Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

Gillers pointed to two cases in particular in which the federal courts rejected arguments that a judge's identity requires recusal, Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell and MacDraw, Inc. v. The CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc. In Blank, the judge rejected a suggestion that she should recuse herself because she was an African American woman who had worked on civil rights cases. In MacDraw, the judge rejected a motion to recuse himself, in part, because he was Asian American, and sanctioned the attorneys who made the motion.
Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell was a sex discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought in federal court in Manhattan. The defendants sought to recuse the judge in the case, Constance Baker Motley. Motley was the first African American woman ever appointed to the federal bench. The defendants argued in part that Motley should be disqualified from the case on the ground that she "strongly identifies with those who suffer discrimination in employment because of sex or race."
Motley denied the recusal motion, noting that (via Nexis), "if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds."
Click to expand...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050037

I guess what matters is if you see sexual orientation on par with race or gender
 
Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.
 
[quote name='Brownjohn']Not at all. Obviously, if you're gay, you'd be in favor of overturning prop 8, however, just because you're straight, doesn't mean you'd want to uphold it. Just look at all the straight people cheering on this board, as an example.[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of gay people out there who couldn't care less about marriage, and while not outwardly supporting it, are otherwise indifferent to the proposition. Ideally it shouldn't matter whether or not a Judge supports gay marriage Judges are supposed to be apolitical. The issue before them is not "should we allow gay marriage" but "does the constitution give anyone the authority to prohibit, it, and if so, then with whom does that power lie"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gargus']Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.[/QUOTE]

Please stop breathing until forever.
 
[quote name='gargus']Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.[/QUOTE]

This might be the stupidest thing I have ever read. And this is the internet.
 
[quote name='bvharris']This might be the stupidest thing I have ever read. And this is the internet.[/QUOTE]

Stupid, sure, but expected.
 
Wall of text, I choose you.

I hate how aggressive the queers are. I have this horrible, loveless marriage. So, I go to the bar after work. But I can't go to any bar. Most bars have women and those women always want you to buy them drinks so they can tell you how men have shit all over them their whole lives. So, I go to a males only bar. They play nothing but techno music and the booze is mixed heavily with fruit juice. Most of the men there are friendly. They'll hand you a drink and make honest, pleasant conversation that doesn't involve wives or girlfriends. After six or seven drinks, I have to piss. When I get to the bathrooms, I see the urinals are just holes in the walls. So, I plug in there and let it rip. I hear "Eww! Groth-th-th." and somebody grabs my dick. I finally get free ten minutes later and get ready to leave. I'm way drunk and this very athletic man stops me from driving home. He offers to call a cab, but I ain't got no money for a cab. So, the nice guy says he can take me back to his place. We get back there, but he doesn't have a long enough couch for me to sleep on and my back is too messed up to sleep on the floor. So, he says I can sleep in his bed. Well, I can't sleep in my clothes because I have work the next day. So, I don't. I figure the guy would just sleep on the floor, but do you know what happens? After a full night's rest in the most comfortable mattress a large amount of disposable income can buy, this guy starts kissing on me and he's been sleeping in that bed all night naked. That's just fucking sick.
 
[quote name='gargus']Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.[/QUOTE]

Did you just go on an anti-gay rant and then say that gays are like everyone else?
 
[quote name='gargus']Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.[/QUOTE]

Florence-yall.jpg
 
[quote name='gargus']Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe, they need to be in people's faces about it, because otherwise they get oppressed by the general populous?
 
[quote name='gargus']Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if you replaced the words in that paragraph with black instead of gay. The funniest is if you replace the words with fatties or Christians.
 
I don't get why this is such a big issue? The "straight" people getting married can't even follow it... I know three "couples" now that got married, had a kid, and are now divorced. I bet the gay's will do a hell of a lot better.

Not to mention this whole law being glaringly obvious to be unconstitutional...
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if you replaced the words in that paragraph with black instead of gay. The funniest is if you replace the words with fatties or Christians.[/QUOTE]

There are "Fattie Pride" marches?
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/08/olson-wallace-fns/

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?
Click to expand...

Definitely worth taking a look.

Also David Boies was on Face the Nation debating Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Too lazy to find that link but it's worth watching as well.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Also David Boies was on Face the Nation debating Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Too lazy to find that link but it's worth watching as well.[/QUOTE]

I managed to catch the last half of that this morning. I was wondering who the d-bag arguing against same-sex marriage was and why he was so fucking retarded. Now I know.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']You dont get to vote to take away people's rights.[/QUOTE]
This! Your vote doesn't count if it's unconstitutional!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And the left would prefer to rename our country to The United Courts of America.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. Are you saying the left values the justice system, and, you know, the laws and rights which make this country great?


Okay.
 
[quote name='dorino']I don't get it. Are you saying the left values the justice system, and, you know, the laws and rights which make this country great?


Okay.[/QUOTE]

No I'm not saying that at all.

But I am saying that the left clearly (to me) values the modern court system and the ability to change what they view "inherently flawed foundations" a lot more than they value any founding document as it's written now.

I am not saying that's related, much, to the OP though. Just making a counter statement to the one about the right.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']No I'm not saying that at all.

But I am saying that the left clearly (to me) values the modern court system and the ability to change what they view "inherently flawed foundations" a lot more than they value any founding document as it's written now.[/QUOTE]

You're not wrong. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, so it's not unreasonable to believe there are portions of it which are no longer relevant to our society today. So yes, while I value the Constitution and the ideas behind it, I think there are many areas in which modern opinions are more valid than those of the founders, and you're correct that this is a prevalent opinion on the left.
 
[quote name='bvharris']You're not wrong. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, so it's not unreasonable to believe there are portions of it which are no longer relevant to our society today. So yes, while I value the Constitution and the ideas behind it, I think there are many areas in which modern opinions are more valid than those of the founders, and you're correct that this is a prevalent opinion on the left.[/QUOTE]

And that's all fine and dandy. The founders intended the Constitution to be changeable; they provided clear method to do so.

Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.
 
Oh, goodie, thrustbucket's plying his trade as a part-time constitutional scholar again. today's lesson, we learn about how things that are deemed 'unconstitutional' are 'circumventing the system.'
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.[/QUOTE]

I can't deny that you've provided a clear summation of my feelings. Obviously we've veered away from the OP, but take the issue of gay marriage: It's not really a debatable issue as far as I can tell. People who believe in marriage equality are right, people who don't are wrong. So from there, at least to me, it doesn't really matter how many people there are on each side of it, doing the right thing is more important than how you do it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And that's all fine and dandy. The founders intended the Constitution to be changeable; they provided clear method to do so.

Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how a decision guaranteeing due process for all citizens circumvents the constitution.

Please clarify, and explain why phooey-baloney state laws, such as Prop 8, are not themselves attempting to circumvent the constitution.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.[/QUOTE]
Supremacy clause, sweetie. It specifically addresses states that attempt to "circumvent the system" or in this case, circumvent the Constitution itself.

I'll never get you thrust. A con law warrior that doesn't understand even basic principles of the Constitution. Supremacy is about as basic as it gets man.

Right wing nutters attempt to vote an amendment to their state constitution that prima facia violates the Constitution. Nutters get the amendment passed. BEING THAT IT WHOLLY VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION, Boies and Olsen (a staunch conservative omglol!) sue to have it over turned and to have the Constitutionally correct action take place. Federal judge agrees.

Naturally, you blame liberals and the courts for.... upholding the Constitution.

It's like dropping a note tied to a rock into an abyss and wondering if you'll be alive when it hits the bottom.
The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)
Click to expand...
Bizarro thrust reads this. He realizes the courts are here to protect and defend the Constitution to which he professes love. He realizes that the only thing a Constitutional lover could do is support the overturning of Prop 8 by a federal judge who's job it is to do exactly that. Bizarro thrust then shakes the shit out of real thrust.

Just because it should logically follow that your stated position is that an activist court and liberals are "circumventing" this and that and the other, I got a question for ya thrust. Should blacks and whites be allowed to marry in the state of Virginia where no vote was taken as to whether they should be allowed, but was made legal via a federal legal challenge that went to the Supreme Court? Clearly an activist judge taking a massively activist position by any measure. Liberals helped the legal challenge. It was (is?) wildly unpopular by margins far wider than the current gay marriage issue.

Should we put it to a vote now and adhere to the results?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Quillion']I fail to see how a decision guaranteeing due process for all citizens circumvents the constitution.

Please clarify, and explain why phooey-baloney state laws, such as Prop 8, are not themselves attempting to circumvent the constitution.[/QUOTE]

My statements were not in relation to prop 8.

[quote name='speedracer']Supremacy clause, sweetie. It specifically addresses states that attempt to "circumvent the system" or in this case, circumvent the Constitution itself.

I'll never get you thrust. A con law warrior that doesn't understand even basic principles of the Constitution. Supremacy is about as basic as it gets man.

Right wing nutters attempt to vote an amendment to their state constitution that prima facia violates the Constitution. Nutters get the amendment passed. BEING THAT IT WHOLLY VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION, Boies and Olsen (a staunch conservative omglol!) sue to have it over turned and to have the Constitutionally correct action take place. Federal judge agrees.

Naturally, you blame liberals and the courts for.... upholding the Constitution.

It's like dropping a note tied to a rock into an abyss and wondering if you'll be alive when it hits the bottom.

Bizarro thrust reads this. He realizes the courts are here to protect and defend the Constitution to which he professes love. He realizes that the only thing a Constitutional lover could do is support the overturning of Prop 8 by a federal judge who's job it is to do exactly that. Bizarro thrust then shakes the shit out of real thrust.

Just because it should logically follow that your stated position is that an activist court and liberals are "circumventing" this and that and the other, I got a question for ya thrust. Should blacks and whites be allowed to marry in the state of Virginia where no vote was taken as to whether they should be allowed, but was made legal via a federal legal challenge that went to the Supreme Court? Clearly an activist judge taking a massively activist position by any measure. Liberals helped the legal challenge. It was (is?) wildly unpopular by margins far wider than the current gay marriage issue.

Should we put it to a vote now and adhere to the results?[/QUOTE]

See above. My statements were not in relation to prop 8.

I have no problem with gay marriage. None of my statements of the last 3 pages have meant to illustrate that I do. I was responding to all the talk of the Courts deciding what the constitution means, which is largely irrelevant, imo, in this instance.

My own personal opinion on this issue is that the Government has no business defining marriage. Civil Unions are about the extent of what a government should recognize, and what those are up to individuals and/or their religions to define. Marriage has always been a glaring exception to church mixed with state in this country (simply because, overwhelmingly, marriage and even the act of getting married is associated with religion to most people). That doesn't come to a head until now.

That's both the crux of the problem, and the solution. Any other solution will lead to far more persecution of gays; which is why I find it ironic that trying to force the majority of America to redefine what they believe the word "marriage" means by selling it as comparable to the civil rights movement, is somehow the only acceptable outcome.

It's sickening that the 'race card' gets played in every single issue these days.
 
[quote name='bvharris']I can't deny that you've provided a clear summation of my feelings. Obviously we've veered away from the OP, but take the issue of gay marriage: It's not really a debatable issue as far as I can tell. People who believe in marriage equality are right, people who don't are wrong. So from there, at least to me, it doesn't really matter how many people there are on each side of it, doing the right thing is more important than how you do it.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, but what exact part of the Constitution gives the right to marriage? I always assumed that was something that States granted, not the Federal Government, but I could be way wrong.
But if that's the case, then I can see how this is unConstitutional to deny CA the right to vote on this.

BTW-I actually think that Prop 8 should have been overturned, so I'm not just saying these things with an anti-gay marriage goal in mind.

[quote name='speedracer']
Right wing nutters attempt to vote an amendment to their state constitution that prima facia violates the Constitution. Nutters get the amendment passed. [/QUOTE]
Again, not trying to start arguments about things, since I think the courts made the right choice, but this was voted on by the people of CA. Is CA not considered a pretty liberal state?
 
[quote name='myl0r']I don't know, but what exact part of the Constitution gives the right to marriage? I always assumed that was something that States granted, not the Federal Government, but I could be way wrong.
But if that's the case, then I can see how this is unConstitutional to deny CA the right to vote on this.
[/QUOTE]

We were talking about two different things, as thrust pointed out. My comments in that context weren't specific to the Constitution. Though I do think the Equal Protection Clause applies to rights enjoyed by some (ie, marriage) not being denied to others. Obviously the judge agreed.
 
[quote name='bvharris']We were talking about two different things, as thrust pointed out. My comments in that context weren't specific to the Constitution. Though I do think the Equal Protection Clause applies to rights enjoyed by some (ie, marriage) not being denied to others. Obviously the judge agreed.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Equal protection under the law. As long as marriage has legal benefits tied to it, then the equal protection law applies to marriage--or at least can be convincingly argued to apply IMO.

And yeah, marriage laws are generally state laws, but state laws have to meet constitutional requirements--which is why states get sued to the supreme court over laws. The constitution supersedes any state laws.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Again, not trying to start arguments about things, since I think the courts made the right choice, but this was voted on by the people of CA. Is CA not considered a pretty liberal state?[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant, California somehow managed to pass prop 8, but the issue is that it's an unconstitutional law. As everyone has agreed, utilizing the courts to uphold the constitution was called for in this instance.


Also, I find it funny that the 14th Amendment not only is upsetting right-wingers because of its granting citizenship to people born in the states, but also that it's the amendment's Equal Protection Clause that's ruining gaybans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']See above. My statements were not in relation to prop 8.

I have no problem with gay marriage. None of my statements of the last 3 pages have meant to illustrate that I do. I was responding to all the talk of the Courts deciding what the constitution means, which is largely irrelevant, imo, in this instance.[/QUOTE]

You say in this instance. You're going to have to explain what 'this instance' is.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if its popular, it matters if it passes constitutional muster. In this case Prop 8 didn't.
 
[quote name='dorino']Irrelevant, California somehow managed to pass prop 8, but the issue is that it's an unconstitutional law. As everyone has agreed, utilizing the courts to uphold the constitution was called for in this instance.


Also, I find it funny that the 14th Amendment not only is upsetting right-wingers because of its granting citizenship to people born in the states, but also that it's the amendment's Equal Protection Clause that's ruining gaybans.[/QUOTE]
You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.

Dmaul and BV, thanks for the clarification on the 14th amendment. I think when we were taught the Constitution, we were simply told to memorize that it had something to do with slavery ending. Public school, yay!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Equal protection under the law. As long as marriage has legal benefits tied to it, then the equal protection law applies to marriage--or at least can be convincingly argued to apply IMO.

And yeah, marriage laws are generally state laws, but state laws have to meet constitutional requirements--which is why states get sued to the supreme court over laws. The constitution supersedes any state laws.[/QUOTE]

I like dmaul's stance on this. This also illustrates my main issue with the whole subject: that the WORD "marriage" has legal benefits. Therein lies the problem and therein lies the solution.

[quote name='IRHari']You say in this instance. You're going to have to explain what 'this instance' is.[/q]
I was referring to the instance of Prop 8/Gay marriage issue. See above as to why.

[q]It doesn't matter if its popular, it matters if it passes constitutional muster. In this case Prop 8 didn't.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Which is why I have always advocated we change every instance of the word "Marriage" to "Civil Union". The problem would be fixed overnight and all party's would be happy.

But that can never happen because we like to do things the hard way. Instead, it's a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court will rule that gay people can have "Marriage" and all that it entails legally, and much persecution will follow, unfortunately.

The entire issue of gay marriage rights for both sides, imo, can be summed up with the term: "Word Pride".
 
[quote name='myl0r']You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not. That's why I said it was irrelevant.
 
I would be fine with getting rid of the word marriage, or at least stripping it of its rights and giving all the rights to the term civil unions. But we cant have two words. Its more than word pride, its avoiding a return to separate but equal.

All parties wouldnt be happy though, considering that one party considers marriage sacred, and stripping all benefits from it or not using the word would certainly be an affront to its sanctity.
 
[quote name='myl0r']You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.[/QUOTE]


California is a mixed state. The central part of the state is very conservative with the coastal and urban areas usually trending to the left. However this issue is a cross cutting issue and has no relation to parties per se. There are people on both sides that want gay marriage and those that do not, such as the large catholic population in California made up by many Hispanics who usually vote Democrat but would be against gay marriage.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My own personal opinion on this issue is that the Government has no business defining marriage. Civil Unions are about the extent of what a government should recognize, and what those are up to individuals and/or their religions to define. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='thrustbucket']The entire issue of gay marriage rights for both sides, imo, can be summed up with the term: "Word Pride".[/QUOTE]
It doesn't make logical sense to me to change the name of what it is. It is a marriage. Marriage is the legal conferring of extremely personal decisions and financial access to another person. I get that the religionists get all nuts about it but like you said, it's just a word game to call it something else, isn't it?

It's just a contract, like a sole proprietorship or a power of attorney. It's a contract between consenting of age adults. That's it. We can call a sole proprietorship something else but if it's the same thing, it's the same thing. Ya feelin me dawg? So why call a marriage a civil union?
[quote name='myl0r']You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.[/QUOTE]
Sure. Shitbags (I'm sorry, America's values voters) that voted for Prop 8 are overwhelmingly old. Support for it cuts about 50-50 across all other segments. Old people are the last to adapt to change and they just don't want nothin to do with teh gays, liberal or conservative.

No worries, they'll be dead soon like everyone's racist great-grandparent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top