Why California needs Proposition 8..........

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: microbial
First 8 minutes: this guy made less logical sense than Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber put together...
Yeah, I don't get it at all. How in the hell does legalizing gay marriage increase children born out of wedlock?
lol wat?
Exactly.
Heh. That's funny sh!t.

The gay marriage/abortion/drugs issues are just the Pain crowd's big government agendas.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: microbial
First 8 minutes: this guy made less logical sense than Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber put together...
Yeah, I don't get it at all. How in the hell does legalizing gay marriage increase children born out of wedlock?
lol wat?
Exactly.
Heh. That's funny sh!t.

The gay marriage/abortion/drugs issues are just the Pain crowd's big government agendas.

Right. Because we are the only country that outlaws drugs. If you want to talk about the Netherlands, they allow small amounts of bud and mushrooms to be sold in designated coffee shops. All other "hard" drugs are just as illegal as they are here.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
68,630
4,592
126
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
But anymore it's just a legal contract which most renege on anyway.

I think just the opposite. The religion should be removed and along with it, the superstition and supernatural.
Oh man, you are just like the bigots who want to take gay people's right to marry away. Who the hell are you to suggest we enforce on others our own stupid opinions. You are the opposite side of the coin of being burned at the stake. A lot of those superstitious supernaturalists you ridicule are better people than you'll ever be. They aren't all hate filled imbecilic bigots. Millions of them understand the core message of their religion is love. And gays are often deeply religious too.
Ya think?
Yes. Do you see that you are as full of yourself as the people you ridicule? You want religion removed, they want to force it down your throat. Opposite sides of the same coin.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,587
136
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: microbial
First 8 minutes: this guy made less logical sense than Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber put together...
Yeah, I don't get it at all. How in the hell does legalizing gay marriage increase children born out of wedlock?
lol wat?
Exactly.
Heh. That's funny sh!t.

The gay marriage/abortion/drugs issues are just the Pain crowd's big government agendas.

Right. Because we are the only country that outlaws drugs. If you want to talk about the Netherlands, they allow small amounts of bud and mushrooms to be sold in designated coffee shops. All other "hard" drugs are just as illegal as they are here.
Right. Because I said that religious fundamentalists and other big govt types only live in the US. :roll:
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: eskimospy Gay marriage will be legal in America sometime in the relatively near future, the only question is when. Everyone knows this, it's just some people won't admit it to themselves.
I sadly disagree with your prediction. I agree public sentiment will likely shift towards gay marriage in many areas, but that's not enough to change the law.

I think the best to hope for is a repeal of DOMA, the Discrimination On Marriage Act (my definition), and a minority of states legalizing gay marriage within many years.

Hopefully, more would be possible, but a Supreme Court decision based on Equal Rights to suddenly legalize it like they did in the Loving decision on interracial marriage seems unlikely to me. A federal policy ordering states to recognize gay marriage seems unlikely as well. I don't rule them out, but put the odds as pretty poor.
Well the way I see it, DOMA won't really hold up for long. What you're going to end up with is several of the large, more liberal states with legalized gay marriage (look to New York next) and you'll have a whole bunch of other states where it's not recognized. That's going to create a huge clusterfuck when it comes to all sorts of contracts, regulations, etc between states. I imagine this will compel the federal courts to get involved sooner or later, and when they do it is quite likely gay marriage will be legalized. If not sooner, then later. I'm certain it will be in my lifetime assuming I don't get run over by a bus in the next couple of years.
Well, we might see action taken for the smooth operation where states have to recognize the gay marriages from other states, but that doesn't make them allow them themselves.

The trigger for every gay marriage state so far has been based on state courts interpreting the state constitutions, and that's not all that reproducible in most states.

That leaves building popular support for elections to legalize gay marriage - something that's not happened in any state yet - and is likely only in a small number.
If that happens then it doesn't really matter anymore. If states are forced to recognize each other's gay marriages then it's over. About 99% of gay people who want to get married will be able to spring for a trip to a gay friendly state to get married in and then come back to their home state.
Not that easy.... The challenge comes in the SCOTUS when a married Gay couple seeking to have their state recognize the marriage are turned down consistent with the Federal Law which allows States to NOT recognize another States marriage contract which under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause was the case.

States have the right to legislate in their own State consistent with the US Constitution, as you know... The 14th Amendment will be the issue regarding this. The Equal Protection Clause can be used to force recognition or if a 5/4 against, as I suspect might occur, we'll be left with folks moving to 'friendly' states... Insane but most likely...

 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,068
2,534
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
You are one confused little man.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
You are one confused little man.

Yes, after reading your response.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
You are one confused little man.

Yes, after reading your response.
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCD...ductCd-0764508873.html

Come back when you finish.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
You are one confused little man.

Yes, after reading your response.
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCD...ductCd-0764508873.html

Come back when you finish.
So you are saying the things I listed really are just pandering? They really aren't Obama's real stances?

Please, enlighten this confused little man as to Obama's real stance on the mentioned issues. Work sucks today, I need a laugh.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
You are one confused little man.

Yes, after reading your response.
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCD...ductCd-0764508873.html

Come back when you finish.
So you are saying the things I listed really are just pandering? They really aren't Obama's real stances?

Please, enlighten this confused little man as to Obama's real stance on the mentioned issues. Work sucks today, I need a laugh.
I don't think you understand what the word pandering means since his votes on the issues you listed were in opposition to the majority of his supporters. FISA? You'll find few dems who wanted that passed with the telco immunity.

Obama said he would also renegotiate NAFTA but no one believes that either. You reallly need to be able to pick up on when a politician is talking shit or not, but it's not that hard.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Topic Title: Why California needs Proposition 8..........
Topic Summary: ............yes, as in vote "YES" on 8.................
Thanks for the bigotry. Please FOAD! :thumbsdown: :|
Isn't Obama against gay marriage?
He purports to oppose gay marriage, though I generally only see this position articulated among people in his cohort who happen to be running for office and can't sacrifice the number of votes such support would cost them. He's a highly educated liberal with a civil rights background, so to me it just sounds like a pragmatic position on his part, just as it did for the Clintons.

Regardless, despite his publicly stated views, he is not in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, unlike his opponent.
This is exactly how I see his position. If he explicitly said he was for it then his lead would disappear. Since support for it decreases with age, it makes much more sense to wait 20 years for all the old fogies to croak. Then we can repeal all the retarded "defense of marriage" laws/amendments.
So his FISA vote was just pandering? His stance on Islamic fundamentalists is pandering? What about Georgia?

I think some of you are voting for the Obama you are wishing for, not the one that is running.
You are one confused little man.

Yes, after reading your response.
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCD...ductCd-0764508873.html

Come back when you finish.
So you are saying the things I listed really are just pandering? They really aren't Obama's real stances?

Please, enlighten this confused little man as to Obama's real stance on the mentioned issues. Work sucks today, I need a laugh.
I don't think you understand what the word pandering means since his votes on the issues you listed were in opposition to the majority of his supporters.

:confused: We are talking about pandering to the center/right. Who is the confused one here?

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
:confused: We are talking about pandering to the center/right. Who is the confused one here?
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go to.

His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
:confused: We are talking about pandering to the center/right. Who is the confused one here?
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go.

His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?

Now I'm sure you dont know what pandering means. His core liberal base is already going to vote for him anyway. He needs to pander to the center/right in order to get those votes as well.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
:confused: We are talking about pandering to the center/right. Who is the confused one here?
You keep using the confused icon and I'm starting to believe you are really very confused. Obama's stance on gay marriage is designed to appeal to about half of the electorate who support him, and endorsing gay marriage would probably drive away about 25% of his votes, so he panders. The rest of his supporters aren't going to jump ship because of his position because they have no candidate more left than him to go.

His position on FISA for example was a compromise vote he made which pissed off about 80% of his base, so who exactly was he pandering to?

Now I'm sure you dont know what pandering means. His core liberal base is already going to vote for him anyway. He needs to pander to the center/right in order to get those votes as well.
Hence his position on gay marriage.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,301
144
106
Prop 8 (more importantly the sentiment behind Prop 8) would have fit in nicely 40-50 years ago when women and blacks were struggling for their rights.

Now it seems like a desperate attempt to fall back to those days when bigotry roamed free.

Like every other minority group, the homosexual community will face its detractors. There will be hills and valleys. Ultimately though the barriers to equality will fall for them much like it has fallen for people of color, race, creed, sex, age, disability..etc etc etc


 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,226
34
91
Originally posted by: OrByte
Prop 8 (more importantly the sentiment behind Prop 8) would have fit in nicely 40-50 years ago when women and blacks were struggling for their rights.
You do understand that California already passed a similar measure a couple years back? And that several states have something on the books already that limit marriage to "One man and one woman"?

Part of the RNC strategy in '04 was to put these measures on the ballot in order to drive the religious base to the polls. I am 100% certain that these measures are the reason that Kerry did not win.

On a side note, my SO still isnt talking to me today after our fight over this last night. We drank a few beers and I asked her how two guys screwing affects her life in any way. She was brought up in a religious family, so that didnt go over well.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,301
144
106
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: OrByte
Prop 8 (more importantly the sentiment behind Prop 8) would have fit in nicely 40-50 years ago when women and blacks were struggling for their rights.
You do understand that California already passed a similar measure a couple years back? And that several states have something on the books already that limit marriage to "One man and one woman"?

Part of the RNC strategy in '04 was to put these measures on the ballot in order to drive the religious base to the polls. I am 100% certain that these measures are the reason that Kerry did not win.

On a side note, my SO still isnt talking to me today after our fight over this last night. We drank a few beers and I asked her how two guys screwing affects her life in any way. She was brought up in a religious family, so that didnt go over well.
HAHA sorry to hear about your SO troubles. Yes Cali passed similar legislation. The Court struck it down as unconstitutional. I think it was the right choice made by the court.

Like I said before, hills and valleys. Most of these struggles turn out as such. There is no clear cut sentiment amongst voters or our citizenry for that matter. But when you get down to the heart of the matter, what people are attempting to do (build discrimination in our state constitutions) is wrong. I think that good will prevail, and we will learn the error of our ways...its happened before.

With that said, the bias and the bigotry belongs in the churches, not in the constitutions. If you don't want gays to marry then don't marry them in your church. Isn't that what this is really all about?
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I've long said that marriage was a religious institution. So long as a couple can get a church to pronounce them married, the state should only be involved in issues of contract enforcement.
So basically you would be against the ban, correct?
Definitely. If they can get the Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light to bless their union, the state's only concern should be enforcement of the contract they just entered into.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Let's just get rid of any kind of legal definition of marriage. That way it will stay a religious matter where it belongs.
But anymore it's just a legal contract which most renege on anyway.

I think just the opposite. The religion should be removed and along with it, the superstition and supernatural.
Oh man, you are just like the bigots who want to take gay people's right to marry away. Who the hell are you to suggest we enforce on others our own stupid opinions. You are the opposite side of the coin of being burned at the stake. A lot of those superstitious supernaturalists you ridicule are better people than you'll ever be. They aren't all hate filled imbecilic bigots. Millions of them understand the core message of their religion is love. And gays are often deeply religious too.
Ya think?
Yes. Do you see that you are as full of yourself as the people you ridicule? You want religion removed, they want to force it down your throat. Opposite sides of the same coin.
The Presidential candidates for November's General Election have announced their positions on dozens of diverse issues ranging from soaring energy costs to global warming, from terrorism to education, and from health care to government spending. Each candidate is appealing to voters of faith, claiming that his particular agenda will benefit the religious community.

How does a Biblical voter cut through the flowery promises and create a framework by which to evaluate the opposing claims? What is the Biblical basis for evaluating a presidential candidate's agenda?

The Bible, Voters & the 2008 Election provides a simple and clear Scriptural answers to these questions - answers further illustrated by historical examples and elucidated with current statistics. Biblical voters can now know with assurance how to make informed Biblical evaluations of the candidates in this election.

---

From: http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product212.html

Of course, this is from the religious extreme. Hopefully, it's not prevalent among the religious.

And, no, I'm not for the banishment of religion. That would be as outrageous as restricting gun ownership. Religion provides the much needed basis for humans to go to war with each other and the increased production of goods. It's good for the economy, stupid.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I just voted against prop 8 (mail-in ballot) because I don't like bigots and so I always vote against them. Case closed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY