Three lawsuits filed claiming prop 8 is an illegal amendment

[quote name='Hex']That is wholly untrue.

Multiply that by three, and you're set. ;)[/quote]

Hey, that's not fair, it only took them 24 years longer than the liberals to nominate a woman as Vice President. It may only be a few more before they can nominate a woman who seems to know what the hell she's talking about. :p
 
My first knee jerk reaction was that this is sour grapes by gay marriage proponents and that even when "we" lose, we have to respect the outcome. Then I talked to my wife about it and she brought up two excellent points.

First, protected rights and individuals as defined by the state Constitutions vary widely, and California is arguably the most supportive of these rights. Now they have an amendment on the books that directly conflicts with the state Constitution. Who trumps?

Second, the very purpose of a Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This amendment, no matter how you feel about, goes against everything American law is principled on starting from the moment the ink was drying on the Declaration of Independence. How can a Constitution reconcile an amendment that undercuts the purpose of a Constitution?
 
[quote name='speedracer']My first knee jerk reaction was that this is sour grapes by gay marriage proponents and that even when "we" lose, we have to respect the outcome. Then I talked to my wife about it and she brought up two excellent points.

First, protected rights and individuals as defined by the state Constitutions vary widely, and California is arguably the most supportive of these rights. Now they have an amendment on the books that directly conflicts with the state Constitution. Who trumps?

Second, the very purpose of a Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This amendment, no matter how you feel about, goes against everything American law is principled on starting from the moment the ink was drying on the Declaration of Independence. How can a Constitution reconcile an amendment that undercuts the purpose of a Constitution?[/quote]

Because god said so. Duh. Didn't you get the memo? Persecution through religion is all the rage these days. See: abortion debate.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']again. lot of good that did.

this already had plenty of coverage. an online petition with a goal of 5,000 signatures wont make a bit of a difference.[/quote]

I don't think you were following this very closely then. The MAIN reason Kucinich got any press for this was because the internets blew up about it.

YEARS before this he was trying to get press for the articles of impeachment, to no avail.
 
Not really my opinion source of choice, but I thought the Q&A analysis at the WSJ was spot on. They do a really good job of framing the legal debate if anyone's curious.
We’ve been following the saga of California’s Proposition 8 rather closely since its passage on Tuesday (click here and here). The basics: California voters on Tuesday approved the initiative, which adds to the state constitution the following sentence: “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

While the wording is simple, the situation has quickly become complicated. One question: What happens to those same-sex couples who married prior to the ruling? Legal challenges filed on Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Prop. 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution?

To help sort through some of these questions, we chatted with David Cruz, a constitutional law expert at the University of Southern California.

Hi David. Thanks for taking the time. Frankly, we’ve been confused by much of what’s happened since Tuesday. For starters, could you help us understand the grounds upon which Proposition 8 is being challenged in court?

Sure. The three lawsuits [here, here and here] challenge the procedure by which the referendum was passed. Under California law, there are two categories of changes that can be made to the state constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are more minor changes; revisions are larger in effect. This is important because each has its own process for taking effect — essentially different ways they go before the voters. An amendment can go in the form of a ballot initiative, which requires a certain number of signatures to make its way on. Constitutional revisions, however, have to have a two-thirds blessing from each house of the state legislature to make the ballot.

Now, the problem, at least from the point of view of Prop. 8 supporters, is that the legislature had previously indicated a willingness to support same-sex marriage. So the proposition’s supporters were unwilling to treat this [change] as a revision and send it to the legislature, opting instead to treat it as an amendment. The Prop. 8 opponents are arguing that this change actually constitutes a revision, not an amendment, and therefore needed to go through the legislature.

Why wasn’t all this figured out prior to election day?

There’s really no process by which a determination is made before the election. When the petition is submitted to the attorney general and secretary of state, it doesn’t get reviewed on whether or not it’s a revision. The signatures get examined and the summary of the proposed change is reviewed for accuracy.

These post-election “writs” were filed with the California Supreme Court. Challenges on these grounds — this “revision or amendment” issue — don’t need to go through lower courts first?

No. The California Supreme Court has wide latitude to hear issues directly, especially when the issues concern the state constitution.

Were any other issues raised in the suits?

Yes. A same-sex couple that was married before the election made another argument. Remember, the California Supreme Court in May ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were not allowed under the state’s constitution. [That ruling prompted Proposition 8.] In that ruling, the Supreme Court essentially said two things: that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry, and that the underlying law violated the state’s equal protection clause.

The suit filed Wednesday argues that while Proposition 8 squarely addressed the marriage half of the Supreme Court’s ruling, it didn’t address the equal-protection half. In other words, the couple argues that the state constitution is now in conflict with itself — part of it says that same-sex marriage is flatly illegal, and the Supreme Court has interpreted another part to say that bans on same-sex marriage violate the state’s equal protection clause.

And a constitution can’t be in conflict with itself?

Right. There’s a common principle in constitutional jurisprudence called “harmonization,” which says that no part of a constitution can conflict with any other.

Why haven’t there been challenges brought under the U.S. Constitution?

I think that the Prop. 8 opponents have largely wanted to shy away from the federal courts for fear that this issue would go up to a U.S. Supreme Court that might not be receptive to its arguments.

Provided that the state Supreme Court rejects all these arguments and the constitutional amendment is allowed, you still have this issue as to what happens to the marriages that took place before Proposition 8 was passed, right?

Right. And on that question, the state Supreme Court would likely look at what the intent of the voters was in passing the law.

How would the court determine that? By asking voters?

It would likely look at the language of the Proposition itself, in addition to the title, official ballot literature, and to the advertisements that were run during the campaign. Supporters of Proposition 8 point to language on the ballot that explained that voters would be defining marriage as between a man and woman, ‘regardless of where or when performed.’ That seems to argue for invalidating the earlier marriages. But the attorney general, Jerry Brown, will likely raise the official title of the Proposition, which mentions the elimination of the “right of same-sex couples to marry.” Here, there’s no mention of the earlier marriages, and it seems to indicate that it’s the right to get married going forward that’s being taken away.

Great, David. Thanks very much for taking the time.

My pleasure.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='speedracer']Not really my opinion source of choice, but I thought the Q&A analysis at the WSJ was spot on. They do a really good job of framing the legal debate if anyone's curious.[/quote]

Very nice - lots of facts about the legal battle. Thanks speed!
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']again. lot of good that did.

this already had plenty of coverage. an online petition with a goal of 5,000 signatures wont make a bit of a difference.[/quote]

Sure it did - it got the media to give the man some airtime which he couldn't get before.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You failed to respond to my accusation that your suggestion that we're "making an exception for the new definition of marriage." You're wrong there, were called on it, and simply let it lie.[/quote]
I've addressed this before. We had to do this because, IMHO, a few judges misinterpreted the constitution.

Sure. And the colored fountains were just as nice as the white fountains. It doesn't matter if you *want* to use the colored fountain or not, just know that you have one. Separate but equal if, in your mind, still equal!

Whether or not you wanted to attend a white school, you still had colored schools to attend. That's equal, in your view.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. You are so blinded by your ideology that you do not take the time to analyze arguments. Your example shows inequality because different populations of people have access to different things.


Your logic was hastily built after the fact of this proposition in order to build a philosophical mud hut of "equality," but it's lazy, it's wrong, and you know it. It's a lousy talking point that someone who likes who likes to brandish their MD around as a means of pitiful defense against scrutiny should know better than to use.

If you *MERELY* consider the changing motives for marriage in society, you'll see that sexuality is inherently one of those things. No matter how many "haw haw people don't have sex after marriage" jokes you can think of. Marriage and sex are intimately linked. Undeniably linked.

Like procreation. Or the option of procreation. The choice of marriage to procreate is there or not; so the gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex if they highly value children that much.

But you either want people to lie about their sexuality to themselves, their spouses, and the world (and since you worship at the altar of Alan Keyes I'm guessing that having society go back in the closet IS your ultimate goal), or have some sort of awkward need for a functional look at marriage.

Not "I love you," but "your ability to help reproduce fascinates me," or "I heart your investments." You give one category of people THE CHOICE (since we are free) to marry for love, for reproduction, for wealth, for decades of hot fucking, for a record collection, or for a cheeseburger.

But you want to LIMIT THOSE CHOICES (you want to inhibit those freedoms) for another group of people, and hide behind this pitifully lazy excuse you've culled from the "here's what an idiot tries to use" talking point.

But, in the end, I'll settle for a tiny victory, since you've lazily dodged the very point that you didn't defend that your side's need to amend the language to BEGIN defining marriage as "man/woman" is an implicit admittance that you were wrong about your lazy claim that gay marriage would require "the exception."

Here's what you ignored:

gay marriage = NO constitutional change necessary
no gay marriage = YES constitutional change necessary

And you have the audacity to LIE and suggest that black is white and up is down here! You should be ashamed. Or learn to argue in a more proper manner.
Click to expand...

Now you are trying to overcome me with a deluge of words...

Listen, you're not going to change my mind and vice versa. All I will say is that this issue is mainly a huge emotional distraction. If prop 8 passed, I would have congratulated your side and accepted gay marriage in California. But in a democracy, we follow the will of the people.

There are many more important issues to discuss... the fact that California is broke, our governor wants to raise the sales tax by 1.5%, people are idiots who vote for who huge bond measures/ sales tax increases for asinine projects despite the fact that we are broke.
 
[quote name='JJSP']http://miseryxchord.buzznet.com/user/journal/3332271/mark-rich-detained-police-prop/

This is what happened yesterday in downtown LA. For the TL;DR, two Buzznet employees were arrested for protesting near a Mormon temple yesterday after being attacked by a pro-Prop 8 passerby in his truck.[/quote]

Why don't they protest in front of black churches?

Blacks 70% yes on prop 8! The prop would not have passed without Obama mobilizing the black vote!
 
[quote name='JJSP']Because the Mormon church greatly helped to fund the Yes On 8 campaign?[/quote]

I get why they are protesting the Mormons...

...but why are many people too politically correct to point out that a big reason why prop 8 passed was the black vote (70% - 30% in favor; 10% of the total voters in CA - there's the 4 point margin of victory). Shouldn't gays be protesting black churches too since they contributed to prop 8's win just as much as the Mormons?

http://www.freep.com/article/20081107/NEWS15/81107126
 
[quote name='BigT']I get why they are protesting the Mormons...

...but why are many people too politically correct to point out that a big reason why prop 8 passed was the black vote (70% - 30% in favor; 10% of the total voters in CA - there's the 4 point margin of victory). Shouldn't gays be protesting black churches too since they contributed to prop 8's win just as much as the Mormons?

http://www.freep.com/article/20081107/NEWS15/81107126[/quote]

In American elections money talks and bullshit walks.
 
[quote name='JJSP']http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pe2023SzWXxE8wYX5qWeoIw

Officially, the Church of Latter Day Saints donated $4K to the campaign. Unofficially, it's more like $35M. "Churches" don't have $35 million dollars to donate, but their congregation does - and when the church leaders advocate donations, it's the same thing.

http://mormonsfor8.com/[/QUOTE]

i went over the list, looks like 15 million by members, 35 million through the website. where did you get the 4k figure from the actual church from?
 
I swear to all that is holy, I will slit your throat and pull your tongue thru the hole, BigoT. You were one of the ones that went into areas where some did not go for even the presidential elections and spewed your vitriol. I'm tired of homophobic pieces of trash like you. Reasoning does not work with shits like you...
 
[quote name='BigT']I get why they are protesting the Mormons...

...but why are many people too politically correct to point out that a big reason why prop 8 passed was the black vote (70% - 30% in favor; 10% of the total voters in CA - there's the 4 point margin of victory). Shouldn't gays be protesting black churches too since they contributed to prop 8's win just as much as the Mormons?

http://www.freep.com/article/20081107/NEWS15/81107126[/quote]

Because it's easier to point the finger and blame a religious institution over a group of people. They may as well throw the Roman Catholic church in there too as they donated quite a bit of time/money into passing Prop 8.

Personally, I'm still deciding how I feel on the matter. I will say that morally I disagree with the principle of gay marriage. On the other hand, I try to be understanding. Granted, whenever I mention that I get people that go absolutely crazy telling me what I should/shouldn't think. Living in Salt Lake provides both ends of the spectrum.

Both sides have done some ridiculous things that nobody should be proud of.
 
[quote name='thelonepig']Because it's easier to point the finger and blame a religious institution over a group of people. They may as well throw the Roman Catholic church in there too as they donated quite a bit of time/money into passing Prop 8.[/quote]

What's the big deal. If the Mormon/Catholic church spent their money on policy propaganda, they should live with the consequences. These churches can't have it both ways, they can't campaign against gay marriage and then cry foul when homosexuals call them out on it.

I love how the Mormon church waltzes into CA, takes out the homosexual agenda with a ballpeen hammer to the knees, and then starts belting out an off-key rendition of "why can't we be friends". It's culture war, not culture hit-and-run.
 
Because it's easier to point the finger and blame a religious institution over a group of people
Click to expand...

No. It's because the church put a lot of active effort into destroying rights. The people only showed up to vote.

The people are partially to blame, sure, but their votes wouldn't have been important without the propaganda being spread by the church.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']I swear to all that is holy, I will slit your throat and pull your tongue thru the hole, BigoT. You were one of the ones that went into areas where some did not go for even the presidential elections and spewed your vitriol. I'm tired of homophobic pieces of trash like you. Reasoning does not work with shits like you...[/quote]

just ignore him.. No sense in listening to someone as selfish and self centered as him.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']I swear to all that is holy, I will slit your throat and pull your tongue thru the hole, BigoT. You were one of the ones that went into areas where some did not go for even the presidential elections and spewed your vitriol. I'm tired of homophobic pieces of trash like you. Reasoning does not work with shits like you...[/quote]

Who is spewing vitriol? Look at your posts please and compare them to mine. You are the one insulting and threatening me with every other word... so please stop the hypocrisy.

You still avoid the question of why don't homosexuals speak out against blacks? Don't you think that blacks would be sensitive to a civil rights issue? Yet they still vote 70-30! This is not a civil rights issue; it is a moral issue. I happen to disagree with you on it and that's fine. But I do not appreciate being called names because I do not happen to support the homosexual agenda and the tyranny of a minority. In a democracy, moral issues should be left up to the populace. The people have spoken... and please tell your buddies to stop clogging up Wilshire Blvd.!!!!! People have enough trouble navigating it in rush hour! ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']What's the big deal. If the Mormon/Catholic church spent their money on policy propaganda, they should live with the consequences. These churches can't have it both ways, they can't campaign against gay marriage and then cry foul when homosexuals call them out on it.

I love how the Mormon church waltzes into CA, takes out the homosexual agenda with a ballpeen hammer to the knees, and then starts belting out an off-key rendition of "why can't we be friends". It's culture war, not culture hit-and-run.[/QUOTE]

i know people keep saying they the church spent money, but i havent seen anything that shows it being anyone other than the members.

and the mormon church didnt waltz into california, they have been well established here for years. its not like they didnt exist in the state before. you wouldnt say that rome waltzed into ca.
 
What is moral you homophobe is that I'm tired and fed up with you shoving what YOU think is right down my throat and making me sit in the back of the bus. Its funny how you say this is nothing like interacial marriage yet you keep bringing up the black vote. Seriously, who the fuck do you think you are when the only difference between us is who I share a bed with? I bleed the same blood as you. I bet you didn't even campaign for your precious McCain as hard as you did for this. I swear, you're a miserable excuse for a human being.

And is the reason why you have an angry blond haired guy in your avatar because you align with Aryan race views? Would be befitting for a bigot and homophobe such as you. Which also fits in with you wanting a near race riot against blacks. Way to go racist fascist prick.
 
[quote name='BigT']Who is spewing vitriol? Look at your posts please and compare them to mine. You are the one insulting and threatening me with every other word... so please stop the hypocrisy.

You still avoid the question of why don't homosexuals speak out against blacks? Don't you think that blacks would be sensitive to a civil rights issue? Yet they still vote 70-30! This is not a civil rights issue; it is a moral issue. I happen to disagree with you on it and that's fine. But I do not appreciate being called names because I do not happen to support the homosexual agenda and the tyranny of a minority. In a democracy, moral issues should be left up to the populace. The people have spoken... and please tell your buddies to stop clogging up Wilshire Blvd.!!!!! People have enough trouble navigating it in rush hour! ;)[/QUOTE]

Not that I agree with snatcher but someone ought to explain the difference between civility and decency to you.
 
Can someone explain how homosexuality is immoral? That arguement makes no sense to me. Pedophila is immoral. Sex with an animal is immoral (since it may not agree with what you're doing) But I don't see how two people in a consenting relationship are being immoral. I'm not trying to add fuel to the flame war here, but I've heard many people label homosexuality and same sex marriage as "immoral" and I think it's a hugely misleading adjective.
 
[quote name='BigT'] Don't you think that blacks would be sensitive to a civil rights issue? Yet they still vote 70-30! This is not a civil rights issue; it is a moral issue.[/quote]

Wow. I dunno what to call that one. The "argument by black vote" perhaps? And I thought your logic was broken before.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Can someone explain how homosexuality is immoral? That arguement makes no sense to me. Pedophila is immoral. Sex with an animal is immoral (since it may not agree with what you're doing) But I don't see how two people in a consenting relationship are being immoral. I'm not trying to add fuel to the flame war here, but I've heard many people label homosexuality and same sex marriage as "immoral" and I think it's a hugely misleading adjective.[/quote]

What other "morals" do you have?

People who have "come out" after being married and having a family increased the population and gene pool. Some people find preservation of the human race to be moral. What if they had come out earlier and not had those children some would find that to be an immoral action
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Can someone explain how homosexuality is immoral? That arguement makes no sense to me. Pedophila is immoral. Sex with an animal is immoral (since it may not agree with what you're doing) But I don't see how two people in a consenting relationship are being immoral. I'm not trying to add fuel to the flame war here, but I've heard many people label homosexuality and same sex marriage as "immoral" and I think it's a hugely misleading adjective.[/quote]

The only argument I can find against any of these things is consent:

1. A child cannot give legal / emotional consent.
2. An animal's consent cannot be determined.

However, the consent of a partner of the same gender can be determined and acknowledged under the law, and should be respected.

I can understand that people look to religion as the standards of morality in society, but when religion is pretty much one of the leading causes of death and hatred in the world, I'm not going to be considering its standard as absolute.

Seriously, if you're so afraid of gay marriage, what does that really say about the strength of your own marriage? As far as I'm concerned, the relationship I share with Crimson will only ever be affected by myself, her, and God. The rest of the world can burn to the ground for all I care, I'll still love her to the very last second of our physical lives and for eternity beyond.

No one else will affect that except us, and everyone...straight or gay, should be privileged to experience that feeling.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='militantatheistaphob']What other "morals" do you have?

People who have "come out" after being married and having a family increased the population and gene pool. Some people find preservation of the human race to be moral. What if they had come out earlier and not had those children some would find that to be an immoral action[/QUOTE]
...?
Thanks for your answer HotshotX, I appreciate it.
 
[quote name='BigT']Who is spewing vitriol? Look at your posts please and compare them to mine. You are the one insulting and threatening me with every other word... so please stop the hypocrisy.

You still avoid the question of why don't homosexuals speak out against blacks? Don't you think that blacks would be sensitive to a civil rights issue? Yet they still vote 70-30! This is not a civil rights issue; it is a moral issue. I happen to disagree with you on it and that's fine. But I do not appreciate being called names because I do not happen to support the homosexual agenda and the tyranny of a minority. In a democracy, moral issues should be left up to the populace. The people have spoken... and please tell your buddies to stop clogging up Wilshire Blvd.!!!!! People have enough trouble navigating it in rush hour! ;)[/QUOTE]

The point about reaching out to blacks is an interesting one. As I've said elsewhere, one of the major, major, *major* people involved in the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s, Rev. Fred Shuttleworth, was a key figure in helping prohibit gay marriages in Ohio in 2004.

Why is that important? It's pretty silly of you to say that it doesn't make sense to go after the LDS - they fronted a LOT of the money that went into defeating the prop. Whether directly through the church or indirectly through LDS members, the LDS as a church, as an institutional *symbol*, is largely responsible for the prop passing. So it makes perfect sense to go after the head/leader of the movement.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, when Malcolm X was assassinated, the civil rights movement was merely 1 individual less than they had been a moment prior. No less strong in terms of numbers, but, clearly, we all understand the symbolism of striking down a leader.

The problem with fighting the black church is, and this is where I'll agree with you here, not so much "PC," but that coupled with the added element of racism if they singled out black churches. Moreover, there's a lot of work involved in trying to convert folks who believe, by and large, that they are keenly aware of issues of civil rights, the struggle for equality, and that they would be frankly *insulted* by the idea that a person or group of people *dares* to tell them what they're doing to harm other peoples' civil rights, or that they're uninformed about the civil rights of others. Go ahead. Tell Shuttleworth he doesn't know about civil rights. I'll be standing right behind you.

*runs away*

But, really, it's an interesting point; is it racism, is it the selection of an "easy target" (i.e., white churches are easier to single out for their bigotry, particularly the LDS), is it something else, is it a combination of all this and more? Either way, going after the LDS is a fine move symbolically; it's a fallacious argument and a red herring to think that those who want to see prop 8 are unfairly singling out groups who helped pass this bill and fund the movement to do so. You put $40m+ to denying civil rights? You deserve every target pointed at you, in my opinion.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The point about reaching out to blacks is an interesting one. As I've said elsewhere, one of the major, major, *major* people involved in the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s, Rev. Fred Shuttleworth, was a key figure in helping prohibit gay marriages in Ohio in 2004.

Why is that important? It's pretty silly of you to say that it doesn't make sense to go after the LDS - they fronted a LOT of the money that went into defeating the prop. Whether directly through the church or indirectly through LDS members, the LDS as a church, as an institutional *symbol*, is largely responsible for the prop passing. So it makes perfect sense to go after the head/leader of the movement.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, when Malcolm X was assassinated, the civil rights movement was merely 1 individual less than they had been a moment prior. No less strong in terms of numbers, but, clearly, we all understand the symbolism of striking down a leader.

The problem with fighting the black church is, and this is where I'll agree with you here, not so much "PC," but that coupled with the added element of racism if they singled out black churches. Moreover, there's a lot of work involved in trying to convert folks who believe, by and large, that they are keenly aware of issues of civil rights, the struggle for equality, and that they would be frankly *insulted* by the idea that a person or group of people *dares* to tell them what they're doing to harm other peoples' civil rights, or that they're uninformed about the civil rights of others. Go ahead. Tell Shuttleworth he doesn't know about civil rights. I'll be standing right behind you.

*runs away*

But, really, it's an interesting point; is it racism, is it the selection of an "easy target" (i.e., white churches are easier to single out for their bigotry, particularly the LDS), is it something else, is it a combination of all this and more? Either way, going after the LDS is a fine move symbolically; it's a fallacious argument and a red herring to think that those who want to see prop 8 are unfairly singling out groups who helped pass this bill and fund the movement to do so. You put $40m+ to denying civil rights? You deserve every target pointed at you, in my opinion.[/quote]

Much respect to people you hate
 
[quote name='camoor']What's the big deal. If the Mormon/Catholic church spent their money on policy propaganda, they should live with the consequences. These churches can't have it both ways, they can't campaign against gay marriage and then cry foul when homosexuals call them out on it.

I love how the Mormon church waltzes into CA, takes out the homosexual agenda with a ballpeen hammer to the knees, and then starts belting out an off-key rendition of "why can't we be friends". It's culture war, not culture hit-and-run.[/quote]

Who said anything about the churches crying foul? They won this round and I'm sure they're prepping for the next. And as Ramstoria has already mentioned it, no waltzing took place. All of these churches have been involved in the gay marriage argument since before the general public was aware there was one.

The way I see it, you have one group of people screaming "You're oppressing my rights!" and another screaming "You're oppressing my principles and morals!". The problem is that everyone has a slightly different set of principles and morals and it is impossible to draw a line as to whose principles and morals should be used in politics. The trick is satisfying both parties, which will never happen as both are crying foul.
 
[quote name='militantatheistaphob']Much respect to people you hate[/QUOTE]

It's not that you disagree with me that drives me up the wall, it's that I merely *think* you disagree with me. I honestly can't tell what in the hell you think, your posts are such grammatical abortions.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i know people keep saying they the church spent money, but i havent seen anything that shows it being anyone other than the members.

and the mormon church didnt waltz into california, they have been well established here for years. its not like they didnt exist in the state before. you wouldnt say that rome waltzed into ca.[/quote]

Gay marriage will again become illegal in California after the nation's most hotly contested citizen referendum ended in victory for Proposition 8 supporters, backed by major fundraising and grass-roots organizing by members of the LDS Church.

Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the church's Presidency of the Seventy who helped lead the church's support for Proposition 8, told reporters during a press conference Wednesday that he doesn't have a monetary total for how much money was donated by Latter-day Saints. He did say it was "considerable and generous" and that church leaders are "grateful for the sacrifice" made by members who participated in the campaign.

He said the church, as an institution, did not contribute directly, but did pay for hotel and travel expenses for himself and other leaders who participated in the effort.
Click to expand...

http://mormontimes.com/around_church/general_authority/?id=4909

So the church did spend directly on the effort, and they asked their members to donate generously. Sorry, there's no room for the Pontius Pilate defense here.

As for your other point, everything is well established in CA (goto Haight-Ashbury if you don't believe me). Can you give me the number of Mormons in the state, I'll be impressed if it rises above .25% I could believe there's more LHP then LDS in CA. All the real anti-homosexual money is coming from out-of-state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thelonepig']The way I see it, you have one group of people screaming "You're oppressing my rights!" and another screaming "You're oppressing my principles and morals!". The problem is that everyone has a slightly different set of principles and morals and it is impossible to draw a line as to whose principles and morals should be used in politics. The trick is satisfying both parties, which will never happen as both are crying foul.[/quote]

Last I checked, the constitution didn't codify enforcement of principles and morals. America as a nation was not founded on the principle of protecting the principles and morals of each and every citizen.

If you want to live in a country ruled by the majority-held principles and morals then please move to one of the theocracies in Pan-Asia or the Middle East. I'm sure we'll both be happier.
 
[quote name='camoor']http://mormontimes.com/around_church/general_authority/?id=4909

So the church did spend directly on the effort, and they asked their members to donate generously. Sorry, there's no room for the Pontius Pilate defense here.

As for your other point, everything is well established in CA (goto Haight-Ashbury if you don't believe me). Can you give me the number of Mormons in the state, I'll be impressed if it rises above .25% I could believe there's more LHP then LDS in CA. All the real anti-homosexual money is coming from out-of-state.[/QUOTE]

2% by my calculations, but that quote still doesnt prove that the church spent any money directly, other than a hotel for someone that maybe held up a sign.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']I swear to all that is holy, I will slit your throat and pull your tongue thru the hole, BigoT. You were one of the ones that went into areas where some did not go for even the presidential elections and spewed your vitriol. I'm tired of homophobic pieces of trash like you. Reasoning does not work with shits like you...[/quote]
I disagree with BigT and believe that gays should have the right to get married, but that sort of personal attack against him is really unnecessary.
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This ain't real life, this is the internet.

I realize the VS. forum usually goes unmoderated, but come on guys. Chill out a bit.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This ain't real life, this is the internet.

I realize the VS. forum usually goes unmoderated, but come on guys. Chill out a bit.[/quote]Why does this place go mostly unmoderated, anyway? I mean, "This is place for mature discussion and is NOT a flame forum." I figured the moderation here would be heavier than usual.

...

I am not advocating heavier moderation of this place in any w- *gack*
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Why does this place go mostly unmoderated, anyway? I mean, "This is place for mature discussion and is NOT a flame forum." I figured the moderation here would be heavier than usual.

...

I am not advocating heavier moderation of this place in any w- *gack*[/quote]

I'm guessing they feel that moderation in this forum would be like catching the plague. It'd be bad for them and the site.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']2% by my calculations, but that quote still doesnt prove that the church spent any money directly, other than a hotel for someone that maybe held up a sign.[/quote]

2% huh - more then I thought. Of course all the Mormons I know have tons of kids, just like the ol' fashioned Catholics :lol:

By their admission the church paid for hotels and airfare (don't forget airfare) for an unspecified amount of "leaders" (and I'd like to see exactly what constitutes a leader - if I have a cardboard sign stapled to a wood pole am I a leader?). They also actively encouraged members to donate their own money to this cause - let's not forget that the business model of a church is getting church-goers to donate so this is in essence a marketing service they are providing.

LDS isn't denying that they contributed time and money to supporting this amendment, I'm not sure why you are keen on intimating this.
 
i was bringing it up because people were talking about taking away the church's tax exempt status, and everything i could find indicated that members donated on their own, not the church directly. if they church itself did pay for hotels and flights to help with the cause then i can see how thats different. but my guess is theres some sort of legal grey area with that, i doubt the church woudl willingly risk their tax status for the prop, im sure they did their homework.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i was bringing it up because people were talking about taking away the church's tax exempt status, and everything i could find indicated that members donated on their own, not the church directly. if they church itself did pay for hotels and flights to help with the cause then i can see how thats different. but my guess is theres some sort of legal grey area with that, i doubt the church woudl willingly risk their tax status for the prop, im sure they did their homework.[/quote]

Ahh now I see. Interesting - I hadn't thought of it that way. In a way it's true - the anti-homosexual agenda does get a big tax-free marketing boost from Christian leaders.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Why does this place go mostly unmoderated, anyway? I mean, "This is place for mature discussion and is NOT a flame forum." I figured the moderation here would be heavier than usual.

...

I am not advocating heavier moderation of this place in any w- *gack*[/QUOTE]

I agree with the first, but not the second. The Vs. forum definitely needs tighter moderation to weed out the personal attacks, trolls etc. that make it hard to have decent, rational discussions on many topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top