WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...
Michigan would be more than happy to take Hollywood in.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...
Originally posted by: sportage
PS. There are a lot of Gay owned businesses in Calif.
Owners should place a sign in the window of their business.
"If you voted for prop 8, DO NOT ENTER"
"Your business is not welcome here!!!"
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
If marriage is a religious term, then the government has no more business recognizing it than it does baptism. The government should see all "marriages" as some kind of civil unions and refer to them as such. If it's not a religious term, then the religious shouldn't give a rat's ass.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I mean it isn't like issues of racism, where the differences are clearly black and white.
You are an anti-bigot bigot. Kind of like reverse racism.
You have learned your lessons well.
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you have any knowledge of the CA court system, it is just going to get overturned anyway by a lefty judge.
I love lefty judges. They are the honest ones, the ones who look at the larger picture and defend principles good for society.
You do understand that this decision was led by *Republicans* -if you are calling them lefty meaning how they were legally correct and courageous, then fine.
This issue I happen to agree with the lefty judge. But normally, I am not for a judge striking down a vote of the people
Are you then opposed to the concept of constitutional rights that override the law as passed by a simple majority, as a block against tyrray of the majority?
If a law is truly against a state/federal constitution, than it will get kicked back anyway. I don't worry too much about amdendments like "8", or something similar becoming actual law.
But I do love the ability for the "people" to pass law through the prop system. That is why we have medical MJ.
Originally posted by: ICRS
There is ONLY 4 ways to modify the constitution of California.
Neither way requires more than a 50% vote by the people. Even a convention only requires a 50% vote.
This is how they are saying it should have been done.
1st: Legislation by a 2/2 vote calls for a Convention.
or
1st: By gathering 8% of the signatures you can all for a vote on a Convention.
2nd: The people hold an election to approve a Convention by 50% vote.
3rd: The people hold an election to elect delegates to a Convention
4th: The delegates rewrite a new a Constitution (in this case include a ban on gay marriage). The new Constitution must be signed by at least 50% of the delegates
5th: The people must then vote and ratify the new Constitution of California by 50% vote.
In fact the way some say it should have been done would require 3 elections by the general public.
The constituion only allows amendments to make small changes. Changes which are broad in scope require a rewritting of the constitution it self. That is the argument they are making.
Originally posted by: winnar111
This is a small change.
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...
Michigan would be more than happy to take Hollywood in.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: winnar111
This is a small change.
Typical post from you - lacking any support for your right-wing claim.
The matter will be decided by the courts.
But your post is a joke until you answer the points:
- Equal protection is a core principle the constitution
- The Supreme Court has already found as fact that gay marriage falls under protection
So, that leaves a clear argument for banning gay marriage being not a 'small change'.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.
In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.
I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.
Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.
In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.
I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.
Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.
In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.
I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.
Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.
FUCK YEAH
WHEN WILL US CITIZENS BE PROTECED FROM RELIGION
Originally posted by: ericlp
When we vote in an atheist president then maybe we will be truly free from the bullshit. In the mean time, chances of that happening are probably zero. Maybe in the next 2-300 years or so who knows.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.
In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.
I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.
Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.
In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.
I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.
Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.
Originally posted by: between
Originally posted by: Duwelon
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.
except they haven't stopped gay marriage, have they. at best, they have maybe delayed it by 4 years in California. And they only did that by the skin of their teeth and they had to spend a ton of money to do it.
Meanwhile, voters in Connecticut declined to support a ban on gay marriage, and gays will soon (within weeks) be able to marry there.
in actively opposing gay marriage, mormons just get themselves written into the history books as mean spirited assholes. :disgust:
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: between
Originally posted by: Duwelon
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.
except they haven't stopped gay marriage, have they. at best, they have maybe delayed it by 4 years in California. And they only did that by the skin of their teeth and they had to spend a ton of money to do it.
Meanwhile, voters in Connecticut declined to support a ban on gay marriage, and gays will soon (within weeks) be able to marry there.
in actively opposing gay marriage, mormons just get themselves written into the history books as mean spirited assholes. :disgust:
The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.
What do "major religions" have to do with STATE LAW? And what about the religions that do allow gay marriage?
What right do you have to tell them that they aren't actually marrying people?
And more importantly, what do other peoples' marriages have to do with you and your religion?
