• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
In theory couldn't the homosexual movement or whatever take this court and a get it struck down? Assuming it passes...
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Tab
In theory couldn't the homosexual movement or whatever take this court and a get it struck down? Assuming it passes...
That is what happened the first time. Challenged in court
Then the bigot movement put it back on the ballot for this year.

They apparently do not believe in equal rights or that all people are created equal.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
63,057
16,551
136
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Tab
In theory couldn't the homosexual movement or whatever take this court and a get it struck down? Assuming it passes...
That is what happened the first time. Challenged in court
Then the bigot movement put it back on the ballot for this year.

They apparently do not believe in equal rights or that all people are created equal.
These measures serve two purposes. For bigots, it is a way to impose their bigotry on the target of their hate. For Republican politicians, it is a way to get out the vote. I expect to see at least one "culture war" proposition on just about every statewide ballot in every election moving forward. If it isn't gay bashing it will be abortion, english-only, religion, or flag burning, anything to get the haters to the polls.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,663
4,263
126
Originally posted by: seemingly random
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.
You went from stupid to stupider.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well..... aside from the advocates on both sides of marriage there IS a legal point that has yet to be addressed by the courts in CA. and SCOTUS.

That point, as I see it, is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Back in '54 when the court overturned Plessy in Brown v Topeka they reached out to get there. Rehnquist (a clerk in the court at the time) wrote a really interesting opinion... that Plessy was decided correctly and that the majority, in time, will decide what the rights of the minority are... that was the gist of it. Professors in Law argue still the right and wrong of Brown... Now here we are having some states OK marriage amongst Gay folks while the Federal law says that States can ignore a pro Gay state's law regarding marriage. This must be unified and done so in the next few years. IF Ca. Prop 8 passes or if it fails I've no doubt that the issue will be challenged from one side or another in some state or another and it will be granted Cert and SCOTUS will decide if Brown can be extended further to include this issue.

The interesting bits to me are in the approach the Justices ought to take to get to their activist or strict adherence positions. Sorta like the bigots found in this forum... they have a great argument founded in law but have not a clue to use it but, rather, they wish to invoke the one aspect that has no merit at all... The court will not be seen as a bigoted court but rather a group of noble folks tasked with providing or not the very protection we all demand... for and from each other... heheheheh - imo
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Ok I have to post. His WHOLE basis starts with only 2% of gay people get married. It is only 2%.

I don't care if it is only two PEOPLE. They are still equal. Here is the problem, all you democrats and repukes miss a very simple concept. The government should not be endorsing lifestyles. Hetro marriage is a lifestyle the government has chosen to endorse. That creates inequality. Adding same-sex marriage will add another group to the endorsed government lifestyle. It is bullshit. Government shouldn't be endorsing any lifestyle and it is all driven by taxes.

Get rid of government sponsored marriage and the f'ing problem is solved. I am tired of the whining on both sides. When we add same-sex to the cool club of marriage there will be more groups of people that are left unequal to the cool kids. The same-sex group is just putting a tiny bandaid on the problem. We need to eliminate the true cause and that is government sponsored marriage.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
Originally posted by: BoomerD
We've discussed this POS proposition before...but, just like the earlier thread...I'm still not sure how I'll vote on it. (but I'm leaning toward NO...in fact, at this point, I'm leaning toward NO on ALL the propositions)
I frankly can't figure out which CA prop to vote YES on. (prop 8 being the no-brainer, of course).

Though, I think I'm leaning close to voting yes on prop 2; I'm not completely convinced that it will drive the egg farmers completely out. They've got what, 7 years? to get their shit together.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
Originally posted by: ohnoes
I'm voting no. The dumb yes commercials didn't help it's cause either. Negativity is so last year.
Yeah. Kind of scary how their entire argument for it is based on fear, hate, and ignorance.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: bsobel
The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
Actually it's not. The burden is on the person making the claim. See, I can say that 100% of your posts for fully of hatred for others. It would be up to me to prove that, not you to prove me wrong. Same point here.
Let me re-word that for you then..... Burden of "disproof". (of his stats).

Yours needs proving themselves, actually. (and by your own words, no?)

You need to make the connection that Frank's stats have....."zero" correlation.
ughh. :roll:

this is why bigots and the worst of the republicans shouldn't be left alone with numbers. They'll never understand how they work, or how the proper use of data depends on legitimate statistical correlation.

If the word is "too big" for them, they just smudge it our with a moist thumb and keep on going...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: Harvey

Further still........I have one gay friend, one gay co-worker, one gay uncle.........oh and.........one gay brother.
So, what did your soon-to-be ex-gay friend, co-worker and uncle... and... oh, your one gay brother say when you told them you're a homophobic bigot? :Q

Or are you just jealous because you can't marry your brother? :roll:
61% of California is full of bigotry -------->Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by an overwhelming margin of 61%, is better known as the California Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, our state judges have overturned the will of the people :confused:
Two corrections (I removed your drivel after)

A) 61% of the people who voted, not 61% of Californian's big difference.
B) A primary role of the courts is to ensure laws which are unconstitutional are overturned. You do know people said the exact same thing when mixed race marriage laws were overturned years ago...
Those same judges that overturned segregation, granted universal suffrage, declared negroes "people"....

by today's standards: activist judges :roll:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Tab
In theory couldn't the homosexual movement or whatever take this court and a get it struck down? Assuming it passes...
That is what happened the first time. Challenged in court
Then the bigot movement put it back on the ballot for this year.

They apparently do not believe in equal rights or that all people are created equal.
These measures serve two purposes. For bigots, it is a way to impose their bigotry on the target of their hate. For Republican politicians, it is a way to get out the vote. I expect to see at least one "culture war" proposition on just about every statewide ballot in every election moving forward. If it isn't gay bashing it will be abortion, english-only, religion, or flag burning, anything to get the haters to the polls.
So ends the Nixonian era of politics. Begin now, the Rovian regime.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,508
21,599
146
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: piasabird
I cant wait for Gay Divorce Court.

This will make for some good viewing on TV.
:laugh:
:laugh:
can't believe I didn't think of this earlier.

Hell, this is a strong case in itself for "No" on h8.
 

Toasthead

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,621
0
0
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?
yes he is
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
Maybe he isn't pandering but it is actually what he believes?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Originally posted by: Harvey

Further still........I have one gay friend, one gay co-worker, one gay uncle.........oh and.........one gay brother.
So, what did your soon-to-be ex-gay friend, co-worker and uncle... and... oh, your one gay brother say when you told them you're a homophobic bigot? :Q

Or are you just jealous because you can't marry your brother? :roll:
61% of California is full of bigotry -------->Proposition 22, which was passed in 2000 by an overwhelming margin of 61%, is better known as the California Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, our state judges have overturned the will of the people :confused:

The one gay friend is still single. He actually battles with his homosexuality every day. His lover died back in '98......(someone I also knew).......of AIDS. We're still friends, nevertheless.

The gay coworker has asked me TWICE in the last year whether I could find a nice guy for her. She likens herself to Rosie O'Donnell. Gay, but still likes cute guys.....How DARE she!!)

Uncle lives in AZ now.

Bro lives in New York working for a magazine. We still hug and shake hands at family get togethers.

Will of the people would have kept slaves, segregation, women from voting, etc. The masses aren't smart and shouldn't be deciding anything ideally.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: redgtxdi

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...printable&pageId=78829

and again......

http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/190


But I'm just a bigot!!

No wait........I'm a f*Ck*ing, prick bigot (that's the best kind) whose assholiness is only surpassed by my inability to understand #'s.

:p
those links are actually just one world net daily article.

I don't put alot of credit in this article.

I think you are looking to justify your bigotry. In which case, good luck with that.

also, it wasn't 61% of california that voted yes on Prop 22 it was 61% of california voters. Thats a big difference. And yes I am willing to bet that 61% of Cali voters have bigoted views when it comes to homosexuality.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,463
8
81
Originally posted by: OrByte


also, it wasn't 61% of california that voted yes on Prop 22 it was 61% of california voters. Thats a big difference. And yes I am willing to bet that 61% of Cali voters have bigoted views when it comes to homosexuality.

Where I come from (planet---f*c*ing, prick bigot.......w/ assholiness), if you don't vote.........you don't have a voice in political matters.

Therefore...............61% of California!!

Of course, I assume America won't be picking a president in November either, eh? ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY