D
Dick Tracy
Guest
Bets on how old NintendoKid is?
Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll
- Thread starter von551
- Start date
[quote name='spmahn']Well, that's your opinion and I respect it. However it's not up to the courts to make laws, it's the will of the people, that above all else is what this country was founded on.[/quote]
It's not the job of some random stranger to dictate who I can and cannot marry under the law. That's a personal decision. If anything, this country was founded upon individual liberty, was it not? So why should my individual rights be taken away because some people don't like it?
I've never heard one persuasive argument about why I should not be able to marry the person I love just because another random stranger doesn't like it. I wouldn't ever dream of passing that kind of judgment on another person's personal relationships. I'm a normal, (mostly) well-adjusted, successful, conscientious citizen and tax payer. You really think your beliefs should stamp out my rights?
It's not the job of some random stranger to dictate who I can and cannot marry under the law. That's a personal decision. If anything, this country was founded upon individual liberty, was it not? So why should my individual rights be taken away because some people don't like it?
I've never heard one persuasive argument about why I should not be able to marry the person I love just because another random stranger doesn't like it. I wouldn't ever dream of passing that kind of judgment on another person's personal relationships. I'm a normal, (mostly) well-adjusted, successful, conscientious citizen and tax payer. You really think your beliefs should stamp out my rights?
[quote name='Strell']I don't remember voting in the Patriod Act, or endless wiretapping, or higher wages for representatives, or for Dubya back in 2000...[/quote]
No, but you voted for the people who did. Ok, so it's not a full fledged democracy, more of a representative one, but you elect your house members and senators just the same, and know what you're getting into when you do it.
No, but you voted for the people who did. Ok, so it's not a full fledged democracy, more of a representative one, but you elect your house members and senators just the same, and know what you're getting into when you do it.
[quote name='spmahn']Well, that's your opinion and I respect it. However it's not up to the courts to make laws, it's the will of the people, that above all else is what this country was founded on.[/quote]
This country is about freedom.
"Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law..."
Equal protection would mean gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.
This country is about freedom.
"Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law..."
Equal protection would mean gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.
[quote name='spmahn']No, but you voted for the people who did. Ok, so it's not a full fledged democracy, more of a representative one, but you elect your house members and senate just the same, and know what you're getting into when you do it.[/QUOTE]
Not really, because some people are delegates and others are trustees. The former tends to represent their constituents, while the latter tends to vote based on their own ideals.
Plus I don't
ing trust other humans at all anyway. So really, no, even representation isn't enough for me. Those ers can come to MY house, get MY opinion, and slap my balls around before I'll agree that they are doing what I want them to do.
Plus a few of my examples where Congress dreaming them up OUT OF NOWHERE and then saying YES without ANY input from the people. It's the 'ole "If we raise our prices and you don't get the notice, then the new bill is the notice."
Not really, because some people are delegates and others are trustees. The former tends to represent their constituents, while the latter tends to vote based on their own ideals.
Plus I don't
ing trust other humans at all anyway. So really, no, even representation isn't enough for me. Those ers can come to MY house, get MY opinion, and slap my balls around before I'll agree that they are doing what I want them to do.Plus a few of my examples where Congress dreaming them up OUT OF NOWHERE and then saying YES without ANY input from the people. It's the 'ole "If we raise our prices and you don't get the notice, then the new bill is the notice."
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='Strell']Bets on Brak only caring because the handle has the word "Nintendo" in it?
I'm sure the odds are the same.[/QUOTE]
Bets on Strell shoehorning Nintendo into a discussion about NintendoKid's immature views on homosexuality.
I'm sure the odds are the same.[/QUOTE]
Bets on Strell shoehorning Nintendo into a discussion about NintendoKid's immature views on homosexuality.
[quote name='Synergy']It's not the job of some random stranger to dictate who I can and cannot marry under the law. That's a personal decision. If anything, this country was founded upon individual liberty, was it not? So why should my individual rights be taken away because some people don't like it?
I've never heard one persuasive argument about why I should not be able to marry the person I love just because another random stranger doesn't like it. I wouldn't ever dream of passing that kind of judgment on another person's personal relationships. I'm a normal, (mostly) well-adjusted, successful, conscientious citizen and tax payer. You really think your beliefs should stamp out my rights?[/quote]
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's just not how our system works. Is it anyone else's business whether or not gay people get married? Probably not, but it doesn't matter, they want to make it their business and the system allows them to. I don't know what to tell you.
I've never heard one persuasive argument about why I should not be able to marry the person I love just because another random stranger doesn't like it. I wouldn't ever dream of passing that kind of judgment on another person's personal relationships. I'm a normal, (mostly) well-adjusted, successful, conscientious citizen and tax payer. You really think your beliefs should stamp out my rights?[/quote]
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's just not how our system works. Is it anyone else's business whether or not gay people get married? Probably not, but it doesn't matter, they want to make it their business and the system allows them to. I don't know what to tell you.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
You're psychotic.
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='joe2187']So, when this Prop passes (which if the percentages are correct. It will) What's plan B?
Seems like it's pretty much decided at this point.[/QUOTE]
Tie the proposition's supporters to the bumpers of our cars and drag them down the highway. Oh, and have wolves rape their corpses. Twice.
Seems like it's pretty much decided at this point.[/QUOTE]
Tie the proposition's supporters to the bumpers of our cars and drag them down the highway. Oh, and have wolves rape their corpses. Twice.
In Arkansas, the proposition to forbid unmarried couples from adopting children passed 57-43. This extends to both same-sex (which can't get married) and opposite-sex couples.
In Arizona, the proposition to ban gay marriage passed 56-44.
In Florida, the proposition to ban gay marriage passed 62-38.
Sucks.
In Arizona, the proposition to ban gay marriage passed 56-44.
In Florida, the proposition to ban gay marriage passed 62-38.
Sucks.
SoonerMatt
CAGiversary!
So you're telling me that you actually voted to limit the civil liberties of a group of normal, happy people for reasons that are a personal matter and none of your business, and whose liberties would have no cost or tax on you? You selfish, bigoted asshats make me ing sick. This is why I hate people, especially the more religious.
ing sick. This is why I hate people, especially the more religious.
thespamofpower
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
I really though there were enough generally liberal or at the very least enough social libertarians that would allow this proposition to fail, but i knew it would be close because of the large socially conservative/religous groups throughout the state. I am curious if this will be considered unconstitutional at some point and be overturned, but I'm rather pessimistic.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Ugh. Meant to post this an hour or so ago but my internet went down. Currently running off some shitty, non-password-protected dealy...
Right, well, I promised a big, long post (and used my "big, long penis" joke - why do I always shoot my wad early?) a while back, so here she mothain' goes. This is specifically meant to be read by Mr. 420, BigT, etc. While I'll indulge in it from time to time, preaching to the choir isn't something I really enjoy. And since I'm doing my very best to specifically address your arguments, the very least you can do is read this. Won't be a perfect job, granted, 'cause this is a big thread and it's late and I'll miss some stuff for sure, but I'll do what I can. Also, given my habit of jumping on people for poorly researched quote-mines and misattributations, I'm being God damn careful here, dig?
[quote name='spmahn']Who says you need a reason? It's the will of the people.[/quote]
"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." - James Madison (Non-Bullshit Source)
Translation: What you're talking about is the tyranny of the majority, plain-and-simple. That is a Bad Thing. Madison then went on for another twenty paragraphs in The Federalist #10 explaining how to properly counteract this. I think it's pretty safe to say that allowing the tyranny of the majority to stand goes heavily against some of the founding principles of your country.
Speaking of the founding principles of your country: [quote name='Random Person']America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.[/quote]
No. While the vast majority of Americans are and always have been Christian, Christianity did not "make" America. The whole "founding fathers were all deists" thing can be argued a bit as some of them varied in intensity of belief and others flip-flopped a bit, but on the whole, yeah, it's pretty much true.
Where is the Biblical equivalent to free speech? Numbers 16:35? Were all people equal under the law in Leviticus 21:17-23? Is religious freedom guaranteed in Leviticus 24:16? You might say I'm cheating by going more to the "Judeo" part of "Judeo-Christian", but hey, God burned Sodom and killed Onan in the Old Testament, not the New. And really, the whole bit of business with Sodom is up for debate.
[quote name='Random Person']America was founded on religious principles.[/quote]
Hypothetical person, please stop. Look at your own constitution – it's free, ya know. Do you see anything even remotely like that in there? Yes, yes, there was the bit about the “creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and yes, some of the founding fathers were pretty fond of Jesus, but that's about all you're gonna get on this bit. And if you want to argue that that somehow abrogates the whole “no favouring any religion” business... well, I'm probably not the guy you wanna talk to, but, I'm game.
[quote name='Random Person']But this isn't favouring any religion. You can't have morality without religion.[/quote]
Because all religions are in perfect agreement on homosexuality, right? No disagreement at all between, say, a Baptist and a UU?
And stating that there can be no morality without religion is just plain ignorant. Not that morality derived from secular sources is always good – Ayn Rand – but it exists, and is no less valid (and, given the constitution dealy mentioned up above, preferred in this case). If you wish to argue still that even secular morality is in some way derived from religious morality – and hey, if you wanna claim some sort of responsibility for Objectivism, be my God damn guest – then... well, that doesn't work. Why?
Is something good because God (or “the gods” or whattheever) says it is good? If so, then “good” is meaningless, and subject to change at the whimsy of an ineffable being. Is it then the case that God says that something is good because it truly is good? If so, then there is a standard of good outside of God and religion and all that noise.
[quote name='Random Person']Marriage has traditionally been a religious insti-[/quote]
No, stop there. In fact, stop a couple of words earlier. Stop at “a”. Now, from there, type in “legal contract”. Strell had a great post on this earlier that I will find tomorrow.
[quote name='Random Person']Marriages have traditionally produced offspring, and gays and lesbians are incapable of doing that.[/quote]
So are the elderly and the infertile, to say nothing those who simply choose not to have kids. Wanna take their marriages away? Besides that, there's the matter of adoption. And in-vitro fertilization. And surrogate mothers.
[quote name='Random Person']Gay marriage infringes on religious rights.[/quote]
Negatory, good buddy. No church will be required to perform a gay wedding, and you can take your slippery slope and... I forget how that goes, actually. I wanted it to end in “smoke it”, but something just doesn't look right there.
[quote name='Random Person']It's disgusting and immoral.[/quote]
By whose standards? Yours? Mine? James Madison's “overbearing majority”? Shit, smoking cigarettes is certainly disgusting (take a look at my dad's teeth some time and tell me it ain't) and immoral (aside from exposing others to carcinogens, you're a bigger drain on the healthcare system and, yeah, you're increasing the risk of leaving a lot of bereaved loved ones behind). Look, “disgusting” shit that we don't think is “right” happens. A-ing-lot. So now you want a nanny-state?
[quote name='Random Person']Lilboo, Bear, etc. are insulting my beliefs.[/quote]
First, red herring. Lilboo could cut the head off of a man and replace it with a cat tomorrow, and that still wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not he should be allowed to be married.
But hey, let's look at this more in-depth, because I think it deserves a greater degree of scrutiny than it's been getting.
The amount of damage that legalizing gay marriage would have on you (heterosexual people, and presumably ones that don't work as wedding planners or something) or me is the same: approximately zero. The amount of damage criminalizing gay marriage would have on a gay couple is – what's the word? – oh, right, mothering enormous. We are talking about the government saying, “Your family doesn't exist anymore.” Now, think just for a moment: if that were you, would that not get you angry? Would that not piss you the off? Now imagine that the reason that the government said this was because of the opinion ofsomeoneright across the street from you. Think you might have some... “choice words” for her? For the little shit that decided that her family was more important than your family? That the love that she has for her husband is somehow more real than the love that you have for your partner? What a ing cunt that woman is!
So yeah, are you seeing where some of the anger here comes?
[quote name='Random Person']Gay people are allowed to be married – to people of the opposite sex![/quote]
Good news, Random – the government has passed a law: you have to eat food that tastes like absolute shit. Now, most other people like the taste of it, and since you're eating the same thing as them, it's totally fair, yeah?
I considered using an example that had less to do with – y'know – the basic necessities of life, but you, it's late. Besides, I don't think that weakens it any.
[quote name='Random Person']Being gay is a choice![/quote]
And that's a red herring that I won't even touch without special, herring-proof gloves.
Because those things bite.
[quote name='Random Person']Marriage should be for heterosexual couples, civil unions for homosexual.[/quote]
Separate-yet-equal is, as it turns out, not equal. When was the last time you saw a coloured fountain?
[quote name='Random Person']Claiming that this is a civil rights issue is ingenuousness – nobody's being lynched or denied the right to vote, here![/quote]
Neither was the man using the coloured fountain in my last sentence (his name is Hassan, by the way – great dancer, but kinda annoying when he's drunk). While those are the most vivid and dramatic examples of the denial of rights, we're hardly limited to “voting and not getting murdered”.
[quote name='Random Person']NO marriage should be recognized by the government! They should stay out of that whole business![/quote]
Hey, I know this Random Person. Hi, Thrust!
[quote name='Thrust']Hi.[/quote]
Yeah, and you think that denying gays equality is the best way to go about this? Marriage rights are not a tug-o-war. “Marriage for some” is not a necessary intermediary between “Marriage for all” and “Government out of marriage”. Getting government out of marriage – undoubtedly a difficult task, and one that I could even see myself supporting – is equally likely whether gays can marry or whether they can't. This is no reason to oppose gay marriage!
Is there anything else? I can't think of anything else. Ah, this shit, I'm outta here.
Right, well, I promised a big, long post (and used my "big, long penis" joke - why do I always shoot my wad early?) a while back, so here she motha
in' goes. This is specifically meant to be read by Mr. 420, BigT, etc. While I'll indulge in it from time to time, preaching to the choir isn't something I really enjoy. And since I'm doing my very best to specifically address your arguments, the very least you can do is read this. Won't be a perfect job, granted, 'cause this is a big thread and it's late and I'll miss some stuff for sure, but I'll do what I can. Also, given my habit of jumping on people for poorly researched quote-mines and misattributations, I'm being God damn careful here, dig?[quote name='spmahn']Who says you need a reason? It's the will of the people.[/quote]
"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." - James Madison (Non-Bullshit Source)
Translation: What you're talking about is the tyranny of the majority, plain-and-simple. That is a Bad Thing. Madison then went on for another twenty paragraphs in The Federalist #10 explaining how to properly counteract this. I think it's pretty safe to say that allowing the tyranny of the majority to stand goes heavily against some of the founding principles of your country.
Speaking of the founding principles of your country: [quote name='Random Person']America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.[/quote]
No. While the vast majority of Americans are and always have been Christian, Christianity did not "make" America. The whole "founding fathers were all deists" thing can be argued a bit as some of them varied in intensity of belief and others flip-flopped a bit, but on the whole, yeah, it's pretty much true.
Where is the Biblical equivalent to free speech? Numbers 16:35? Were all people equal under the law in Leviticus 21:17-23? Is religious freedom guaranteed in Leviticus 24:16? You might say I'm cheating by going more to the "Judeo" part of "Judeo-Christian", but hey, God burned Sodom and killed Onan in the Old Testament, not the New. And really, the whole bit of business with Sodom is up for debate.
[quote name='Random Person']America was founded on religious principles.[/quote]
Hypothetical person, please stop. Look at your own constitution – it's free, ya know. Do you see anything even remotely like that in there? Yes, yes, there was the bit about the “creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and yes, some of the founding fathers were pretty fond of Jesus, but that's about all you're gonna get on this bit. And if you want to argue that that somehow abrogates the whole “no favouring any religion” business... well, I'm probably not the guy you wanna talk to, but
, I'm game.[quote name='Random Person']But this isn't favouring any religion. You can't have morality without religion.[/quote]
Because all religions are in perfect agreement on homosexuality, right? No disagreement at all between, say, a Baptist and a UU?
And stating that there can be no morality without religion is just plain ignorant. Not that morality derived from secular sources is always good –
Ayn Rand – but it exists, and is no less valid (and, given the constitution dealy mentioned up above, preferred in this case). If you wish to argue still that even secular morality is in some way derived from religious morality – and hey, if you wanna claim some sort of responsibility for Objectivism, be my God damn guest – then... well, that doesn't work. Why?Is something good because God (or “the gods” or whatthe
ever) says it is good? If so, then “good” is meaningless, and subject to change at the whimsy of an ineffable being. Is it then the case that God says that something is good because it truly is good? If so, then there is a standard of good outside of God and religion and all that noise.[quote name='Random Person']Marriage has traditionally been a religious insti-[/quote]
No, stop there. In fact, stop a couple of words earlier. Stop at “a”. Now, from there, type in “legal contract”. Strell had a great post on this earlier that I will find tomorrow.
[quote name='Random Person']Marriages have traditionally produced offspring, and gays and lesbians are incapable of doing that.[/quote]
So are the elderly and the infertile, to say nothing those who simply choose not to have kids. Wanna take their marriages away? Besides that, there's the matter of adoption. And in-vitro fertilization. And surrogate mothers.
[quote name='Random Person']Gay marriage infringes on religious rights.[/quote]
Negatory, good buddy. No church will be required to perform a gay wedding, and you can take your slippery slope and... I forget how that goes, actually. I wanted it to end in “smoke it”, but something just doesn't look right there.
[quote name='Random Person']It's disgusting and immoral.[/quote]
By whose standards? Yours? Mine? James Madison's “overbearing majority”? Shit, smoking cigarettes is certainly disgusting (take a look at my dad's teeth some time and tell me it ain't) and immoral (aside from exposing others to carcinogens, you're a bigger drain on the healthcare system and, yeah, you're increasing the risk of leaving a lot of bereaved loved ones behind). Look, “disgusting” shit that we don't think is “right” happens. A-
ing-lot. So now you want a nanny-state?[quote name='Random Person']Lilboo, Bear, etc. are insulting my beliefs.[/quote]
First, red herring. Lilboo could cut the head off of a man and replace it with a cat tomorrow, and that still wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not he should be allowed to be married.
But hey, let's look at this more in-depth, because I think it deserves a greater degree of scrutiny than it's been getting.
The amount of damage that legalizing gay marriage would have on you (heterosexual people, and presumably ones that don't work as wedding planners or something) or me is the same: approximately zero. The amount of damage criminalizing gay marriage would have on a gay couple is – what's the word? – oh, right, mother
ing enormous. We are talking about the government saying, “Your family doesn't exist anymore.” Now, think just for a moment: if that were you, would that not get you angry? Would that not piss you the off? Now imagine that the reason that the government said this was because of the opinion ofsomeoneright across the street from you. Think you might have some... “choice words” for her? For the little shit that decided that her family was more important than your family? That the love that she has for her husband is somehow more real than the love that you have for your partner? What a ing cunt that woman is!So yeah, are you seeing where some of the anger here comes?
[quote name='Random Person']Gay people are allowed to be married – to people of the opposite sex![/quote]
Good news, Random – the government has passed a law: you have to eat food that tastes like absolute shit. Now, most other people like the taste of it, and since you're eating the same thing as them, it's totally fair, yeah?
I considered using an example that had less to do with – y'know – the basic necessities of life, but
you, it's late. Besides, I don't think that weakens it any.[quote name='Random Person']Being gay is a choice![/quote]
And that's a red herring that I won't even touch without special, herring-proof gloves.
Because those things bite.
[quote name='Random Person']Marriage should be for heterosexual couples, civil unions for homosexual.[/quote]
Separate-yet-equal is, as it turns out, not equal. When was the last time you saw a coloured fountain?
[quote name='Random Person']Claiming that this is a civil rights issue is ingenuousness – nobody's being lynched or denied the right to vote, here![/quote]
Neither was the man using the coloured fountain in my last sentence (his name is Hassan, by the way – great dancer, but kinda annoying when he's drunk). While those are the most vivid and dramatic examples of the denial of rights, we're hardly limited to “voting and not getting murdered”.
[quote name='Random Person']NO marriage should be recognized by the government! They should stay out of that whole business![/quote]
Hey, I know this Random Person. Hi, Thrust!
[quote name='Thrust']Hi.[/quote]
Yeah, and you think that denying gays equality is the best way to go about this? Marriage rights are not a tug-o-war. “Marriage for some” is not a necessary intermediary between “Marriage for all” and “Government out of marriage”. Getting government out of marriage – undoubtedly a difficult task, and one that I could even see myself supporting – is equally likely whether gays can marry or whether they can't. This is no reason to oppose gay marriage!
Is there anything else? I can't think of anything else. Ah,
this shit, I'm outta here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a thought.
As of now (midnight PST), San Francisco County and Los Angeles County votes have not been counted. The exit polls showed Prop 8 voted down 53-47. I'm not saying things will change, but they are FAR from over as there are a ton of votes left to be counted.
As of now (midnight PST), San Francisco County and Los Angeles County votes have not been counted. The exit polls showed Prop 8 voted down 53-47. I'm not saying things will change, but they are FAR from over as there are a ton of votes left to be counted.
Friend of Sonic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 185 (100%)
Yeah, I'm a little disappointed about the AZ prop passing. I really don't understand.
thespamofpower
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='JJSP']Just a thought.
As of now (midnight PST), San Francisco County and Los Angeles County votes have not been counted. The exit polls showed Prop 8 voted down 53-47. I'm not saying things will change, but they are FAR from over as there are a ton of votes left to be counted.[/quote]
there is still a smallish chance that it will fail, but i'm not holding my breath. On another note, it looks like we might have a bullet train going down the state some time soon.
As of now (midnight PST), San Francisco County and Los Angeles County votes have not been counted. The exit polls showed Prop 8 voted down 53-47. I'm not saying things will change, but they are FAR from over as there are a ton of votes left to be counted.[/quote]
there is still a smallish chance that it will fail, but i'm not holding my breath. On another note, it looks like we might have a bullet train going down the state some time soon.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='SoonerMatt']So you're telling me that you actually voted to limit the civil liberties of a group of normal, happy people for reasons that are a personal matter and none of your business, and whose liberties would have no cost or tax on you? You selfish, bigoted asshats make me ing sick. This is why I hate people, especially the more religious.[/QUOTE]
Just be glad that being gay isn't illegal. They are at least ahead other alternative marital situations in that regard.
We still live in a country where trying to be legally married to more than one spouse is illegal, but having an affair is not. So don't get too upset if people are slow to redefine marriage.
ing sick. This is why I hate people, especially the more religious.[/QUOTE]Just be glad that being gay isn't illegal. They are at least ahead other alternative marital situations in that regard.
We still live in a country where trying to be legally married to more than one spouse is illegal, but having an affair is not. So don't get too upset if people are slow to redefine marriage.
doctorfaustus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
1:47 am
Prop. 8
Yes 52%
No 48%
79% precincts reporting
Prop. 8
Yes 52%
No 48%
79% precincts reporting
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just be glad that being gay isn't illegal. They are at least ahead other alternative marital situations in that regard.
We still live in a country where trying to be legally married to more than one spouse is illegal, but having an affair is not. So don't get too upset if people are slow to redefine marriage.[/quote]
It is weird in that regard.
We still live in a country where trying to be legally married to more than one spouse is illegal, but having an affair is not. So don't get too upset if people are slow to redefine marriage.[/quote]
It is weird in that regard.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just be glad that being gay isn't illegal.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's a pretty big victory for citizens of a country founded on freedom.
Yeah, that's a pretty big victory for citizens of a country founded on freedom.
Down 350k votes with 90% reporting. And
Just some constructive criticism for those who give a damn, coming from someone who is clearly not a regular on this board: you might find arguments that are for tolerance, respect, etc more effective if you actually argue them in a respectful and tolerant way. Unless you want to be little better than those you argue against.
I'd vote against 8 if I was in California, but I'd also smack about half of you fools voting the same upside the head with my ballot.
Just some constructive criticism for those who give a damn, coming from someone who is clearly not a regular on this board: you might find arguments that are for tolerance, respect, etc more effective if you actually argue them in a respectful and tolerant way. Unless you want to be little better than those you argue against.
I'd vote against 8 if I was in California, but I'd also smack about half of you fools voting the same upside the head with my ballot.
nathansu
Banned
It's absolutely disgusting that this measure will pass. But on the other hand, prop 22 got passed and struck down by the state courts.
Hopefully this will go down quickly - I really doubt if judges see this again they will change their minds, given the president set by the court ruling on overturning prop 22.
If there is any large scale movement to overturn 8, I will be involved with it. This amendment is unconstitutional and will not hold up in a court of law.
For those interested : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
Hopefully this will go down quickly - I really doubt if judges see this again they will change their minds, given the president set by the court ruling on overturning prop 22.
If there is any large scale movement to overturn 8, I will be involved with it. This amendment is unconstitutional and will not hold up in a court of law.
For those interested : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Yeah, I guess this one goes to the courts now, eh?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
It'll be deemed unconstitutional. Five bucks on it.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Yeah, I'm thinking you're right. Good luck, folks.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='depascal22']It'll be deemed unconstitutional. Five bucks on it.[/QUOTE]
Nope. It's an amendment to the CA state constitution. I actually used prop 8 in a class discussion on the sociological definition of "authority" (legitimate use of power by the government) just now.
Prop 22 passed and was struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the courts.
Portions of the population found this to lack 'authority' and deemed it an illegitimate use of judicial power.
So they're circumventing the constitutionality of it by having the bill amend the constitution. Can't say it's unconstitutional if it's in the constitution itself, can ya?
Nope. It's an amendment to the CA state constitution. I actually used prop 8 in a class discussion on the sociological definition of "authority" (legitimate use of power by the government) just now.
Prop 22 passed and was struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the courts.
Portions of the population found this to lack 'authority' and deemed it an illegitimate use of judicial power.
So they're circumventing the constitutionality of it by having the bill amend the constitution. Can't say it's unconstitutional if it's in the constitution itself, can ya?
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='depascal22']It'll be deemed unconstitutional. Five bucks on it.[/quote]
Yup. 14th FTW.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This will be quickly overturned. I'd bet you'll see an ACLU suit filed within days.
Yup. 14th FTW.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This will be quickly overturned. I'd bet you'll see an ACLU suit filed within days.
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='mykevermin']Nope. It's an amendment to the CA state constitution. I actually used prop 8 in a class discussion on the sociological definition of "authority" (legitimate use of power by the government) just now.
Prop 22 passed and was struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the courts.
Portions of the population found this to lack 'authority' and deemed it an illegitimate use of judicial power.
So they're circumventing the constitutionality of it by having the bill amend the constitution. Can't say it's unconstitutional if it's in the constitution itself, can ya?[/quote]
Federally, you certainly can. Federal jurisdiction is not required to rule based on the national constitution :X.
Prop 22 passed and was struck down as 'unconstitutional' by the courts.
Portions of the population found this to lack 'authority' and deemed it an illegitimate use of judicial power.
So they're circumventing the constitutionality of it by having the bill amend the constitution. Can't say it's unconstitutional if it's in the constitution itself, can ya?[/quote]
Federally, you certainly can. Federal jurisdiction is not required to rule based on the national constitution :X.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Sorry, myke. I should've clarfied. The state Constitution is in direct opposition to the federal Constitution. Feds win every time. Well, most of the time.
nintendokid
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 23 (100%)
To wake up and see that the bans have taken place in the states that had a vote has made me feel better. I have faith in the American people to choose what is right. Thank God I live in Minnesota! If I were in Cali, my Curb Stomp Kills would be off the charts and I would've achieved "Seriously" in no time.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='nintendokid']To wake up and see that the bans have taken place in the states that had a vote has made me feel better. I have faith in the American people to choose what is right. Thank God I live in Minnesota! If I were in Cali, my Curb Stomp Kills would be off the charts and I would've achieved "Seriously" in no time.[/quote]
What?
What?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='depascal22']Sorry, myke. I should've clarfied. The state Constitution is in direct opposition to the federal Constitution. Feds win every time. Well, most of the time.[/QUOTE]
Not holding my breath on that. I hope, sure, but we'll see.
Not holding my breath on that. I hope, sure, but we'll see.
[quote name='nintendokid']To wake up and see that the bans have taken place in the states that had a vote has made me feel better. I have faith in the American people to choose what is right. Thank God I live in Minnesota! If I were in Cali, my Curb Stomp Kills would be off the charts and I would've achieved "Seriously" in no time.[/QUOTE]
Wow just wow......I knew you were an ignorant and hatefull but "curb stomp kills" I know you have a gears avatar......but wow....in this topic that implies something compltly different and I think you meant for it to imply something compltly different. I wouldnt mind seeing people like 420 banned but not sure 100% if I think they deserve it yet. You however for that comment.....that should be insta ing ban.
Wow just wow......I knew you were an ignorant and hatefull
but "curb stomp kills" I know you have a gears avatar......but wow....in this topic that implies something compltly different and I think you meant for it to imply something compltly different. I wouldnt mind seeing people like 420 banned but not sure 100% if I think they deserve it yet. You however for that comment.....that should be insta ing ban.In more uplifting news, Jared (I think) Polis was elected to the House here in Colorado. He's the third openly gay congressman to currently serve, I think. This helps a little bit. I wanna get in touch with the guy, if I can, and see if I can't get him to be as active as he can on this topic.
[quote name='depascal22']Sorry, myke. I should've clarfied. The state Constitution is in direct opposition to the federal Constitution. Feds win every time. Well, most of the time.[/QUOTE]
so got drunk last night for the election fun thinking most of the props i voted on wouldnt go my way (most did!) and i was telling my friend about the "liberal gay conspiracy" (i was joking around) that the gays put prop 8 on the ballot knowing it would pass in california so that it could be overturned federally... then gay marriage would be legal EVERYWHERE!
so got drunk last night for the election fun thinking most of the props i voted on wouldnt go my way (most did!) and i was telling my friend about the "liberal gay conspiracy" (i was joking around) that the gays put prop 8 on the ballot knowing it would pass in california so that it could be overturned federally... then gay marriage would be legal EVERYWHERE!
[quote name='nathansu']Yup. 14th FTW.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This will be quickly overturned. I'd bet you'll see an ACLU suit filed within days.
[/quote]
Let's hope they do and Prop 8 gets overturned quickly.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This will be quickly overturned. I'd bet you'll see an ACLU suit filed within days.
[/quote]
Let's hope they do and Prop 8 gets overturned quickly.
bread's done