Republicans in Cali must be livid

[sportage]

If it passed by blacks coming out for Obama, and 70% of those black voting for prop8, then religion has to play a roll. Most blacks are Baptist, or came from Baptist upbringing.
If I remember correctly, Baptist do not tolerate gays in any way.
So there you have it.

Like Bill Maher always says, leave it to organized religion to F**K UP people's thinking.

It was under "religious guidance" that the KKK operated and blacks/whites could not marry each other.
Oh how soon we forget, my African American friends! :frown:

 

[dbk]

He didn't do jack before the vote. How cowardly.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: sportage
If it passed by blacks coming out for Obama, and 70% of those black voting for prop8, then religion has to play a roll. Most blacks are Baptist, or came from Baptist upbringing.
If I remember correctly, Baptist do not tolerate gays in any way.
So there you have it.

Like Bill Maher always says, leave it to organized religion to F**K UP people's thinking.

It was under "religious guidance" that the KKK operated and blacks/whites could not marry each other.
Oh how soon we forget, my African American friends! :frown:

then what's your explanation of other religious sects that voted against prop 8?

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: dbk
He didn't do jack before the vote. How cowardly.

Actually he did, he released a PR saying to vote no.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ICRS
The Governator has called for the courts to throw out Prop 8, saying it is in Violation of the Constitution of California. That it is an improper amendment.

The republicans that voted him in, must be livid.

Also his calls for higher taxes must make them mad too.

Arnold is socially liberal - fiscally moderate. That should explain it sufficiently.

Right.... We can never fund our objectives.... heheheheh.. So we dream of what could be and reject it cuz it costs way much...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
How did this pass? I mean... I just don't understand... I never hear of people on the news saying, "Gay marriage ain't right, yah hear?"

"Closet Bigots"... No one wants to be heard saying what labels them so they say one thing and do another...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: RichardE
My ex gf voted yes on prop 8. Shes a bigot though /shrug. (Didn't like Obama because she didn't trust him when pressed admitted it was race and he was a muslim who would ban Christianity, she has her masters and is working on her PhD....I don't know /shrug)

Anyway, shes pissed the courts are going to reverse it, thinks its just another step in the anti-christ taking over the US (She also thinks OBama is the black muslim antichrist)

That view is not held by just her.... I live with one of those who use to be a very liberal long haired hippy chic... back before finding what ever it was she found that turned her into what ever she is....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I love it. You guys only respect the majority when it votes in your favor.

As far as I am concerned, whether I agree or disagree with Prop 8, the people have spoken.

The voice of the people... hehehehehheheheh....... Before Chief Justice Rehnquist was on the court he wrote a nifty little opinion for a then Justice... it was like 1972... He said... "The majority will determine the rights of the minority"... but his view did not prevail... the dang Constitution got in the way as seen by the majority on that court at the time... Good folks all..

Edit: the actual quote "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are."

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I love it. You guys only respect the majority when it votes in your favor.

As far as I am concerned, whether I agree or disagree with Prop 8, the people have spoken.

if the people voted to gas the jews, would the holocaust have been ok?



btw lol godwins law

Since it's all hypothetical, if I may add; 'If the majority vote to incinerate all gays, I would be happy to see it happen" It's just a scenario or hypothetical, just like your retarded analogy of the holocaust with Prop 8!

 

[Lemon law]

And the TLC copout is, " WTF are you going on about?

Again, I will remind you...I fully support gay marriage. I personally see nothing wrong with it. But if you can't tolerate the fact that others, particularly a voting majority, have an opinion that differs from yours and mine, then you need how to learn suck it up and move on instead of trying to manufacture pathetic responses simply as a device to call people names and assess blame.

Get over yourself, LL. Your knee-jerking is not doing you any favors, particularly in this instance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry TLC, despite the fact that you are willing to agree with gay marriage, certain issues cannot come down to majority rules. And majority rules in the case of total irrationality is a litmus test of the sane or the morally bankrupt. Down the road of majority rules lies the worst of humanity, the acceptance of slavery and all kinds of moral repugnance naturally follows.

But in your previous post you argued that some how sex is a state sanctioned privilege rather than a human right. And you may be right that I missed the point. Because sex is neither a right or a privilege, sex
comes down to a basic biological instinct and hence transcends either argument. Even the brainless and beneficial coliform bacteria in my septic tank have sex, they preform a socially beneficial task, and pardon me if I do not waste my time micromanaging their sexual habits.

The argument that I think something is wrong at a very basic level, but I will keep looking the other way does not excuse you in any way. You can deny your brain or go to the devil, no middle ground exists.

 

[OrByte]

Some smart dude (heck I think it was someone on these boards) wrote something that stuck in my head...it went something like this:

Gays have the right to be married....just not to other gays.


so, is being Gay really the illegal part of the equation?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Some smart dude (heck I think it was someone on these boards) wrote something that stuck in my head...it went something like this:

Gays have the right to be married....just not to other gays.


so, is being Gay really the illegal part of the equation?

That is really the issue ain't it.... It IS legal to be Gay... and it is a fundamental right to get married held by the individual... so if two such individuals wish to exercise that right... Comes now the fun part...

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
These things are never supposed to be decided by courts. The public isn't ready to embrace gay marriage yet, so why doesn't the gay community spend more time and efforts to try to educate to the public about it, instead of trying to have the courts force it down on people?

Forcing people to accept gay marriage does nothing to further your cause.

people aren't being forced to accept anything that hasn't already been established and that is equal treatment and equal protection for all.

If people are feeling "forced" into accepting this then they have a problem.

While I understand your sentiment since I fully support gay marriage and voted no on Amendment 2 (which was Florida's version of prop 8), what you're saying really isn't true.

Similar to driving, marriage is not a right, it' a privilege. It's a license granted by the State and the State can choose to revoke it or disqualify people based on any number of reasons. That applies to heterosexuals too as there are many restrictions on heterosexuals marrying ranging from age, to family relationship, and even based on blood tests.

I agree with AT1. The majority are not ready to accept gay marriage yet. It's unfortunate but the majority have made themselves clear on their wishes. Those wishes should be honored.

thanks for agreeing with my sentiment.

but I disagree with your position, equal protection is not a privilege its a right.

 

[LunarRay]

Step one in what is a right or a Privilege requires a bit of understanding...

Ask yourself if Voting is a right or privilege
or Driving a car legally
or Buying a house
or owning a dog
or getting married
or having a baby in or out of wedlock
or owning a 45 automatic pistol
or assembling in a peaceful manner
etc...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
These things are never supposed to be decided by courts. The public isn't ready to embrace gay marriage yet, so why doesn't the gay community spend more time and efforts to try to educate to the public about it, instead of trying to have the courts force it down on people?

Forcing people to accept gay marriage does nothing to further your cause.

people aren't being forced to accept anything that hasn't already been established and that is equal treatment and equal protection for all.

If people are feeling "forced" into accepting this then they have a problem.

While I understand your sentiment since I fully support gay marriage and voted no on Amendment 2 (which was Florida's version of prop 8), what you're saying really isn't true.

Similar to driving, marriage is not a right, it' a privilege. It's a license granted by the State and the State can choose to revoke it or disqualify people based on any number of reasons. That applies to heterosexuals too as there are many restrictions on heterosexuals marrying ranging from age, to family relationship, and even based on blood tests.

I agree with AT1. The majority are not ready to accept gay marriage yet. It's unfortunate but the majority have made themselves clear on their wishes. Those wishes should be honored.

The right to marry has got to be about as fundamental as the right to life: I don't know where you get this shit.

A Constitutional Right To Marry
The Fourteenth Amendment: "'No state... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
"While this (Supreme) Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely state. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

 

[OCGuy]

Why do people keep mentioning Republicans and Prop 8 like they are the only culprit?

The homophobia in the black community, along with the low San Francisco turnout are a HUGE part.

But I guess if you repeat something enough times, that makes it true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Why do people keep mentioning Republicans and Prop 8 like they are the only culprit?

The homophobia in the black community, along with the low San Francisco turnout are a HUGE part.

But I guess if you repeat something enough times, that makes it true.

Probably because the black community and low turnout in San Francisco didn't work to put the issue on the ballot and provide the vast majority of funding for it.

Just a guess.

 

[BoomerD]

Several of the Republican legislators have also backed the idea of throwing Prop 8 out...

There are defined ways to amend the state's constitution...and this wasn't one of them.

 

[Jschmuck2]

I'd like to see some numbers about the "San Francisco Turnout," please.

 

[Jschmuck2]

http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=70720

73%

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: RichardE
My ex gf voted yes on prop 8. Shes a bigot though /shrug. (Didn't like Obama because she didn't trust him when pressed admitted it was race and he was a muslim who would ban Christianity, she has her masters and is working on her PhD....I don't know /shrug)

Anyway, shes pissed the courts are going to reverse it, thinks its just another step in the anti-christ taking over the US (She also thinks OBama is the black muslim antichrist)

What will you think of her if he does end up being a muslim antichrist?

At that point, she would probally be the least of my worries :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
These things are never supposed to be decided by courts. The public isn't ready to embrace gay marriage yet, so why doesn't the gay community spend more time and efforts to try to educate to the public about it, instead of trying to have the courts force it down on people?

Forcing people to accept gay marriage does nothing to further your cause.

people aren't being forced to accept anything that hasn't already been established and that is equal treatment and equal protection for all.

If people are feeling "forced" into accepting this then they have a problem.

While I understand your sentiment since I fully support gay marriage and voted no on Amendment 2 (which was Florida's version of prop 8), what you're saying really isn't true.

Similar to driving, marriage is not a right, it' a privilege. It's a license granted by the State and the State can choose to revoke it or disqualify people based on any number of reasons. That applies to heterosexuals too as there are many restrictions on heterosexuals marrying ranging from age, to family relationship, and even based on blood tests.

I agree with AT1. The majority are not ready to accept gay marriage yet. It's unfortunate but the majority have made themselves clear on their wishes. Those wishes should be honored.

The right to marry has got to be about as fundamental as the right to life: I don't know where you get this shit.

A Constitutional Right To Marry
The Fourteenth Amendment: "'No state... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
"While this (Supreme) Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely state. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

LOL. In 1923 you can bet that judge's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman. Even today the vast majority of judges are loathe to overturn any laws that prohibit gay marriage. So if the 14th Amendment truly covered gay marriage it would have been made legal long before today.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The right to marry has got to be about as fundamental as the right to life: I don't know where you get this shit.

A Constitutional Right To Marry
The Fourteenth Amendment: "'No state... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
"While this (Supreme) Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely state. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

LOL. In 1923 you can bet that judge's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman. Even today the vast majority of judges are loathe to overturn any laws that prohibit gay marriage. So if the 14th Amendment truly covered gay marriage it would have been made legal long before today.

The 14th amendment was made with the rights of blacks explicitly in mind, yet it was about a hundred years of civil strife far in excess of what we've seen with the gay marriage debate before something approaching equal protection under the law was made for them. Gay rights in general have only been on the radar for 10-15 years, and gay marriage rights only for the last 5 or 6.

The 14th amendment definitely covers gay marriage, it's just a matter of time. I think most people who watch this issue know that sooner or later there will be a USSC ruling on this issue, and by far the most likely outcome is a nationwide legalization of gay marriage. (particularly after an Obama victory)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the TLC copout is, " WTF are you going on about?

Again, I will remind you...I fully support gay marriage. I personally see nothing wrong with it. But if you can't tolerate the fact that others, particularly a voting majority, have an opinion that differs from yours and mine, then you need how to learn suck it up and move on instead of trying to manufacture pathetic responses simply as a device to call people names and assess blame.

Get over yourself, LL. Your knee-jerking is not doing you any favors, particularly in this instance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry TLC, despite the fact that you are willing to agree with gay marriage, certain issues cannot come down to majority rules. And majority rules in the case of total irrationality is a litmus test of the sane or the morally bankrupt. Down the road of majority rules lies the worst of humanity, the acceptance of slavery and all kinds of moral repugnance naturally follows.

But in your previous post you argued that some how sex is a state sanctioned privilege rather than a human right. And you may be right that I missed the point. Because sex is neither a right or a privilege, sex
comes down to a basic biological instinct and hence transcends either argument. Even the brainless and beneficial coliform bacteria in my septic tank have sex, they preform a socially beneficial task, and pardon me if I do not waste my time micromanaging their sexual habits.

The argument that I think something is wrong at a very basic level, but I will keep looking the other way does not excuse you in any way. You can deny your brain or go to the devil, no middle ground exists.

I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The right to marry has got to be about as fundamental as the right to life: I don't know where you get this shit.

A Constitutional Right To Marry
The Fourteenth Amendment: "'No state... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
"While this (Supreme) Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely state. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

LOL. In 1923 you can bet that judge's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman. Even today the vast majority of judges are loathe to overturn any laws that prohibit gay marriage. So if the 14th Amendment truly covered gay marriage it would have been made legal long before today.

The 14th amendment was made with the rights of blacks explicitly in mind, yet it was about a hundred years of civil strife far in excess of what we've seen with the gay marriage debate before something approaching equal protection under the law was made for them. Gay rights in general have only been on the radar for 10-15 years, and gay marriage rights only for the last 5 or 6.

The 14th amendment definitely covers gay marriage, it's just a matter of time. I think most people who watch this issue know that sooner or later there will be a USSC ruling on this issue, and by far the most likely outcome is a nationwide legalization of gay marriage. (particularly after an Obama victory)

Exactly. As LunarRay has pointed out, it is not illegal to be gay and therefore rights applied to one group of legal status can't be denied to another similarly legal group. That is in the constitution. But rights that are denied by bigotry and long custom have to be challenged in oder to be liberated. Our long legal history is nothing more than the expression and refinement of justice for all.

Bigots are blind. It is the rule of law, that all people are equal, that forces the transcendence of bigotry. And it's just a matter of TIME.