they will get no love from the current conservative US SUPREME COURT.

The bottom line is that the courts can't trump the constitution. That was the whole point of this constitutional measure. It's like saying that the US Supreme court could rule the 14th amendment unconstitutional. They can't.

Well since it's been less than 24 hours since prop 8 passed, I assumed your complaints about "circumventing the constitution" were regarding this summer's decision...which is what I was referring to. I see I underestimated your ability to get upset over predicted "circumvention" so quickly.

That said, there IS a legal channel here for pro-gay marriage folks. California treats "amendments" and "revisions" to the constitution as separate measures, with the latter having more requirements and being able to change more in the constitution. The court can't rule against an amendment, but it CAN rule that the amendment is too invasive to become part of the constitution via the amendment process and needs to be submitted as a revision instead. Given the closeness of this proposition vote, it is almost certain that a revision would NOT pass, which may be why the anti-gay marriage side put this forward as "just" an amendment.

This legal challenge has been made, as is the right of the people making it. There are still things the court can do, nobody is trying to or has circumvented anything, so honestly I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

 

[Rainsford]

Got any numbers to back up this claim?

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
how is that divorce rate in California?

Alot better now that those gays can't marry.


/sarcasm

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
California treats "amendments" and "revisions" to the constitution as separate measures, with the latter having more requirements and being able to change more in the constitution.

They can argue that, but it's a pathetic argument that is not consistent with case law. ("As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a revision referred to a "substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions" (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).)" If you look at past revisions you will see that they are complete re-writings of the constitutions. 8 only addresses one issue and this issue is properly the subject of an amendment, not a revision.

My problem with this is that the argument is so weak as to be frivolous. The bottom line is that Californians have now twice expressed their will on this issue. First in a statute, now in the constitution. I doubt the California Supreme Court will buy this argument, but if they do, it will be an egregious case of judicial activisim.

I didn't vote for Prop 8 because I don't feel the need to say gays can't marry, but I didn't vote no because this summer's court decision was silly in light of other propositions where californians said they didn't want gay marriage.

(And I actually think it would be nice if it required 2/3rds to modify the state constitution, but that's not the case.)

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually having the majority decide is exactly what a democracy is:

government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Linky

hmm, majority rules and their voice is exercised during elections and the majority of CAs voted for prop 8

Try paying attention during history/government class next time or use google before you open your mouth.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford
California treats "amendments" and "revisions" to the constitution as separate measures, with the latter having more requirements and being able to change more in the constitution.

They can argue that, but it's a pathetic argument that is not consistent with case law. ("As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a revision referred to a "substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions" (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d 208).)" If you look at past revisions you will see that they are complete re-writings of the constitutions. 8 only addresses one issue and this issue is properly the subject of an amendment, not a revision.

My problem with this is that the argument is so weak as to be frivolous. The bottom line is that Californians have now twice expressed their will on this issue. First in a statute, now in the constitution. I doubt the California Supreme Court will buy this argument, but if they do, it will be an egregious case of judicial activisim.

I didn't vote for Prop 8 because I don't feel the need to say gays can't marry, but I didn't vote no because this summer's court decision was silly in light of other propositions where californians said they didn't want gay marriage.

(And I actually think it would be nice if it required 2/3rds to modify the state constitution, but that's not the case.)

I guess we'll just have to see what the SC decides. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure I'd dismiss the argument as "pathetic"...that's for our legal system to decide.

But the part of your comment I bolded is what I really am talking about. The constitutionality of a law is NOT based on "other propositions", no matter what the people say. The SC of California wouldn't be doing their job if they ignored their interpretation of the constitution just because it goes against what the people voted on in a law with less legal standing. If Californians don't want gay marriage, the appropriate thing to do is change the appropriate law (in this case the constitution itself), not pass an unconstitutional law and then complain when the SC rightly strikes it down. Californians can't just "express their will", we live in a society of laws, not mobs. If the people want to change the law, they need to do it within the existing legal framework. Getting together and shouting loud enough just doesn't do it. Prop 8 is the first time they've done something the legal way, so we'll just have to see how things go.

Like I said before though, it hardly matters. The reduction in support between the proposition in 2000 and prop 8 is astounding. Give the pro-gay rights folks 8 more years and there will be a new constitutional amendment.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually having the majority decide is exactly what a democracy is:

government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Linky

hmm, majority rules and their voice is exercised during elections and the majority of CAs voted for prop 8

Try paying attention during history/government class next time or use google before you open your mouth.

I seem to remember more to history and government class than looking up a definition in a dictionary. Starting with the idea that we don't live in an absolute democracy, which means that getting 50% +1 of the people together and trying to make a law does not mean it's going to happen. Our constitution, for example, lists a number of rights that a simple majority can't take away from the minority.

But I suppose you pick up things like that when you don't get your knowledge of government and law from a dictionary website and Google. :roll:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But the part of your comment I bolded is what I really am talking about. The constitutionality of a law is NOT based on "other propositions", no matter what the people say.

I would normally agree except that a popular vote here is what's needed for both an amendment and a statute. (Again, I think that is silly and that prop 8 should have needed 2/3rd to get on the constitution.)

Like I said before though, it hardly matters. The reduction in support between the proposition in 2000 and prop 8 is astounding. Give the pro-gay rights folks 8 more years and there will be a new constitutional amendment.

You're probably right. I think pro-gays should focus on getting the public behind them for a future measure.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford
But the part of your comment I bolded is what I really am talking about. The constitutionality of a law is NOT based on "other propositions", no matter what the people say.

I would normally agree except that a popular vote here is what's needed for both an amendment and a statute. (Again, I think that is silly and that prop 8 should have needed 2/3rd to get on the constitution.)

Like I said before though, it hardly matters. The reduction in support between the proposition in 2000 and prop 8 is astounding. Give the pro-gay rights folks 8 more years and there will be a new constitutional amendment.

You're probably right. I think pro-gays should focus on getting the public behind them for a future measure.

From what I can gather, California constitutional revisions require only a simple majority. Amendments require a 2/3 majority in both parts of the legislature. The question now is whether Prop 8 was a dramatic enough change that it could not qualify as a revision, and thus be rejected for not attaining the required 2/3rd (or following the amendment process).

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually having the majority decide is exactly what a democracy is:

government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Linky

hmm, majority rules and their voice is exercised during elections and the majority of CAs voted for prop 8

Try paying attention during history/government class next time or use google before you open your mouth.

I seem to remember more to history and government class than looking up a definition in a dictionary. Starting with the idea that we don't live in an absolute democracy, which means that getting 50% +1 of the people together and trying to make a law does not mean it's going to happen. Our constitution, for example, lists a number of rights that a simple majority can't take away from the minority.

But I suppose you pick up things like that when you don't get your knowledge of government and law from a dictionary website and Google. :roll:

And the CA constitution has a 50%+1 majority rule on ballot resolutions; but I quess you didn't realize that or ignored it.

And FYI the definition of a democracy I gave is the definition. Now what you were told/believe and what reality is may be different. You cleary stated democracy doesn't allow the majority to rule and we shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues; however, a democracy is based on majority rule and how does a majority explain how they rule? by elections of course. So I'll give you benifit of dought and say you are irrational and are ignoring logic now; however, if not, you are a moron.
Now our republic requires different rules for each state and another set of rules for federal laws and/or ballot resolutions; however, the simple fact is CA it is 50%+1. So if you want to tear up the CA consititution go ahead but that isn't a democracy.

Prop 8 won. Everyone knows that gay marriage will eventually pass but for now it didn't. Don't destroy the basis of our democracy--the electorate's will--because you didn't like the outcome of one freaking vote. That's a path that America should not go down and when you calm down you'll realize how irrational your posts have been.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
From what I can gather, California constitutional revisions require only a simple majority. Amendments require a 2/3 majority in both parts of the legislature. The question now is whether Prop 8 was a dramatic enough change that it could not qualify as a revision, and thus be rejected for not attaining the required 2/3rd (or following the amendment process).

You have it reversed and I addressed that issue in a previous post. I even cited case law. The gist is that a revision is a complete re-writing. It's not a question of being "dramatic."

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
From what I can gather, California constitutional revisions require only a simple majority. Amendments require a 2/3 majority in both parts of the legislature. The question now is whether Prop 8 was a dramatic enough change that it could not qualify as a revision, and thus be rejected for not attaining the required 2/3rd (or following the amendment process).

You have it reversed and I addressed that issue in a previous post. I even cited case law. The gist is that a revision is a complete re-writing. It's not a question of being "dramatic."

Sorry, must have missed it in this thread. I didn't mean dramatic like "sudden" but dramatic like you just said.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually having the majority decide is exactly what a democracy is:

government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Linky

hmm, majority rules and their voice is exercised during elections and the majority of CAs voted for prop 8

Try paying attention during history/government class next time or use google before you open your mouth.

I seem to remember more to history and government class than looking up a definition in a dictionary. Starting with the idea that we don't live in an absolute democracy, which means that getting 50% +1 of the people together and trying to make a law does not mean it's going to happen. Our constitution, for example, lists a number of rights that a simple majority can't take away from the minority.

But I suppose you pick up things like that when you don't get your knowledge of government and law from a dictionary website and Google. :roll:

And the CA constitution has a 50%+1 majority rule on ballot resolutions; but I quess you didn't realize that or ignored it.

And FYI the definition of a democracy I gave is the definition. Now what you were told/believe and what reality is may be different. You cleary stated democracy doesn't allow the majority to rule and we shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues; however, a democracy is based on majority rule and how does a majority explain how they rule? by elections of course. So I'll give you benifit of dought and say you are irrational and are ignoring logic now; however, if not, you are a moron.
Now our republic requires different rules for each state and another set of rules for federal laws and/or ballot resolutions; however, the simple fact is CA it is 50%+1. So if you want to tear up the CA consititution go ahead but that isn't a democracy.

Prop 8 won. Everyone knows that gay marriage will eventually pass but for now it didn't. Don't destroy the basis of our democracy--the electorate's will--because you didn't like the outcome of one freaking vote. That's a path that America should not go down and when you calm down you'll realize how irrational your posts have been.

Well clearly it worked in this case, but a simple majority does not decide every issue in this country....no matter if you call it the electorate's will or divine intervention. I'm not trying to destroy anything, if you read my post instead of responding to some stereotype you obviously have in mind, you'd see I said nothing more than "the majority doesn't always have a right to tell the minority...". I'm not saying the majority should NEVER be able to exercise their will...all I'm saying is that we don't live in an unlimited democracy, and the will of a slim majority of the people isn't always the only deciding factor. I think prop 8 passed in exactly the right legal manner, but NOT just because it was "the will of the majority". It works because it's legal, which is how our system is supposed to work.

The fact that you're arguing against a point I'm not making isn't exactly the model for rationality, you know.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually having the majority decide is exactly what a democracy is:

government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Linky

hmm, majority rules and their voice is exercised during elections and the majority of CAs voted for prop 8

Try paying attention during history/government class next time or use google before you open your mouth.

I seem to remember more to history and government class than looking up a definition in a dictionary. Starting with the idea that we don't live in an absolute democracy, which means that getting 50% +1 of the people together and trying to make a law does not mean it's going to happen. Our constitution, for example, lists a number of rights that a simple majority can't take away from the minority.

But I suppose you pick up things like that when you don't get your knowledge of government and law from a dictionary website and Google. :roll:

And the CA constitution has a 50%+1 majority rule on ballot resolutions; but I quess you didn't realize that or ignored it.

And FYI the definition of a democracy I gave is the definition. Now what you were told/believe and what reality is may be different. You cleary stated democracy doesn't allow the majority to rule and we shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues; however, a democracy is based on majority rule and how does a majority explain how they rule? by elections of course. So I'll give you benifit of dought and say you are irrational and are ignoring logic now; however, if not, you are a moron.
Now our republic requires different rules for each state and another set of rules for federal laws and/or ballot resolutions; however, the simple fact is CA it is 50%+1. So if you want to tear up the CA consititution go ahead but that isn't a democracy.

Prop 8 won. Everyone knows that gay marriage will eventually pass but for now it didn't. Don't destroy the basis of our democracy--the electorate's will--because you didn't like the outcome of one freaking vote. That's a path that America should not go down and when you calm down you'll realize how irrational your posts have been.

Actually he stated 'our' democracy, not 'democracy' and he was 100% right, in OUR democracy 50%+1 doesn't always get the majority what it wants. You read his post poorly and responded incorrectly. The right thing to do in this case is apologize, not dig yourself deeper.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The right to speak doesn't give you the right to be heard. The right to engage on sodomy doesn't entitle you to have that relationship recognized by society.

It is not a "right to engage on sodomy", it's a right to have the same rights as everyone else, even if you make a personal choice that society doesn't like. You've proving my point by refusing to separate "society" from "government" when you're talking about gay rights. Society and the people in it don't have to like gay marriage, that doesn't mean they can make a law prohibiting it. Similarly, a law allowing gay marriage isn't forcing "society" to recognize a gay relationship, it's making it a LEGAL status.

As I said, the problem here is really the inability of people to separate their personal views from what they want government to do. You are arguing for government judgement passed on gay relationships because a majority of society doesn't like them, never once considering that maybe society can disagree with gay marriage without the government being required to make it illegal. From the party of "small government", I'm amazed the idea hasn't occurred to you folks before. Government just small enough to fit into your bedroom, indeed.

Except that's precisely what it is. Marriage carries with it certain tax and legal privileges because society has deemed it a worthy institution.

Being gay is a legal status in California. This isn't about being gay; its about Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones letting everyone else know they're gay and asking for some sort of acknowledgment or respect from the rest of us.

 

[nageov3t]

reading gay blogs tonight, most of the anger seems to be split between african americans and mormons.

god help any black mormons in California

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: gevorg

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: gevorg

What I learned from this thread: If you don't like someone's views, call them a bigot so others would chip in and call then a bigot too. The more you say it, the better your stance is. Sandbox name calling helps too.

If you didn't learn that this issue IS about bigotry, and calling it by its ugly name is the only appropriate action, then you didn't learn anything. :thumbsdown: :|

Grow up and watch C-SPAN or something.

You're not discussing/debating you're just bullshiting. Is this your preferred way of communication (name calling)?

You're wrong and Harvey is right. It's precisely because you are clueless n bigoty that you think it's just an attack word, not what it actually is, an accurate description of the problem.

Imagine you were in a room of 1850 slaveowners trying to explain to them why their actions were wrong. You might try to explain the role of bigotry underlying their wrong assumptions how their system was moral, but you would hear from them how they were very caring, giving, moral people doing what was best for the slaves for their own good. They would be very self-righteous with you. You would have to try to get it through their heads, past their bigotry, how their view of blacks was wrong.

That's the same basic problem here - you are attacking the word bigotry, because you have to to defend your wrong position, by saying there is no bigotry.

You are the one not dealing with the issue, only asserting that it's not bigotry without any rational argument to counter the many why it is bigotry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The right to speak doesn't give you the right to be heard. The right to engage on sodomy doesn't entitle you to have that relationship recognized by society.

It is not a "right to engage on sodomy", it's a right to have the same rights as everyone else, even if you make a personal choice that society doesn't like. You've proving my point by refusing to separate "society" from "government" when you're talking about gay rights. Society and the people in it don't have to like gay marriage, that doesn't mean they can make a law prohibiting it. Similarly, a law allowing gay marriage isn't forcing "society" to recognize a gay relationship, it's making it a LEGAL status.

As I said, the problem here is really the inability of people to separate their personal views from what they want government to do. You are arguing for government judgement passed on gay relationships because a majority of society doesn't like them, never once considering that maybe society can disagree with gay marriage without the government being required to make it illegal. From the party of "small government", I'm amazed the idea hasn't occurred to you folks before. Government just small enough to fit into your bedroom, indeed.

Except that's precisely what it is. Marriage carries with it certain tax and legal privileges because society has deemed it a worthy institution.

Being gay is a legal status in California. This isn't about being gay; its about Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones letting everyone else know they're gay and asking for some sort of acknowledgment or respect from the rest of us.

Nobody is asking for anything not given to others. Let them have their marriage and you think whatever you want. You have no right to deny others what you yourself have. You are a swine.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

No, I consider them politicians who compromise on the principle of gay marriage to win the presidency that so much else rides on. To Obama's credit, he did oppose prop 8.

If I thought they actually did oppose gay marriage the way the right does, then I would think they are bigots.

Other presidents have done the same thing, minimizing or even giving up issues they support because the opposition is too large.

JFK stalled at first on civil rights efforts because his whole congressional agenda was at risk from southern opposition. He came around to push civil rights more.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atomic Rooster

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

No, and Obama sponsored a "no on 8" ad.

There's a difference between holding a personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and voting for a constitutional amendment which discriminates against a group of people. Similar to being personally against abortion but not pushing for making it illegal.

Of course Obama sponsored a "No on 8" ad. He was trying to get elected to the office of president. It was good politics. Nothing more.

Uh, you are confused. His good politics are to go along with the majority who are bigots, and not oppose prop 8, just as he does oppose gay marriage, IMO for political reasons.

Prop 8 was the other way around, something against his political interest, that could have been used against him nationally, and even in California 52% disagreed with him.