Calif state Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 ban on same-sex "marriages"

[Little-Acorn]

Thank God.

The Court also ruled that the same-sex "marriages" that were made before this ruling, remain married. Except for the ones that have already divorced. Which is quite a few more than opposite-sex marriages that have divorced, that were made during that period.

Just hear this on ABC radio in San Diego.

[avatar4321]

They did as they should have. The idea that somehow the State Supreme Court should ignore a Constitutional amendment by the people as unconstitutional is outright ridiculous.

[n0spam4me]

HUGE no-no in the advertising campaign to get people to vote against their own best interests.
The pro-prop 8 advertsing told LIES in that they told people that parents would LOOSE CONTROL over their kids education and that the kids would have mandintory indoctrination into the "gay lifestyle" ALL FRAUD AND LIES! the sick part of it is that the FRAUD worked! an emotional appeal and fearmongering! Talk about SICK & TWISTED!



Lets face it
We The People are being dragged into a system where
rather than doing anything that is not illegal,
we are compeled to do as we are told
by the New World Order!

BAD IDEA!

[April15]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!

[Little-Acorn]

They did as they should have.
I agree.


The idea that somehow the State Supreme Court should ignore a Constitutional amendment by the people as unconstitutional is outright ridiculous.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. What if California passed an amendment to their state Constitution saying that it's OK to kidnap black people off the street, put chains on them, and force them to work on farms against their will, for meager room and board and nothing else?

Obviously, some court somewhere, must rule that this is slavery, and is in conflict with the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and so it is struck down.

I believe the Calif state Supremes merely said, that this does not violate the rights of anyone (as the slavery amendment would), and so can be allowed to stand. The state Supreme Court DOES have the authority to make that decision.

Ya gotta trust someone. Someone has to have the final say. Here it's the Courts. It's one of the reasons you have to be SO careful when choosing judges... because they WILL have the final say. Either here or on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Silver]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!

The Democrats have already legislated bigotry...long ago....
Its just hidden under its propaganda names of Diversity and Affirmative Action....

You'd have to have been practically braindead to have missed it...

[darin]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!

Fascist.

[Nukeman]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!
Please explain the bigotry????? They have THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

You see bigotry, I see a court upholding legislation that does not cow down to PC and special interest groups. It has also held up the will of the people at this time. It has also REFUSED to give SPECIAL treatment to a group of people that do something different in their bedroom.....

[Trigg]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!

Love how you pulled republicans into this, sadly it ignores that fact that most of the people who voted against gay marriage were hispanics and blacks.

I doubt that Cali's small republican population could have pulled this off all by their little selves.

[chloe]

I support legalizing gay marriage & polygamist marriage. Can anyone explain to me without bringing religion into it why this shouldnt be legal ?

[CockySOB]

I support legalizing gay marriage & polygamist marriage. Can anyone explain to me without bringing religion into it why this shouldnt be legal ?

Well, as far as California is concerned, because the voters passed a Constitutional amendment which only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's a State's Rights issue as marriage licenses are issued by the individual states.

[darin]

Love how you pulled republicans into this, sadly it ignores that fact that most of the people who voted against gay marriage were hispanics and blacks.



...and likely some were gay black hispanics. Not everyone who loves that lifestyle supports gay marriage.

First gay marriage, then gay Christians, then gay Pastors, then gay Gods.

[April15]

Love how you pulled republicans into this, sadly it ignores that fact that most of the people who voted against gay marriage were hispanics and blacks.

I doubt that Cali's small republican population could have pulled this off all by their little selves.The Morman church used them like a key in a lock. I still think my Idea is a great one and will pursue it. I may even add a " Shoot on sight" clause.

[PostmodernProphet]

I support legalizing gay marriage & polygamist marriage. Can anyone explain to me without bringing religion into it why this shouldnt be legal ?

because marriage is defined in the dictionary as a man marrying a woman...../looks carefully...../sees no reference to religion...../applauds self for satisfying chloe's request.....

[chloe]

because marriage is defined in the dictionary as a man marrying a woman...../looks carefully...../sees no reference to religion...../applauds self for satisfying chloe's request.....

ha ha very clever. so no marriage to man and woman, woman, woman.

[hjmick]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!

In what way has bigotry been legislated? The California Supreme Court and Proposition 8 did not do away with the California Domestic Partnership laws. These are the laws that grant all the rights of married couples to same sex couples. All they have done is acknowledge the will of the people of California who have chosen not to redefine the word "marriage." As for making "being Republican against the law," perhaps you should look to your own party first as it was the large turnout of Democrat voters supporting Obama who got Prop 8 passed, not Republican voters. Bigotry, thy name is Democrat.

[April15]

In what way has bigotry been legislated? The California Supreme Court and Proposition 8 did not do away with the California Domestic Partnership laws. These are the laws that grant all the rights of married couples to same sex couples. All they have done is acknowledge the will of the people of California who have chosen not to redefine the word "marriage." As for making "being Republican against the law," perhaps you should look to your own party first as it was the large turnout of Democrat voters supporting Obama who got Prop 8 passed, not Republican voters. Bigotry, thy name is Democrat.I was approached by a supporter of prop 8 before the vote to help post signs or stand on the side of road and hold signs. I asked her what made her think I would do that? She said money.

The denial of equality is what I see. Separate but equal? Mixed race marriage laws? I think the shoot on sight clause will be the inspiration of many signatures.

[MtnBiker]

ha ha very clever. so no marriage to man and woman, woman, woman.

well, how about 15 people all being married to each other at the same time?

[darin]

This entire board should get married for the benefits! :)

[chloe]

well, how about 15 people all being married to each other at the same time?

In Utah that would be ok, as long as it was one man and the rest were sister wives.:cool:

[hjmick]

In Utah that would be ok, as long as it was one man and the rest were sister wives.:cool:

No, it wouldn't. Bigamy/polygamy is illegal even in Utah. Hell, adultery is a class B misdemeanor in Utah.

[chloe]

No, it wouldn't. Bigamy/polygamy is illegal even in Utah.

In Utah especially the part where I live that law is overlooked.

[avatar4321]

I support legalizing gay marriage & polygamist marriage. Can anyone explain to me without bringing religion into it why this shouldnt be legal ?

Do you honestly believe that boys are better off without Fathers and girls without mothers?

[avatar4321]

The Morman church used them like a key in a lock. I still think my Idea is a great one and will pursue it. I may even add a " Shoot on sight" clause.

Can't be because you were wrong, no. its because someone tricked them.

BTW there is no Morman Church. And your thoughts of genocide are hardly great.

[MtnBiker]

In Utah that would be ok, as long as it was one man and the rest were sister wives.:cool:

Would it be alright for multiple people to be married to each other at the same time, regardless of gender? How about 8 women, or 3 women and 2 men or 5 men, could all of those be marriages?

[chloe]

Do you honestly believe that boys are better off without Fathers and girls without mothers?

Well I know children have grown up being raised by male & female widows and grew up fine.

[hjmick]

In Utah especially the part where I live that law is overlooked.

Doesn't make it any less illegal.

[chloe]

Would it be alright for multiple people to be married to each other at the same time, regardless of gender? How about 8 women, or 3 women and 2 men or 5 men, could all of those be marriages?

From a legal standpoint I don't understand why not. If we were talking on a religious viewpoint well pretty much all religion is against gay marriage or polygamy, even the mainstream mormon church is against it. But I don't understand legally why.

[chloe]

Doesn't make it any less illegal.

agreed...yet utah is a very different state then any place I have ever lived. This is one primary example of things being run differently.

[MtnBiker]

From a legal standpoint I don't understand why not.

So, there is no standard for a marriage? A marriage can be any combonation of people?

[chloe]

So, there is no standard for a marriage? A marriage can be any combonation of people?

Not necasarily by my personal taste. But I still don't get why those two marriage options are illegal. Is it because religion says so? Is that the only reason it is illegal? I mean some people are against interracial marriage and that is not illegal but at one time I think it was. So what changed?

[Missileman]

Do you honestly believe that boys are better off without Fathers and girls without mothers?

How well off kids are is dependent on the quality of the parent, not the quantity or gender. Are you prepared to remove children from all single parent households? How about from two lousy parent households? I didn't think so.

"We regret to inform you that your husband was blown up in Iraq. You have 2 weeks to get a new man into the house or Av is going to take your sons away."

[MtnBiker]

Not necasarily by my personal taste. But I still don't get why those two marriage options are illegal. Is it because religion says so? Is that the only reason it is illegal? I mean some people are against interracial marriage and that is not illegal but at one time I think it was. So what changed?

I just want to understand what people define as marriage if it is not to be between one man and one woman, then what is it? It seems that in the quest to grant gay people the right to marry then there becomes no standard to what a marriage is, that any combonation of people and gender could be married at the same time. Is this what we wish for in our society?

[Kathianne]

I just want to understand what people define as marriage if it is not to be between one man and one woman, then what is it? It seems that in the quest to grant gay people the right to marry then there becomes no standard to what a marriage is, that any combonation of people and gender could be married at the same time. Is this what we wish for in our society?

Seems to me, that society if honest would say the ideal is a product of man and woman. If adoption is the question, the ideal would still be a man and woman. If less than ideal, a woman or two women or a man or two men. Meaning, kids are better off with those that have time, money & love. If a healthy infant, the ideal is likely to occur, if less than ideal, better than alternative of no one to love and much better chance of survival and reaching potential.

[PostmodernProphet]

ha ha very clever. so no marriage to man and woman, woman, woman.
you're just trying to bring religion into this, aren't you......

[PostmodernProphet]

This entire board should get married for the benefits! :)

I want a divorce.....I demand the Lounge as my share of the settlement.....

[PostmodernProphet]

From a legal standpoint I don't understand why not. If we were talking on a religious viewpoint well pretty much all religion is against gay marriage or polygamy, even the mainstream mormon church is against it. But I don't understand legally why.

I think employers ought to be required to provide health insurance benefits to roommates.....and their pets......and people that live across the street, if we really like them.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Not necasarily by my personal taste. But I still don't get why those two marriage options are illegal.

only two options?.....are you one of those bigots opposed to man-sponge love?.....

[chloe]

only two options?.....are you one of those bigots opposed to man-sponge love?.....

I don't know what I am. My cousin's son is gay, my daughters best friend is gay, and I used to have a best friend who is gay (we had a falling out he's a big drunk). I don't have a problem with gay people getting married. I am not any religion and so I try to understand more in law terms what the problem is with it. I guess I don't understand why from a law perspective it is wrong. I feel the same way about polygamy it doesn't bother me. I would not be a polygamist myself and Im not gay but I just don't see why its such a big deal? I wish I could offer you a better explanation but I can only give my opinion.

[mundame]

So, there is no standard for a marriage? A marriage can be any combonation of people?


Sure, MtnBiker: polyamory marriages of four men and 2 women will be next up. The homosexual men need the women to cook and do the laundry.

[mundame]

I don't know what I am. My cousin's son is gay, my daughters best friend is gay, and I used to have a best friend who is gay (we had a falling out he's a big drunk). I don't have a problem with gay people getting married. I am not any religion and so I try to understand more in law terms what the problem is with it. I guess I don't understand why from a law perspective it is wrong. I feel the same way about polygamy it doesn't bother me. I would not be a polygamist myself and Im not gay but I just don't see why its such a big deal? I wish I could offer you a better explanation but I can only give my opinion.


You sound like you are genuinely asking, chloe, so here's my genuine answer:

Polygamous marriages are a catastrophe for the females. I say females because it is normal (both Muslims and Mormons, as you know from all the news accounts) to "marry" young girls, to get them trapped into the system before they get old enough to rebel and want what the greater society has. So child marriages are the NORM and they have to be, since there is a serious woman shortage, obviously, in polygamy. Also, a lot of boys are simply thrown out on the street: there can only be so many men in such a system, because in a population where births of males and females are 50/50, of course there are too many males and too few females.

For the greater society it's a problem because the males always raid the general population trying to find extra female mates. This is the actual religious function, of course, to increase the number and proportion of their religion adherents.

Within the marriages, so-called, there is a lot of male dominence and abuse and brainwashing. Large families are the norm, both Muslim and Mormon, as we know, and that is not a choice by the women: they have to wear themselves out bearing and raising huge families.

The women can't leave and they get passed from man to man at the command of the religious leader; we've seen that a lot with the Mormons.


So basically, that's why it's illegal and bad: it's terrible for women and amounts to sexual child abuse as well. They have to keep all their females and gain more, so they always have enclosed, guarded communities the women cannot leave, and dress the women in highly distinctive costumes to show ownership of them -- the headgear and burkas of Muslims, the strange old-fashioned Mormon clothes.

You all realize, I'm sure, that if homosexual marriages become general, legal polygamous marriages will follow immediately.

[MtnBiker]

Gay, lesbian and transgender curriculum is seeping into the school system. Should schools be teaching polygamy as well?



ALAMEDA -- After hours of heated debate, the Alameda School Board on Tuesday evening voted in favor of a controversial curriculum for elementary school students.

Supporters said it teaches tolerance. But opponents say it goes too far and impinges on the rights of parents.

At issue is "Lesson 9." The curriculum is to be introduced in kindergarten and continue through the 5th grade.

The six 45-minute lessons would include story books, group discussions, and art projects about different definitions of families. Leland Traiman is an Alameda father of two. As a gay parent, he said the curriculum a step in the right direction.

He believes the curriculum will help Alameda students learn about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

http://www.foxreno.com/news/19575276/detail.html

After all if polyamy is to be allowed and there are childern in polygamous household their lifestyle should be tolerated and accepted as well.

[jimnyc]

I'm rather enjoying watching the freaks ready to explode in California. Their rants about "equality" mean nothing to me. They are not looking for equality, they are looking to be "accepted" as normal. They think if they jump up and down enough in their pink leotards that eventually people will come around and give them what they are demanding.

It's sickening that I see censorship all over albums/CD's at the stores, no thanks to Tipper Gore the Whore - but I take my son to his schools book fair a few evenings back and came across no less than 3 books that centered around queers. So we need to protect our teenagers and adults from some foul language, but no need to forewarn us that our 4-9 year olds are about to learn about the filth and deviance also known as homosexuality?

But back to the case at hand. Do these cockroaches realize that having parades and dancing in the streets as if it's Halloween will get them what they want? Protesting while wearing leather chaps with their asses hanging out will make us think differently about them? If it's all about love and equality, and they are "normal", why do the men dress as women and the women as men? Is cross-dressing going to be the new fad around the streets if the queers get their way? Will I need to stand in line in the morning to get my coffee alongside a guy in a pink spotted tutu?

Marriage = One man and one woman - and no court decision or blabbering, diseased deviant will EVER change my stance on that.

[red states rule]

It's a good & just ruling simply because they are allowing the will of the people that lawfully voted to remain intact. Now how about those 18,000 gay marriages that have already taken place & allowed to stand? They should stand IMO but now you have classes within a class, not very akin to equal protection under the law is it? This is far from over & will get real interesting once it hits the U.S. Supreme Court.

I feel that gay marriage is a states right issue & again California Supreme Court made the correct ruling.

The libs who are attacking Republicans for this seem to overlook the fact a huge majority of blacks voted against gay marriage - yet the left leaves them alone in all this

Also, Pres Obama is opposed to gay marriage

[crin63]

Keeping my religious views out of the discussion.
I'm opposed to all things gay. They need to take it back to the closet or send them to mental institutions where they belong. The only way they can propagate their specie is through recruitment, seduction and lies. They lay in wait until they can try and seduce some child into believing its normal and acceptable behavior. They're all perverts.

[red states rule]

Only when liberals lose do they view the system as "broken." Like the electoral college in 2000 - the system was "antiquated" and "broken" when Bush won instead of Gore despite the popular vote.

Now, it's the CA state amendment process. It's "broken" because non-liberals got their way.

On to the USSC where the left hopes the Court will create the law they want

[Trigg]

The Morman church used them like a key in a lock. I still think my Idea is a great one and will pursue it. I may even add a " Shoot on sight" clause.

So your saying they were tricked (those nasty mormons) into voting against their REAL views???

BS...........you know what I think??? I think hispanics are pretty conservative when it comes to family and marriage and that's the reason they came out and voted against it.

I might see your point if the vote was close, but it wasn't. The gay marriage people lost in a LAND SLIDE. The majority of people dem and republican just don't agree with gay marriage.

Honestly it doesn't even gain them anything, especially in California. The only thing they get extra is the ability to say they're "married"....that's it.....nothing more.

[red states rule]

So your saying they were tricked (those nasty mormons) into voting against their REAL views???

BS...........you know what I think??? I think hispanics are pretty conservative when it comes to family and marriage and that's the reason they came out and voted against it.

I might see your point if the vote was close, but it wasn't. The gay marriage people lost in a LAND SLIDE. The majority of people dem and republican just don't agree with gay marriage.

Honestly it doesn't even gain them anything, especially in California. The only thing they get extra is the ability to say they're "married"....that's it.....nothing more.

How does the Daily Kos see the solution?

To Repeal Prop 8, Keep Black And Hispanic Turnout Low, and Counter Mormon Money.
by Frankie Teardrop

The disgraceful California Supreme Court decision today to let Proposition 8 stand is a setback, not a defeat. Make no mistake, Prop 8 will come back up for vote, and when it does, it won’t have the record turnout of Blacks and Hispanics that we saw in the 2008 Presidential election to pass it. That, together with effective countering of any Mormon efforts to support Prop 8, will ensure that next time, Prop 8 will be killed.

Frankie Teardrop's diary :: :: The same record turnout of Black and Hispanic voters that was a key factor in getting Barack Obama into the White House was unfortunately a double edged sword; in California that same ethnic and racial demo also was instrumental in the passage of Proposition 8.

The majority of Blacks and Hispanics voted in favor of Proposition 8, and with the vehemence the church communities in these demos came out and rallied against Prop 8, it’s no wonder.

Over 35 anti-gay, black pastors in California even went so far as to coerce hundreds of marching Los Angeles school children to encourage blacks to vote "yes" on Proposition 8.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735641/-To-Repeal-Prop-8,-Keep-Black-And-Hispanic-Turnout-Low,-and-Counter-Mormon-Money

[Trigg]

The disgraceful California Supreme Court decision today to let Proposition 8 stand is a setback, not a defeat. Make no mistake, Prop 8 will come back up for vote, and when it does, it won’t have the record turnout of Blacks and Hispanics that we saw in the 2008 Presidential election to pass it. That, together with effective countering of any Mormon efforts to support Prop 8, will ensure that next time, Prop 8 will be killed.

Love this section :laugh2:

They want blacks and hispanics to vote......but only if it benefits the dem party. Otherwise the dems just want them to stay home. :laugh2::laugh2:

[chloe]

You sound like you are genuinely asking, chloe, so here's my genuine answer:

Polygamous marriages are a catastrophe for the females. I say females because it is normal (both Muslims and Mormons, as you know from all the news accounts) to "marry" young girls, to get them trapped into the system before they get old enough to rebel and want what the greater society has. So child marriages are the NORM and they have to be, since there is a serious woman shortage, obviously, in polygamy. Also, a lot of boys are simply thrown out on the street: there can only be so many men in such a system, because in a population where births of males and females are 50/50, of course there are too many males and too few females.

For the greater society it's a problem because the males always raid the general population trying to find extra female mates. This is the actual religious function, of course, to increase the number and proportion of their religion adherents.

Within the marriages, so-called, there is a lot of male dominence and abuse and brainwashing. Large families are the norm, both Muslim and Mormon, as we know, and that is not a choice by the women: they have to wear themselves out bearing and raising huge families.

The women can't leave and they get passed from man to man at the command of the religious leader; we've seen that a lot with the Mormons.


So basically, that's why it's illegal and bad: it's terrible for women and amounts to sexual child abuse as well. They have to keep all their females and gain more, so they always have enclosed, guarded communities the women cannot leave, and dress the women in highly distinctive costumes to show ownership of them -- the headgear and burkas of Muslims, the strange old-fashioned Mormon clothes.

You all realize, I'm sure, that if homosexual marriages become general, legal polygamous marriages will follow immediately.


Thanks for your explanation I understand the human rights issue. So the reason for not making it legal is to protect women & child brides from being forced into it against there will. In Utah what happens is the wives have 8 or so kids and they are not considered married legally, so as single mothers they go to the welfare office and get some welfare foodstamps medicaid school grants etc etc. I just thought if Polygamy were made legal then if adults choose that lifestyle they can also pay for there own family expenses instead of tax payers. Now what is the legal reason for not allowing gay couples to have the legal privaledges of marriage?

[April15]

So your saying they were tricked (those nasty mormons) into voting against their REAL views???

BS...........you know what I think??? I think hispanics are pretty conservative when it comes to family and marriage and that's the reason they came out and voted against it.

I might see your point if the vote was close, but it wasn't. The gay marriage people lost in a LAND SLIDE. The majority of people dem and republican just don't agree with gay marriage.

Honestly it doesn't even gain them anything, especially in California. The only thing they get extra is the ability to say they're "married"....that's it.....nothing more.
Not tricked but used non the less. And hispanic and Islanders are very religious people. No doubt about it, except in their daily lives.
For me, I feel the concept of legal discrimination is a step backward to Jim Crow and the inability to marry a person of another race. I am married to a beautiful latin woman and 80 years ago that would not have been legal.
One last thing. Why not let them be as miserable as heteros?

[PostmodernProphet]

Now what is the legal reason for not allowing gay couples to have the legal privaledges of marriage?

???....it isn't that complicated.....gays can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex......there is no such thing as marriage with someone of the same sex.....

[avatar4321]

Not tricked but used non the less. And hispanic and Islanders are very religious people. No doubt about it, except in their daily lives.
For me, I feel the concept of legal discrimination is a step backward to Jim Crow and the inability to marry a person of another race. I am married to a beautiful latin woman and 80 years ago that would not have been legal.
One last thing. Why not let them be as miserable as heteros?

If marriage is so miserable why would you want to have it?

[chloe]

???....it isn't that complicated.....gays can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex......there is no such thing as marriage with someone of the same sex.....

but what's the reason it is against the law?

[PostmodernProphet]

but what's the reason it is against the law?

it doesn't exist....if you are asking why the law doesn't change to make it exist, my answer would be that the world shouldn't need to change the definition of marriage just because two gays choose to enter into an abnormal relationship.......

[bullypulpit]

Thank God.

The Court also ruled that the same-sex "marriages" that were made before this ruling, remain married. Except for the ones that have already divorced. Which is quite a few more than opposite-sex marriages that have divorced, that were made during that period.

Just hear this on ABC radio in San Diego.

Firstly, you twits on the right have yet to present a compelling case of demonstrable harm to ANYONE resulting from permitting same gender couples to marry. Secondly, and most importantly here as y'all are unable...and unwilling...to see the big picture, the decision of the California Supreme Court sets a precedent which legitimizes the use of voter referendums to strip a minority of rights which it already has.

You see, laws, the courts which interpret them and the government which enforces them exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This use of voter referendums to strip or deny rights to minorities is a gross miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the voter referendum.

One can only wonder at what would have happened if voter referendums had been used to roll back the Voting Rights Act of 1964, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964...Or perhaps to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow era. Y'all bitch and moan about the sanctity of the Constitution but haven't the faintest understanding of it or the principles it embodies. And you call yourselves "Americans".

[red states rule]

Firstly, you twits on the right have yet to present a compelling case of demonstrable harm to ANYONE resulting from permitting same gender couples to marry. Secondly, and most importantly here as y'all are unable...and unwilling...to see the big picture, the decision of the California Supreme Court sets a precedent which legitimizes the use of voter referendums to strip a minority of rights which it already has.

You see, laws, the courts which interpret them and the government which enforces them exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This use of voter referendums to strip or deny rights to minorities is a gross miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the voter referendum.

One can only wonder at what would have happened if voter referendums had been used to roll back the Voting Rights Act of 1964, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964...Or perhaps to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow era. Y'all bitch and moan about the sanctity of the Constitution but haven't the faintest understanding of it or the principles it embodies. And you call yourselves "Americans".

Are you calling Pres obama, and most of the black population of CA "twits"? seems you lefties keep forgetting their support of Prop 8 and opposition to gay marriage

[PostmodernProphet]

a compelling case of demonstrable harm to ANYONE resulting from permitting same gender couples to marry.

riddle me this....why should society have to completely change it's definition of "marriage" to comply with same gender couples choices simply because it doesn't do harm.....whatever happened to "privacy of the bedroom"?.......let's say I choose to call my gambling losses "mortgage interest" and demand society allow me to deduct them on my Schedule A.....since it would cause you no demonstrable harm, you're a bigot to object......

[red states rule]

A church can perform any ceremony they want. It simply isn't recognized by the state.

I am in favor of full benefits via civil union for gays. I am not in favor gay marriage.

Now you would think that would solve the problem and it would if this whole thing was about the benefits. It isn't. it's about acceptance.

[PostmodernProphet]

Secondly, and most importantly here as y'all are unable...and unwilling...to see the big picture, the decision of the California Supreme Court sets a precedent which legitimizes the use of voter referendums to strip a minority of rights which it already has.

You see, laws, the courts which interpret them and the government which enforces them exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This use of voter referendums to strip or deny rights to minorities is a gross miscarriage of justice and a misuse of the voter referendum.


wait, let me see if I understand this correctly.....when the California Supreme Court decided to permit gay marriage it was protecting us, but when it decided against it it was tyrannizing us?......

[Nukeman]

wait, let me see if I understand this correctly.....when the California Supreme Court decided to permit gay marriage it was protecting us, but when it decided against it it was tyrannizing us?......EXACTLY!!!!!!!
:dance:

[Trigg]

Not tricked but used non the less. And hispanic and Islanders are very religious people. No doubt about it, except in their daily lives.
For me, I feel the concept of legal discrimination is a step backward to Jim Crow and the inability to marry a person of another race. I am married to a beautiful latin woman and 80 years ago that would not have been legal.
One last thing. Why not let them be as miserable as heteros?


What your saying is a slap in the face to the hispanic and black voters. Poor them, they just didn't understand what they were voting for. THEY WERE USED. BS they voted that way because that is the way they feel. They, along with the majority of Americans, disagree with changing the definition of marriage.

Just because you disagree with the way they voted doesn't mean they were tricked or used.

How is it discrimination???????? Gays have the same rights in a civil union as straight people do. They aren't missing out on anything accept the right to say they're "married". Why do they feel the need to change the definition of marriage????? What does it gain them..........NOTHING.

80 years ago it was legal to marry a latina.........it was also legal to marry and Indian. What wasn't legal was blacks and whites marrying. I know this because my Great Grandmother was Indian and she was married LEGALLY to my white Great Grandfather over 80 years ago.

[red states rule]

What your saying is a slap in the face to the hispanic and black voters. Poor them, they just didn't understand what they were voting for. THEY WERE USED. BS they voted that way because that is the way they feel. They, along with the majority of Americans, disagree with changing the definition of marriage.

Just because you disagree with the way they voted doesn't mean they were tricked or used.

How is it discrimination???????? Gays have the same rights in a civil union as straight people do. They aren't missing out on anything accept the right to say they're "married". Why do they feel the need to change the definition of marriage????? What does it gain them..........NOTHING.

80 years ago it was legal to marry a latina.........it was also legal to marry and Indian. What wasn't legal was blacks and whites marrying. I know this because my Great Grandmother was Indian and she was married LEGALLY to my white Great Grandfather over 80 years ago.

You must have not recieved the memo Trigg

Agree with a liberal on 100% of his/her platform: You're a fine human being with superior intelligence

Agree with a liberal on anything less than 100%, and you're an un-American, mean spirited, a racist, and a homo hater

It's how they recruit new members to the party - they brow beat them and humilate them into agreeing with the beliefs and core principals of the party

)BTW, the core principals and beliefs of the Dem party are subject to change based on polls, focus groups, and what Obama might say on any given day)

[Binky]

HUGE no-no in the advertising campaign to get people to vote against their own best interests.
The pro-prop 8 advertsing told LIES in that they told people that parents would LOOSE CONTROL over their kids education and that the kids would have mandintory indoctrination into the "gay lifestyle" ALL FRAUD AND LIES! the sick part of it is that the FRAUD worked! an emotional appeal and fearmongering! Talk about SICK & TWISTED!



Lets face it
We The People are being dragged into a system where
rather than doing anything that is not illegal,
we are compeled to do as we are told
by the New World Order!

BAD IDEA!


The powers that be have been working at this New World Order thing for decades now, below the radar. It's picking up speed and in the near future we will no longer be America, but rather a combined country with Mexico, Canada and America. Why do you think nothing has been done about our borders?

[actsnoblemartin]

I like it! Now to start the petition to put being republican against the law into motion. Man! How great to be able to legislate bigottry! I'm pumped!

me too, seems the will of the people in california is hate and... bigotry against gays

[actsnoblemartin]

civil unions are not the same as marriage. They are seperate but equal, and not equal in terms of legal benefits to marriage

nice try

:coffee:


What your saying is a slap in the face to the hispanic and black voters. Poor them, they just didn't understand what they were voting for. THEY WERE USED. BS they voted that way because that is the way they feel. They, along with the majority of Americans, disagree with changing the definition of marriage.

Just because you disagree with the way they voted doesn't mean they were tricked or used.

How is it discrimination???????? Gays have the same rights in a civil union as straight people do. They aren't missing out on anything accept the right to say they're "married". Why do they feel the need to change the definition of marriage????? What does it gain them..........NOTHING.

80 years ago it was legal to marry a latina.........it was also legal to marry and Indian. What wasn't legal was blacks and whites marrying. I know this because my Great Grandmother was Indian and she was married LEGALLY to my white Great Grandfather over 80 years ago.

[actsnoblemartin]

no they dont, they dont have the same legal protections in the work place, hate crime laws, and marriage

nice try :coffee:


Please explain the bigotry????? They have THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

You see bigotry, I see a court upholding legislation that does not cow down to PC and special interest groups. It has also held up the will of the people at this time. It has also REFUSED to give SPECIAL treatment to a group of people that do something different in their bedroom.....

[PostmodernProphet]

no they dont, they dont have the same legal protections in the work place, hate crime laws, and marriage


actually, they have MORE protection in the workplace....heterosexuals are not a protected class under the civil rights laws......and what hate crimes exist apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals (not that they would ever be enforced against heterosexuals).......

[actsnoblemartin]

ill have to look it up :coffee:


actually, they have MORE protection in the workplace....heterosexuals are not a protected class under the civil rights laws......and what hate crimes exist apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals (not that they would ever be enforced against heterosexuals).......

[red states rule]

me too, seems the will of the people in california is hate and... bigotry against gays

Looks like all the activists are not at all happy. After all, their favorite tool for overring the clear will of the people, the courts, failed them.

Move on Martin, and take it to the USSC where the next stop is in this liberal attemot to toss out the votes of the people you claim to care about

[red states rule]

BTW Prop 8 got a 52% majority. In the very bluse state of CA, how many of those yes votes were cast by Republicans?

Hate to burst your bubble of liberal irrationality, but it had to have gotten large level of support from Democrats in order to pass

Again, most blacks voted for it - and Pres Obama does NOT support gay marriage and yet no hate sprewing lib so far has commented on that FACT

[actsnoblemartin]

most blacks in california (in my opinion) are stupid and hateful for how they voted.

the black community is more racist and homophobic then the white community but nobody has the balls to say it, well... I say it


BTW Prop 8 got a 52% majority. In the very bluse state of CA, how many of those yes votes were cast by Republicans?

Hate to burst your bubble of liberal irrationality, but it had to have gotten large level of support from Democrats in order to pass

Again, most blacks voted for it - and Pres Obama does NOT support gay marriage and yet no hate sprewing lib so far has commented on that FACT

[Trigg]

most blacks in california (in my opinion) are stupid and hateful for how they voted.

the black community is more racist and homophobic then the white community but nobody has the balls to say it, well... I say it

Why is it that if a person is against gay marriage they are automatically a homophobic or bigot?

Gays want acceptance and open mindedness, supposedly. But, they don't want to be accepting or open minded about other people's beliefs.

I don't have a problem at all with gay people living together and getting benefits if they are in a committed civil union. If they are getting EVERYTHING that a married couple gets than why change the definition of marriage???

It isn't hateful for a person to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Tolerance of different opinions and beliefs, isn't that what the gays want......

[red states rule]

Why is it that if a person is against gay marriage they are automatically a homophobic or bigot?

Gays want acceptance and open mindedness, supposedly. But, they don't want to be accepting or open minded about other people's beliefs.

I don't have a problem at all with gay people living together and getting benefits if they are in a committed civil union. If they are getting EVERYTHING that a married couple gets than why change the definition of marriage???

It isn't hateful for a person to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Tolerance of different opinions and beliefs, isn't that what the gays want......

Martin has indeed become a liberal. He has now mastered the art of liberal tolerance when he encounters someone with a different POV

The gays do not want marriage. They do not want the benefits. They want - and demand - acceptance

[Missileman]

Why is it that if a person is against gay marriage they are automatically a homophobic or bigot?

In the absence of any demonstrable harm to any heterosexual marriages if gays are allowed to marry, I'd say it's logical to conclude that the primary motivation against gay marriage has to be prejudice against gays.

[jimnyc]

In the absence of any demonstrable harm to any heterosexual marriages if gays are allowed to marry, I'd say it's logical to conclude that the primary motivation against gay marriage has to be prejudice against gays.

I can find you TONS of laws/decisions against things that are 100% absent of demonstrable harm, whether to the charged person or society. Should all of these laws be repealed? Are the citizens that pushed for such laws and the legislators bigots or have some sort of "phobia"?

If prostitutes receive mandatory testing, should the laws be repealed since nobody at all is within harms way? If marijuana smokers are treated the same as alcohol users, should marijuana laws be repealed? Are those against such actions "prostiphobes or marijuanaphobes"? Were these laws put into place because legislators were afraid of them?

The motivation behind the queer movement is to have their lifestyle accepted as the norm. The motivation behind normal people is to not have society accept abnormality as our equals - because they aren't by any stretch of the imagination.

[PostmodernProphet]

In the absence of any demonstrable harm to any heterosexual marriages if gays are allowed to marry, I'd say it's logical to conclude that the primary motivation against gay marriage has to be prejudice against gays.

I consider it harmful to society to have children raised believing sexual relations between same sex persons is anything other than an abnormal diversion which should be tolerated, not celebrated.....

[Missileman]

I can find you TONS of laws/decisions against things that are 100% absent of demonstrable harm, whether to the charged person or society. Should all of these laws be repealed? Are the citizens that pushed for such laws and the legislators bigots or have some sort of "phobia"?

List them...you'll be fortunate to come up with ounces, let alone tons.


If prostitutes receive mandatory testing, should the laws be repealed since nobody at all is within harms way? If marijuana smokers are treated the same as alcohol users, should marijuana laws be repealed? Are those against such actions "prostiphobes or marijuanaphobes"? Were these laws put into place because legislators were afraid of them?

The motivation behind the queer movement is to have their lifestyle accepted as the norm.

I disagree. I believe they merely want to be accepted. Something doesn't have to be "normal" in order for it to be acceptable. Unlike you, I CAN come up with tons of examples of abnormal situations that are perfectly acceptable. Until gay couples are given the same legal rights and benefits as straight couples, they'll have a legitimate beef. If you want them to leave "marriage" alone, let them have legal, state-recognized civil unions.

Now, with all that said, I'd ask you to note that I said prejudice, not phobia.

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe they merely want to be accepted.


and what's wrong with tolerated.....why should we be compelled by law to treat them as "acceptable"?.....


let them have legal, state-recognized civil unions

don't waste our time with that line.....that's what they had in Massachusetts and sued over.....you know as well as I do that they rejected civil unions as an option....don't make it sound like its OUR fault they don't have them......I'm tired of all the yipping and yapping over gay marriage....I say it's time to stuff them all back in the closet and ignore them......

[actsnoblemartin]

its about equality, gays are being discriminated against because they cant marry whom they want.

and until they can, discrimination will be the law of the land.

[actsnoblemartin]

civil unions are seperate but equal, could you imagine if loving vs california was offered civil unions. you dont have to accept anything, but you cant discriminate against gays, or treat them as seperate but equal

that is my point, respectfully

[PostmodernProphet]

its about equality, gays are being discriminated against because they cant marry whom they want.


so what?....they can live with who they want, they can fuck who or whatever they want....the only reason they can't "marry" is because "marry" is defined as a man and a woman and what they want is someone of the same sex.....

can you give me another example of someone choosing something impossible and making the entire world change so they can have it?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

but you cant discriminate against gays, or treat them as seperate but equal



we could always to back to treating them like shit....I figure, you want to demand the equal right to do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, you ought to at least have the courtesy to keep it in your own bedroom......

[avatar4321]

its about equality, gays are being discriminated against because they cant marry whom they want.

and until they can, discrimination will be the law of the land.

Youre wrong Martin. They do indd have the right to marry whomever they want now. They always had that right.

What they want to do is redefine what a marriage is until the word and institution is meaningless.

[jimnyc]

List them...you'll be fortunate to come up with ounces, let alone tons.

These are literally off the top of my head, and alone will add up to hundreds upon hundreds of various laws.

99% of parking law citations & probably 50% of traffic violations
Public indecency
Almost every drug use crime
Vagrancy
Online gambling
Seat Belt laws
Motorcycle helmet laws
clothing laws (baggy pants and asscrack hanging out)
Prohibition of pornography and erotica (still in many jurisdictions)
Loitering
Nudity in public
Price fixing
Not in possession of ID
Selling goods without a permit
Base jumping in many areas


I disagree. I believe they merely want to be accepted. Something doesn't have to be "normal" in order for it to be acceptable. Unlike you, I CAN come up with tons of examples of abnormal situations that are perfectly acceptable. Until gay couples are given the same legal rights and benefits as straight couples, they'll have a legitimate beef. If you want them to leave "marriage" alone, let them have legal, state-recognized civil unions.

They want to be accepted as normal and given additional rights along with their abnormal and deviant behavior. They've already begun the slogan "legal but unequal" in areas where civil unions are now accepted. They are NOT going to stop until they can change the definition of marriage.


Now, with all that said, I'd ask you to note that I said prejudice, not phobia.

Nonetheless, the term "homophobia" or "homophobe" is widely overused and not one of these foul deviants scares me in the slightest bit.

As for prejudice, I'm no more prejudiced against queers than I am 2 monkeys drinking one another's piss on every street corner. Hell, it must be normal if the animals do it!

[Missileman]

These are literally off the top of my head, and alone will add up to hundreds upon hundreds of various laws.

99% of parking law citations & probably 50% of traffic violations
Public indecency
Almost every drug use crime
Vagrancy
Online gambling
Seat Belt laws
Motorcycle helmet laws
clothing laws (baggy pants and asscrack hanging out)
Prohibition of pornography and erotica (still in many jurisdictions)
Loitering
Nudity in public
Price fixing
Not in possession of ID
Selling goods without a permit
Base jumping in many areas

Public indecency --- If there's no harm, then I assume you'd have no problem with some pervert jerkin off in front of your kid in the park.

Almost every drug use crime --- You wouldn't mind if your kid became a heroin junkie?

Seat belt laws and helmet laws save lives...it's a proven fact. Increased injuries from non-use result in higher insurance premiums for everyone.



They want to be accepted as normal and given additional rights along with their abnormal and deviant behavior. They've already begun the slogan "legal but unequal" in areas where civil unions are now accepted. They are NOT going to stop until they can change the definition of marriage.

They aren't asking for a single right that isn't already extended to heterosexual couples, so "additional" rights don't fly. As for "legal but unequal", until their civil union is recognized for federal tax purposes, the statement is true.


Nonetheless, the term "homophobia" or "homophobe" is widely overused and not one of these foul deviants scares me in the slightest bit.

As for prejudice, I'm no more prejudiced against queers than I am 2 monkeys drinking one another's piss on every street corner. Hell, it must be normal if the animals do it!

LOL...Riiiiiight!

[crin63]

They are already gearing for 2010 to put it back on the ballot. They are targeting hispanics and blacks in Southern California. Trying to convince them that they are victims of oppression. They plan on going door to door and setting up in front of stores.

They won't quit until their perverse lifestyles are accepted as natural and normal. That way we cannot deny them access to our children without facing lawsuits.

[jimnyc]

Public indecency --- If there's no harm, then I assume you'd have no problem with some pervert jerkin off in front of your kid in the park.

Almost every drug use crime --- You wouldn't mind if your kid became a heroin junkie?

Seat belt laws and helmet laws save lives...it's a proven fact. Increased injuries from non-use result in higher insurance premiums for everyone.

Thank you for proving my point. Behavior that has no effect on anyone but the individual involved, and does not harm society as a whole, has been recognized for good reason and determined not healthy for the society in which we live. You failed to address the other laws, but again, although they bring no harm whatsoever to others, they have been deemed unlawful and/or bad for our society.

I'll thank you in advance for not bringing up my child during our discussion, whether directly or indirectly.


They aren't asking for a single right that isn't already extended to heterosexual couples, so "additional" rights don't fly. As for "legal but unequal", until their civil union is recognized for federal tax purposes, the statement is true.

Right now as we type, I cannot do a single thing that a queer cannot do. I cannot marry someone of the same sex and neither can they. They are legally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex as normal people do.


LOL...Riiiiiight!

Didn't like me equating the queers to pissing monkeys? I didn't either. I'd move into a community full of pissing monkeys in a heartbeat and would RUN from any community supporting queers.

[jimnyc]

They are already gearing for 2010 to put it back on the ballot. They are targeting hispanics and blacks in Southern California. Trying to convince them that they are victims of oppression. They plan on going door to door and setting up in front of stores.

They won't quit until their perverse lifestyles are accepted as natural and normal. That way we cannot deny them access to our children without facing lawsuits.

I pray to the heavens that a queer has the audacity to come on my property and attempt to preach to me. Nevermind the monkey, I'd piss on him.

[Missileman]

Thank you for proving my point. Behavior that has no effect on anyone but the individual involved, and does not harm society as a whole, has been recognized for good reason and determined not healthy for the society in which we live. You failed to address the other laws, but again, although they bring no harm whatsoever to others, they have been deemed unlawful and/or bad for our society.

I didn't prove your point at all, in fact I disproved it. Public indecency for example clearly affects everyone BUT the person who commits it. Junkies who can't afford their habits will resort to theft to pay for their next fix...hint...they aren't stealing from themselves. There is demonstrable harm in most of the laws you cited, sometimes only affecting the law violator, but not always.


I'll thank you in advance for not bringing up my child during our discussion, whether directly or indirectly.

Don't get your knickers twisted. I said nothing about or against your kid, nor am I inclined to. There wasn't anything wrong with the questions I asked.


Right now as we type, I cannot do a single thing that a queer cannot do. I cannot marry someone of the same sex and neither can they. They are legally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex as normal people do.

The same thing will be able to be said if they get civil unions...you and they will still share exactly the same rights. Time to put that bullshit argument to bed for good.



Didn't like me equating the queers to pissing monkeys? I didn't either. I'd move into a community full of pissing monkeys in a heartbeat and would RUN from any community supporting queers.

And yet you claim you're not prejudiced.

[jimnyc]

And yet you claim you're not prejudiced.

Provide a quote showing I ever stated that. I suggest you read my prior quote that you bolded, but read it carefully. Here, I'll state it again:


I'm no more prejudiced against queers than I am 2 monkeys drinking one another's piss on every street corner.

In other words, my prejudice towards both is about the same. Only difference is that one is an animal, and the other is, well, an animal! I have no problem admitting that I am prejudiced against many things in our society, but I am accepting of the overwhelming majority regardless of my personal feelings. But I refuse to turn the other cheek and act as if all is fine and well with a society that caters to ones perversions.

[jimnyc]

Don't get your knickers twisted. I said nothing about or against your kid, nor am I inclined to. There wasn't anything wrong with the questions I asked.

Point taken, and accept my apology for jumping the gun.

To address your points though, I no more want my son exposed to queers than I do having him exposed to perverts and junkies roaming the streets.

[actsnoblemartin]

unless you want to live in the mountains and be a hermit. you and your son, will be exposed to gays.


Point taken, and accept my apology for jumping the gun.

To address your points though, I no more want my son exposed to queers than I do having him exposed to perverts and junkies roaming the streets.

[actsnoblemartin]

so what?....they can live with who they want, they can fuck who or whatever they want....the only reason they can't "marry" is because "marry" is defined as a man and a woman and what they want is someone of the same sex.....

can you give me another example of someone choosing something impossible and making the entire world change so they can have it?.....

I am sorry my friend, but i believe the world has been discriminating against gays for the last 5,000 years. i.e. marriage has been wronfully denied, so therefore the change should have never have been needed as gays should have been able to marry from the beginning :coffee:

[actsnoblemartin]

sex should stay in the bedroom, but heterosexuals holding hands and kissing dont have to worry about being attacked, gays do.

so, i dont think gays should have to stay in their room.


we could always to back to treating them like shit....I figure, you want to demand the equal right to do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, you ought to at least have the courtesy to keep it in your own bedroom......

[PostmodernProphet]

I am sorry my friend, but i believe the world has been discriminating against gays for the last 5,000 years. i.e. marriage has been wronfully denied, so therefore the change should have never have been needed as gays should have been able to marry from the beginning :coffee:

marriage has never been wrongfully denied.....marriage has never been anything other than the union between a man and a woman....that isn't discrimination, it's common sense.......and common sense is what gays are demanding we abandon so that their abnormal choices can be accommodated.....

I don't feel inclined to abandon common sense.....

[PostmodernProphet]

so, i dont think gays should have to stay in their room.

what an amazingly silly way of interpreting what I said......think of it this way....it's just an extension of "Don't ask, don't tell"......it brings it to the level of "Stop shouting it at the top of your lungs in the court house".......

Take this from a different direction.....how do you think our resident atheists would feel if we passed a law that redefined "belief" and now it is not enough that they tolerate Christianity, but need to accept it as valid truth instead?........

[actsnoblemartin]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree my friend :beer:


marriage has never been wrongfully denied.....marriage has never been anything other than the union between a man and a woman....that isn't discrimination, it's common sense.......and common sense is what gays are demanding we abandon so that their abnormal choices can be accommodated.....

I don't feel inclined to abandon common sense.....

[actsnoblemartin]

im not seeing how that applies, but feel free to explain it to me

sorry i mistook what you said


what an amazingly silly way of interpreting what I said......think of it this way....it's just an extension of "Don't ask, don't tell"......it brings it to the level of "Stop shouting it at the top of your lungs in the court house".......

Take this from a different direction.....how do you think our resident atheists would feel if we passed a law that redefined "belief" and now it is not enough that they tolerate Christianity, but need to accept it as valid truth instead?........

[PostmodernProphet]

but feel free to explain it to me



consider this....in 1972 the vast majority of Americans believed it was wrong to terminate the life of an unborn child.......35 years and 47 million lives later,, the argument is whether it is wrong to prevent someone from terminating the life of an unborn child......the only difference is that someone made it legal......

changing the law, changes minds.....

[jimnyc]

unless you want to live in the mountains and be a hermit. you and your son, will be exposed to gays.

Not necessarily, my young flip flopping friend! As with prior analogies, my son will no more be exposed to queers than he will heroin addicts and perverts roaming the streets. While I'm confident there are some secret queers and junkies living near me, my son is being raised properly to avoid ALL of them like the plague.


I am sorry my friend, but i believe the world has been discriminating against gays for the last 5,000 years. i.e. marriage has been wronfully denied, so therefore the change should have never have been needed as gays should have been able to marry from the beginning :coffee:

Has the world been wrongfully discriminating against prostitutes and their "johns"? What about those who illegally park, should they take to the streets in their pink underwear and demand "equal rights"?

Society discriminates against deviant behavior all the time. Porn, erotica, shops, burlesques & gentleman's clubs are more and more being banned from neighborhoods. People just don't want their children and families exposed to deviant behavior, and that's how they feel about queers. While I'm not about to say it should be criminalized, it certainly shouldn't be legitimized.


sex should stay in the bedroom, but heterosexuals holding hands and kissing dont have to worry about being attacked, gays do.

so, i dont think gays should have to stay in their room.

Why is it that whenever you have ANY type of parade led by normal people, they dress like normal people? And why is it that any time you see a gay pride parade, they dress like absolute freaks? People just don't want freaks roaming their streets.

[red states rule]

Marriage is a cultural contract that is sanctioned and regulated by the state.
The definition of aarriage between a man and a woman is part of our culture and most others for thousands of years.

Neither you or anybody else is going to convince people to change the definition for a few spoiled sports who can already have a celebration and a civil union and be respected by most people including those who voted for Prop 8.

Enough already with tearing down my culture to appease a subculture.

Sorry if I have offended anyone

[actsnoblemartin]

let me be clear, i dont think those that voted for prop are evil, bigoted, or anti-gay

im sorry if i gave the impression to the opposite.

[actsnoblemartin]

a couple things. you shouldnt act like gays are parasites, or evil. too be avoided.

I think prostitution should be legal, so whats your point?

you cant legislate morality, and just because most see things one way doesnt make it neccesarilty right.

why should gay people, queers
Not necessarily, my young flip flopping friend! As with prior analogies, my son will no more be exposed to queers than he will heroin addicts and perverts roaming the streets. While I'm confident there are some secret queers and junkies living near me, my son is being raised properly to avoid ALL of them like the plague.



Has the world been wrongfully discriminating against prostitutes and their "johns"? What about those who illegally park, should they take to the streets in their pink underwear and demand "equal rights"?

Society discriminates against deviant behavior all the time. Porn, erotica, shops, burlesques & gentleman's clubs are more and more being banned from neighborhoods. People just don't want their children and families exposed to deviant behavior, and that's how they feel about queers. While I'm not about to say it should be criminalized, it certainly shouldn't be legitimized.



Why is it that whenever you have ANY type of parade led by normal people, they dress like normal people? And why is it that any time you see a gay pride parade, they dress like absolute freaks? People just don't want freaks roaming their streets.

have you ever been to a parade, talked to a gay person about the parade, i dont think you know what youre talking about

[actsnoblemartin]

ah, yes. im a dolpin named flipper

I am a very passionate confused young man, you really should cut me some slack, you were young once

:coffee:


Not necessarily, my young flip flopping friend! As with prior analogies, my son will no more be exposed to queers than he will heroin addicts and perverts roaming the streets. While I'm confident there are some secret queers and junkies living near me, my son is being raised properly to avoid ALL of them like the plague.



Has the world been wrongfully discriminating against prostitutes and their "johns"? What about those who illegally park, should they take to the streets in their pink underwear and demand "equal rights"?

Society discriminates against deviant behavior all the time. Porn, erotica, shops, burlesques & gentleman's clubs are more and more being banned from neighborhoods. People just don't want their children and families exposed to deviant behavior, and that's how they feel about queers. While I'm not about to say it should be criminalized, it certainly shouldn't be legitimized.



Why is it that whenever you have ANY type of parade led by normal people, they dress like normal people? And why is it that any time you see a gay pride parade, they dress like absolute freaks? People just don't want freaks roaming their streets.

[PostmodernProphet]

you cant legislate morality

????....apparently you can....all you have to do is redefine marriage and you make the immoral, moral......

[red states rule]

a couple things. you shouldnt act like gays are parasites, or evil. too be avoided.

I think prostitution should be legal, so whats your point?

you cant legislate morality, and just because most see things one way doesnt make it neccesarilty right.

why should gay people, queers

have you ever been to a parade, talked to a gay person about the parade, i dont think you know what youre talking about

The state constitution was amended in accordance with the law, as the state supreme court found.

Martin, you only think it's broken because your side lost, and are upset about it. Your opinion isn't founded in anything rational or authoritative.

Gays can still get married. This isn't a banning of marriage, it's a question of state recognition of it. As I sated before, this issue is not about marriage, it is about acceptance

[PostmodernProphet]

I find it amusing that liberals cry that you can't legislate morality.....let's consider a history of the moralities they have imposed or attempted through the courts and legistlatures....

they stopped the immorality of public prayer...
they stopped the immorality of blocking the killing of unborn children...
they stopped the immorality of nativity scenes on public property at Christmas....
they stopped the immorality of teaching abstinence....
they stopped the immorality of exhibiting the Ten Commandments on the walls of courthouse hallways....
they tried to stop the immorality of saying "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence....
they tried to stop the immorality of imprinting "In God We Trust" on currency....
they tried to stop the immorality of owning a gun....
they tried to stop the immorality of smoking in or near public places....
they tried to stop the immorality of believing in creation....


you see, Martin, liberals only oppose the legislation of morality when it's someone else's morality.....

[jimnyc]

let me be clear, i dont think those that voted for prop are evil, bigoted, or anti-gay

im sorry if i gave the impression to the opposite.

No need to apologize for expressing your views, whether anyone disagrees with you or not.


a couple things. you shouldnt act like gays are parasites, or evil. too be avoided.

I think prostitution should be legal, so whats your point?

you cant legislate morality, and just because most see things one way doesnt make it neccesarilty right.

why should gay people, queers

have you ever been to a parade, talked to a gay person about the parade, i dont think you know what youre talking about

I DO think queers are just like parasites. They thrive on perversion and then throw loony fits when things don't go their way.

While you may think prostitution should be legal, most of society disagrees with you. Maybe the whores should take to the streets in their lingerie and demand equal rights as every other "worker"? They should shove their perversions down societies throats until they are despised not only for their perversions, but also for their desire to disrupt others lives until they get their way?

Working in NY for many years I have seen tons of the queer parades. Why can't they parade and/or gather like NORMAL humans if that's what they claim they are? Why make themselves stand out like aliens from another planet? Why let their asses hang out, what does that prove? Why cross-dress? I've talked to many queers and have even been friends with a few, at least until I was aware of their perversions. You can only hide your deviant desires for so long. The last one I was friends with ended up moving in with his boyfriend, and after a few years I guess the perversion wasn't enough and he molested an 11yr old and went to jail. 3 years later he died from AIDS.


ah, yes. im a dolpin named flipper

I am a very passionate confused young man, you really should cut me some slack, you were young once

:coffee:

You should ask more questions and learn before making statements of fact if you are truly confused.

[actsnoblemartin]

my question on prostitution, is dont the women get more hurt from it being illegal?

why do you think its perversion

have you ever asked a gay person, why the overly flamboyant behavior at the parades, i'd like to find out


No need to apologize for expressing your views, whether anyone disagrees with you or not.



I DO think queers are just like parasites. They thrive on perversion and then throw loony fits when things don't go their way.

While you may think prostitution should be legal, most of society disagrees with you. Maybe the whores should take to the streets in their lingerie and demand equal rights as every other "worker"? They should shove their perversions down societies throats until they are despised not only for their perversions, but also for their desire to disrupt others lives until they get their way?

Working in NY for many years I have seen tons of the queer parades. Why can't they parade and/or gather like NORMAL humans if that's what they claim they are? Why make themselves stand out like aliens from another planet? Why let their asses hang out, what does that prove? Why cross-dress? I've talked to many queers and have even been friends with a few, at least until I was aware of their perversions. You can only hide your deviant desires for so long. The last one I was friends with ended up moving in with his boyfriend, and after a few years I guess the perversion wasn't enough and he molested an 11yr old and went to jail. 3 years later he died from AIDS.



You should ask more questions and learn before making statements of fact if you are truly confused.

[Binky]

because marriage is defined in the dictionary as a man marrying a woman...../looks carefully...../sees no reference to religion...../applauds self for satisfying chloe's request.....


hmmmm....sounds downright feasible to me. :clap:

[actsnoblemartin]

I find it amusing that liberals cry that you can't legislate morality.....let's consider a history of the moralities they have imposed or attempted through the courts and legistlatures....

they stopped the immorality of public prayer...
they stopped the immorality of blocking the killing of unborn children...
they stopped the immorality of nativity scenes on public property at Christmas....
they stopped the immorality of teaching abstinence....
they stopped the immorality of exhibiting the Ten Commandments on the walls of courthouse hallways....
they tried to stop the immorality of saying "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegence....
they tried to stop the immorality of imprinting "In God We Trust" on currency....
they tried to stop the immorality of owning a gun....
they tried to stop the immorality of smoking in or near public places....
they tried to stop the immorality of believing in creation....


you see, Martin, liberals only oppose the legislation of morality when it's someone else's morality.....

I see, Its certainly hypocritical