Had an impromptu protest today - my first one!

[Jschmuck2]

Don't suppose anyone was driving through Glendale near the Americana at Brand and saw us out there? We had kind of a "flash mob" protest group show up to shout down the "Yes on 8 - Protect our Families" crowd.

I was the one in the pirate outfit with the sign that said

"Arrrrrrrrrr you voting no on Prop 8?"

other side:

"I get to choose whose booty I plunder! No on 8."

Those fundamental whackados, of course, when asked had no explanation other than that 8 was necessary to "protect my family and your family."

Ugh.

I took some video with my Blackberry but it is awful

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And people here are claiming it's the "right" who's full of rage...:laugh:

 

[Jschmuck2]

I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
"I get to choose whose booty I plunder! No on 8."
(

:laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...a_Proposition_8_(2008)

I guess that's not something they would have in your "state."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

Wrong, as per the 14th amendment as shown in Lawrence v. Texas people have the right to plunder whatever booty they want.

Yeah, people should just kindly ask that they be treated equally to everyone else. This has a historical precedent of working really well.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

Uh... yes, there is such a right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...a_Proposition_8_(2008)

I guess that's not something they would have in your "state."

No, we don't get to vote on stuff in our state. We just have the libs push their excessive spending(robbing rainy day funds) and rights violations(smoking ban) through the congress and it gets signed by the puppet governor.

The one thing we did get to vote on was a statewide "local option" sales tax- which thankfully failed miserably. Unfortunately we didn't get to vote on the school curriculum? thing(forgot exact details) that stripped local control of schools from the local area and put it in state bureaucrat's hands.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

Wrong, as per the 14th amendment as shown in Lawrence v. Texas people have the right to plunder whatever booty they want.

Yeah, people should just kindly ask that they be treated equally to everyone else. This has a historical precedent of working really well.

No they don't. There is no right. The example you provided was about a law against homosexual relations(in a limited sense) but there is no explicit right to plunder whatever booty you want. You can yap and yap about the ruling but there is no "right". There may be protections, but not rights. Also, if you want to whine about semantics - fine - just please start being careful when using the word "rights".

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I was the one in the pirate outfit with the sign that said

"Arrrrrrrrrr you voting no on Prop 8?"

other side:

"I get to choose whose booty I plunder! No on 8."

:laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

What I didn't know is that the Mormons were the ones who are behind this. WTF, Morons..err..Mormons talking about the sanctity of marriage??

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

Wrong, as per the 14th amendment as shown in Lawrence v. Texas people have the right to plunder whatever booty they want.

Yeah, people should just kindly ask that they be treated equally to everyone else. This has a historical precedent of working really well.

No they don't. There is no right. The example you provided was about a law against homosexual relations(in a limited sense) but there is no explicit right to plunder whatever booty you want. You can yap and yap about the ruling but there is no "right". There may be protections, but not rights. Also, if you want to whine about semantics - fine - just please start being careful when using the word "rights".

Wrong, the court specifically stated the right to personal intimate relations was contained in the larger right to privacy. So as part of your own private dealings, there is a right to have sex with whomever you want. So, the guy in the pirate suit was 100% correct.

The relevant passage from the majority Lawrence decision:

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ?It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.? Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Yeap, that means you have a right to plunder whatever booty you want.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

Wrong, as per the 14th amendment as shown in Lawrence v. Texas people have the right to plunder whatever booty they want.

Yeah, people should just kindly ask that they be treated equally to everyone else. This has a historical precedent of working really well.

No they don't. There is no right. The example you provided was about a law against homosexual relations(in a limited sense) but there is no explicit right to plunder whatever booty you want. You can yap and yap about the ruling but there is no "right". There may be protections, but not rights. Also, if you want to whine about semantics - fine - just please start being careful when using the word "rights".

Wrong, the court specifically stated the right to personal intimate relations was contained in the larger right to privacy. So as part of your own private dealings, there is a right to have sex with whomever you want. So, the guy in the pirate suit was 100% correct.

The relevant passage from the majority Lawrence decision:

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ?It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.? Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Yeap, that means you have a right to plunder whatever booty you want.

Nope, it was talking about privacy rights - not a "right" to sodomy. Also, there have been court rulings since that have ruled that the ruling you cite was not talking about a specific "right"... but hey if you want to believe it established a "right" to sodomy(which is the law it struck down) then so be it but you'd be incorrect as it was ruled against due to privacy.


This all being said, I would probably vote against such a proposition if we had that sort of thing here in Iowa.

 

[First]

^ Boy, the foam coming out of these wingnuts pie holes is fucking hilarious. :laugh:

 

[Harvey]

Props to ya, Jschmuck2 :beer: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY



And people here are claiming it's the "right" who's full of rage...:laugh:

He didn't do anything illegal, and rage is an appropriate response to fucking homophobic bigots. :|

This all being said, I would probably vote against such a proposition if we had that sort of thing here in Iowa.

Props for honoring the rights of others. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nope, it was talking about privacy rights - not a "right" to sodomy. Also, there have been court rulings since that have ruled that the ruling you cite was not talking about a specific "right"... but hey if you want to believe it established a "right" to sodomy(which is the law it struck down) then so be it but you'd be incorrect as it was ruled against due to privacy.


This all being said, I would probably vote against such a proposition if we had that sort of thing here in Iowa.

Right, and specifically mentioned as part of that right to privacy was the right to engage in consensual sexual conduct in the privacy of their own home. This means all forms of mutually consensual sexual conduct, sodomy included.

Do we really have to do this?

EDIT: To make it easier to understand, is there a right to have an abortion in the US? The answer is yes. This is due to the same right to privacy as cited in Lawrence.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
I think anger is perfectly acceptable when someone's rights are being forcibly stripped from them.

uh... there is no "right" to plunder booty.


I assume prop 8 has something to do with homosexual "marriage"?
<- obviously not from Cali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...a_Proposition_8_(2008)

I guess that's not something they would have in your "state."

probably not since its obvious the state he is in is one of total bewilderment!!

 

[Farang]

I'm new to California but I'm surprised this seems as if it may pass. The rights and happiness of gays is more important than what others interpret as the definition of marriage for themselves.

 

[Vic]

The conservative opinion on every ballot measure/referendum is to vote no. If any on the right says to vote yes, the opinion is not conservative but reactionary.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Farang
I'm new to California but I'm surprised this seems as if it may pass. The rights and happiness of gays is more important than what others interpret as the definition of marriage for themselves.

I'd guess it has a very good chance of passing. I know people who say they plan to vote for it because of a general feeling of distaste toward homosexuality. These same people ignore the larger issue of the fact that we would be amending the state constitution to deliberately restrict the rights of people. This, in a supposedly "free country".

I do not believe in restricting the rights of people, either arbitrarily, or for religious reasons. I will be voting no on this measure.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Props to ya, Jschmuck2 :beer: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY



And people here are claiming it's the "right" who's full of rage...:laugh:

He didn't do anything illegal, and rage is an appropriate response to fucking homophobic bigots. :|

This all being said, I would probably vote against such a proposition if we had that sort of thing here in Iowa.

Props for honoring the rights of others. :thumbsup:

Wrong wrong wrong. I'm not "honoring the rights" of homosexuals by saying I would likely vote no on something like that. The issue as I see it is not about "rights" of homosexuals even though some of you are trying to claim somehow this is about the "right" to homosexuality. There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

I didn't say he did anything illegal- i simply noted his rage.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic
The conservative opinion on every ballot measure/referendum is to vote no. If any on the right says to vote yes, the opinion is not conservative but reactionary.

What other ballot measures are there?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

What do you think the issue is here?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
There is no "right" to homosexuality, just as there is no "right" to heterosexuality.

There is a right to heterosexuality. It is inherent in the legal institution of marriage.

What do you think the issue is here?

Wrong. there is no "right". Just because people have gotten intellectually lazy by using "right" all the time doesn't mean it's use is correct. There is no specific "right" to heterosexuality, just like there is no specific right to homosexuality as far as the Constitution goes.