Victory For the Rule of Law: California Court Annuls 4,000 Gay Marriages

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Supreme Court annulled more than 4,000 gay marriages in San Francisco on Thursday, finding the city acted improperly in granting marriage licenses earlier this year in defiance of state law.

The mayor of the liberal city ignited a passionate nationwide debate in February by allowing 4,037 same-sex couples to wed over a four-week period before the California high court halted them as it reviewed the city's actions.

A California law backed by a voter referendum defines marriage as a union of man and women, and polls show most Californians continue to oppose gay marriage.

"We agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions," the court wrote.

The court ordered officials "to take all necessary remedial steps to undo the continuing effects of the officials' past unauthorized actions, including making appropriate corrections to all relevant official records and notifying all affected same-sex couples that the same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect."

In its decision, the court focused on whether the mayor had the authority to marry gays rather than the broader arguments of whether equal protection under the Constitution must include gay marriage. Briefs in a lawsuit raising the broader issue are expected before a lower court next month.
Link

I realize that the question was the legality of it all, but I truly beleave that 10 years from now rulings like this will be looked at the same way as prosegregation rulings in the 50's & 60's.

It's still lame that this law is on the books in the first place. Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. That's like running a newspaper story called "Victory for Law: Man busted for brewing own beer" during Prohibition. Just because it's on the law books doesn't mean it's the right way to go.

And I'm sure PAD would be the first to tell you that if Strom Thurmond were president years ago, things would be a lot better today...

Regardless of the 'correctness' of the law, it's still the law. Like I said elsewhere, if you have people in power ignoring the laws, what good are they? That's despotism. We have many channels for changing the laws. I believe current polls in CA show most people still support the 'current' definition of marriage, and it's not for a judge to go changing the laws. Personally, I think we need a lot fewer laws just across the board.
I don't think laws like this are quite the same as Jim Crow laws.
Is there a 'right' to marriage? What benefits does marriage convey that aren't granted by many/most companies, organizations, or cities for same sex couples?
I'm not equating these situations necessarily, but for people who supported Newsom's decision, how did you feel about Roy Moore's situation? Should Newsom marry two people who are 16 without parental permission [or just below whatever the age of consent is in CA]? Should he marry brother and sister? All of those are currently illegal, but in concept, very similar to this situation.
Regardless how you feel about gay marriage, I think Newsom's actions were bad for the cause.
AFAIK, marriage isn't mentioned in the Federal Consitution at all [as is correct]; if its in state constitutions or lawbooks, those can be changed/amended as the people desire.
Heck, marriage at the beginning was a religious rite, so technically the government--GWB or Gavin Newsome--shouldn't be involved in it at all

The truth is most gay people I've talked to don't even support gay marriage. It's just the self-righteous lefties that think they've got to support the cause to save every non-standard minority group out there.

You know, in North Carolina it's illegal for an unmarried (hetero) couple to live "in sin".

It would truly be a great victory for the rule of law if all those couples were arrested, wouldn't it?

[quote name='jer7583']The truth is most gay people I've talked to don't even support gay marriage. It's just the self-righteous lefties that think they've got to support the cause to save every non-standard minority group out there.[/quote]

I've got a gay boss who ran right out to get married when it became legal in Oregon. It's not just self-righteous lefties. It's also gay folks who want to have the same rights as everyone else.

When did it become legal in Oregon?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']When did it become legal in Oregon?[/quote]

LOL....you got me there, PAD. What I get for writing quickly while making dinner. When they started issuing marriage licenses for gay people in Portland, my boss went up and got married to his partner. The legality of their union is something the courts and/or voters will have to sort out. They seem pretty happy, though -- I really hope it doesn't get taken from them.

[quote name='jer7583']The truth is most gay people I've talked to don't even support gay marriage. It's just the self-righteous lefties that think they've got to support the cause to save every non-standard minority group out there.[/quote]

I love how the right wing just throws lies around. Which gay would not want all the rights as the rest of the country. What you said was bullshit, simple as that.

The CA marriages shouldn't be legal, they didn't follow any way of the law they just started giving out pices of paper. In Mass they did it the right way and went through the courts like what happened in the 50s and 60s.

Marriage isn't an issue for the courts to decide. If you're going to start messing with the fabric of civilization I'd rather have voters decide on the worth of the cause than a 3, 5, 7 or 9 panel of judges.

BTW, this to me isn't a religous thing but a legal matter. You can't arbitrarily decide to break the law and go against the wishes of the public that have passed marriage initiatives as ballot issues.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Marriage isn't an issue for the courts to decide. If you're going to start messing with the fabric of civilization I'd rather have voters decide on the worth of the cause than a 3, 5, 7 or 9 panel of judges.

BTW, this to me isn't a religous thing but a legal matter. You can't arbitrarily decide to break the law and go against the wishes of the public that have passed marriage initiatives as ballot issues.[/quote]

You just contradicted yourself, PAD. How can something be a legal matter but not be argued before a court?

I think there's a good argument that gay marriage is legal under the U.S. Constitution, given that document's call for equal rights for everyone. That's why the right-wingers want to amend the constitution rather than fight it out in the courts, because they know their position is untenable legally.

And let's face it, it's pretty shameful to be trying to amend one of the world's most perfect civil rights documents in a way that would take away a right from a specific class. The last time we amended the constitution to take away a right, it was called "Prohibition," and I think we all know how well that went......

It pretty shameful when the law is passes saying that gays cannot go to court to fight for their rights because the Legistative branch just made the Judical part useless.

Gay Marriage Opponents Pin Hopes on House

July 15th 2004 7:30am
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Unable to ban gay marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to make sure federal courts don't order states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned outside their borders.
"When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
Democrats objected, some strenuously. Rep. Maxine Waters of California called the legislation a political exercise, and Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, criticized it as "unnecessary, unconstitutional and unwise."
Even so, GOP officials said the measure likely would be on the House floor next week, and they expressed confidence it would pass.
If so, it would mark a clear victory for gay marriage opponents, who suffered a decisive setback Wednesday in the Senate when the constitutional amendment fell a dozen votes shy of the 60 needed to advance.
Within hours of the vote in which 48 senators voted to advance the measure and 50 to block it, President Bush (news - web sites) issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome but calling it a temporary setback.
"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," he added.
"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment," the president said.
Bush wasn't the only one who seemed eager to extend an election-year debate over the issue.
"We know now which senators are for traditional marriage and which ones are not, and by November so will voters in every state," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "This fight has just begun."
Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed the amendment, expressed little concern about political repercussions. "I think the discussion will continue to play out but I think they played their best hand today and couldn't even get a simple majority," she said of the Senate vote.
Bush's public prodding alone assures the issue will persist into the fall, and Republican strategists have said they hope the issue can be put to use against Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting.
Kerry, D-Mass., skipped the Senate vote. He issued a statement renewing his opposition to the amendment and accusing Republicans of seeking to alter the constitution for political gain.
"The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people — funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage — is not getting done," he said.
Bush urged Congress last winter to pass an amendment banning gay marriage, but prospects have never been good that supporters could amass the two-thirds majority in the House and Senate needed to send the measure to the states for ratification.
Most Democratic lawmakers oppose the proposal, and some conservative Republicans in both houses objected to stepping on terrain traditionally reserved for the states.
The legislation advancing in the House is designed to address the concerns raised by GOP dissidents, and solidify Republican support.

"This simply defers to the states," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Under the measure, federal courts would be stripped of jurisdiction over federal legislation that gives states the right to decide whether to recognize same sex marriages.
Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.
The possibilities include a measure to prevent the Washington, D.C., city government from recognizing gay marriages.
In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election.

The California rulings means that the Mayor overstepped his boundries when he granted marriage licenses.

The court ruling does not deal with the fact whether or not the law is constitutional. That will be addressed in another court case.

So, it means that its not over yet.

Excuse me but excepting cases of minors and those unable to make legal decisions for themselves, why is it any governments business who I decide to marry? If a government can tell me I'm only allowed to marry a woman, why stop there? Next may come illegal interfaith marriage, interracial marriage, inter-political marriage, inter-continental marriage.

Perhaps to lower the incidence of divorce, they should pass a constitutional ammendment making divorce illegal. That ought to make the Pope happy before he dies.

I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.

[quote name='Quackzilla']Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

1984 was required reading at my school

[quote name='Mustang O-Line 75'][quote name='Quackzilla']Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

1984 was required reading at my school[/quote]

Book banning by ideas instead of content is a relatively new practice, and is unacceptable in liberal states.

It also depends on type of funding.


Where I live it is banned in all public schools, and when it started the local Barnes & Noble put all of the banned books in their own section. On sale, btw, got quite a few books on the cheap.

[quote name='Quackzilla']I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
(entire book online, but you may need to close a couple of popups)

Or download it as a .txt file from project gutenberg:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

Kids, you think Resident Evil was scary? Try 1984.

[quote name='Quackzilla']I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

Obviously you never read these books because you couldn't be further from the truth about what their plots were about.

George Orwell was a vehement anti-communist and 1984 was about a totalitarian socialist/communist society. His protagonist Winston worked on obliterating and making up history for the state archives, kind of like John Kerry's official biographer. If Oceania went to war with Eurasia they were always at war with Eurasia and Eastasia was always their ally. Kind of like if John Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968 and Richard Nixon was President.... it MUST be true Big Brother says so. Oh, and if you don't believe me read Animal Farm and contrast it to the reality of the Russian revolution of 1917. You don't suppose Animal Farm was a parable do you? Nah!

Farenheit 451 was nearly apolitical. The reason books were abolished in Bradbury's society is because they caused uproars. People would get strange ideas and not just go with the flow. They got ideas of revolution, religion and things that were the detrement to mankind in general. The thoughts, ideas and stories in books were thought to cause greed, envy, hate and negative human responses. Television became the only method of news or idea spreading and people merely took soma to comatose themselves into oblivion. If you read this book, which I doubt, what was the book Montag memorized?

Religous right, you are so full of shit Quakzilla you can't tell your facts from your blinded idealogy. At least have some idea of what a book is about and its message before you spout off like an errant fire hose of misinformation.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][ The thoughts, ideas and stories in books were thought to cause greed, envy, hate and negative human responses.

Religous right, you are so full of shit Quakzilla you can't tell your facts from your blinded idealogy. At least have some idea of what a book is about and its message before you spout off like an errant fire hose of misinformation.[/quote]

The books cause the same thing the right wind does!!!

And you are one to talk about "blinded idealogy".

[response to PAD]

I typed a long ing post but it ing got DELETED.

Here is a summary:

Religious right exists, it even has a government watchdog group dedicated to it.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Guy Montag memmorised a chapter in the bible.

blah blah blah you condescending peice of shit you think I'm an idiot?

News flash, you are not the centre of the univers and a whole lot of people are smarter than you.

You have proven yourself to be a closed minded ultra conservative republican immune to reason with your many bullshit forum posts.

And you have also proven your stupidity with the attempt to draw parrallels between the democrats and communists in your last post.

You are a very pathetic human being.
I would feel sorry for you if I didn't hate you.

[quote name='Quackzilla']
1. blah blah blah you condescending peice of shit you think I'm an idiot?

2. News flash, you are not the centre of the univers and a whole lot of people are smarter than you.

3. You have proven yourself to be a closed minded ultra conservative republican immune to reason with your many bullshit forum posts.

4. And you have also proven your stupidity with the attempt to draw parrallels between the democrats and communists in your last post.

5. You are a very pathetic human being.
I would feel sorry for you if I didn't hate you.[/quote]

1. Yes, I think you're an idiot.
2. Never said I was but one thing is for sure, you're not one of them.
3. Yawn, conjecture.
4. i think I more accurately proved my point considering your vociferous negative reaction.
5. Wow, I really feel sorry for you if. Truly, I do. If a message board poster makes you all hot and bothered you have zero ability to relate to real life. I don't hate you Quackzilla, I pity you. I pity anyone that can't stand to have their blind faith questioned.

Political parties are not religion nor are they a substitute for one. They are not sources of inspiration and reasons for being. However go on hating it's okay, I'm big enough to bear the brunt of the hate of Quackzilla. I'm sure you'll feel better having got that off your chest.

Understand one thing though. I won this round. I incited you to illogical blind rage which was my goal. I baited you and you took it hook line and sinker. I never saw your original post but for something to be deleted on this forum it must have been worth an exceptional laugh.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

1. Yes, I think you're an idiot.[/quote]


Wow! 95% of the people here think the same about you!!!

He "forgot" the first half of my post, typical.

You should know by now people like him just ignore the parts they can't agrue, or don't get.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='Quackzilla']I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

Obviously you never read these books because you couldn't be further from the truth about what their plots were about.

George Orwell was a vehement anti-communist and 1984 was about a totalitarian socialist/communist society. His protagonist Winston worked on obliterating and making up history for the state archives, kind of like John Kerry's official biographer. If Oceania went to war with Eurasia they were always at war with Eurasia and Eastasia was always their ally. Kind of like if John Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968 and Richard Nixon was President.... it MUST be true Big Brother says so. Oh, and if you don't believe me read Animal Farm and contrast it to the reality of the Russian revolution of 1917. You don't suppose Animal Farm was a parable do you? Nah!

Farenheit 451 was nearly apolitical. The reason books were abolished in Bradbury's society is because they caused uproars. People would get strange ideas and not just go with the flow. They got ideas of revolution, religion and things that were the detrement to mankind in general. The thoughts, ideas and stories in books were thought to cause greed, envy, hate and negative human responses. Television became the only method of news or idea spreading and people merely took soma to comatose themselves into oblivion. If you read this book, which I doubt, what was the book Montag memorized?

Religous right, you are so full of shit Quakzilla you can't tell your facts from your blinded idealogy. At least have some idea of what a book is about and its message before you spout off like an errant fire hose of misinformation.[/quote]

Ummm....PAD, how in hell could John Kerry be Big Brother, when his is the minority party in every branch of federal government?

Now, if your argument went, "Well, there must have been WMDs in Iraq because Big Brother said it was so...." then I think you might have a little more traction.

[quote name='David85'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

1. Yes, I think you're an idiot.[/quote]


Wow! 95% of the people here think the same about you!!![/quote]

I'm rubber, you are glue....

Here's my problem:

Perception means a lot of things to people. If I call PAD an idiot, he says, "ooh, name calling really undermines your argument," and perhaps another poster reading will think, "that's a valid point."

The problem is basically that it's not an issue of name calling. There's a valid definition for the word "idiot," and the word is part of our language. I'm not calling PAD an "idiot" because I find it has some aesthetic value, I'd be calling him an idiot because I think he's displayed the qualities of an idiot.

It's weird to me that perception matters more than reality, in some cases. Let's say, for instance, that John Kerry were to say, "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are liars," people would brand him as "shrill" or that his behaviour is somehow "unpresidential," when in reality, there are quantifiable measures that prove that the SBVfT are, in fact, liars.

To call W stupid, again, isn't really "name calling," for instnace. The guy got C's at Yale. That's basically the lowest grade they give. To get C's at Yale requires no work, and as a legacy admission, it didn't require any work to get in. Maybe he's smart, but a slacker? What other measures would you use to measure his intelligence? His speaking skills? The ability to craft responses on his feet? To select trustworthy advisors? To craft reasonable policy? To even oversee such actions? Nothing Bush has done has indicated he's smart. But he has done a lot to indicate that he's quite stupid. So I call him stupid.

And yes, this is again a somewhat roundabout way of calling PAD stupid, as well. Sure, to some morons whose veneer of propriety is somehow offended by me calling an idiot and idiot, my argument may not have value. But I can either call it as I see it, or lie in the service of politeness. I'm not much of a liar.

PAD isn't particularly intelligent, either.

seppo

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='David85'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

1. Yes, I think you're an idiot.[/quote]


Wow! 95% of the people here think the same about you!!![/quote]

I'm rubber, you are glue.... [/quote]
Damn...

Are you five? First in my topic, which you seem to be scared of now because I'm right and you can't counter it, you said something about super soakers now this.

I knew religious freaks were crazy, but I have never seen one as childish as you.

I take great comfort that the shallow end of the genetic gene pool which created a gay man such as yourself ends with you. Thank God you have no inclination towards breeding.

You must be blind, dumb and stupid David. I never once brought up religion. You are a pure unadulterated bigot. You think anyone that is a Republican must be a far right wing religous zealot which I am not. You love to exhibit your prejudice over and over again and your intolerance is your hallmark. I never slammed gays, homosexuals or called gay sex immoral. I merely stated that the rule of law in California was upheld. San Francisco had no legal right to marry same sex couples.

Take your PC attitude you wear as a shield from reality and wrap yourself tight in it. It may give you some small comfort .

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I take great comfort that the shallow end of the genetic gene pool which created a gay man such as yourself ends with you. Thank God you have no inclination towards breeding.

You must be blind, dumb and stupid David. I never once brought up religion. You are a pure unadulterated bigot. You think anyone that is a Republican must be a far right wing religous zealot which I am not. You love to exhibit your prejudice over and over again and your intolerance is your hallmark. I never slammed gays, homosexuals or called gay sex immoral. I merely stated that the rule of law in California was upheld. San Francisco had no legal right to marry same sex couples.

Take your PC attitude you wear as a shield from reality and wrap yourself tight in it. It may give you some small comfort .[/quote]

He never said he was gay, you just used it as an insult.

Talk about hypocracy.

Btw, by using IVF both gay and lesbian couples can have kids, though males must use a surrogate their genes are still passed on.

(I used bold and underline to highlight the two points of hypocracy)

He has claimed he was gay. Not in this thread but he has.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I take great comfort that the shallow end of the genetic gene pool which created a gay man such as yourself ends with you. Thank God you have no inclination towards breeding.

You must be blind, dumb and stupid David. I never once brought up religion. You are a pure unadulterated bigot. You think anyone that is a Republican must be a far right wing religous zealot which I am not. You love to exhibit your prejudice over and over again and your intolerance is your hallmark. I never slammed gays, homosexuals or called gay sex immoral. I merely stated that the rule of law in California was upheld. San Francisco had no legal right to marry same sex couples.

Take your PC attitude you wear as a shield from reality and wrap yourself tight in it. It may give you some small comfort .[/quote]

He never said he was gay, you just used it as an insult.

Talk about hypocracy.

Btw, by using IVF both gay and lesbian couples can have kids, though males must use a surrogate their genes are still passed on.

(I used bold and underline to highlight the two points of hypocracy)[/quote]


He's right i am, but how am I the bigot for hating what you belive in? The right wing cares more about God than it does about this country and everything they stand for comes from that, you don't have to be a genius to see that.

I don't want kids, ever think thats why I am gay? For a species to live on they must adopt and gays are the population control.

Another prize winning post from Pittsburgh, time after time you prove how idiotic and uncaring you are about your fellow American

He left in shame, he has not posted in three days =]

[quote name='Quackzilla']I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

Wow, such a dumbass. First, 1984 is NOT banned, you can find it anywhere, I have a copy at home if anyone would like to borrow it. Secondly, you skipped Brave New World. Thirdly, you've entirely missed the concept of both books. I mean did you even read them?

1984 deals with Socialism and Communism.. the entire opposite of right wing Republican economics.

Stop spouting bullshit out of your ass.

"I don't want kids, ever think thats why I am gay? For a species to live on they must adopt and gays are the population control."

Lol...i never thought of it that way. Good way of thinking though.

Heres my problem: I have no problems with gays, yet i know they should uphold that law....The problem is by upholding that law, it makes it harder for that law to be changed...ow....

[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='Quackzilla']I hate how he Religious Right has so much control over our civil rights, or lack therof.

Read "Farenheit 451" and "1984", and you will find the Religious Rights business plan which through a series of strategic elections has become the federal governments business plan.

Btw, don't look for 1984 in your public school library, it was banned because it portrays those "ideals" as being bad.[/quote]

Wow, such a dumbass. First, 1984 is NOT banned, you can find it anywhere, I have a copy at home if anyone would like to borrow it. Secondly, you skipped Brave New World. Thirdly, you've entirely missed the concept of both books. I mean did you even read them?

1984 deals with Socialism and Communism.. the entire opposite of right wing Republican economics.

Stop spouting bullshit out of your ass.[/quote]

Did you not read the whole post? It is banned in public school libraries.

The religious right is against the freedom of speech and many other liberties (involving what books you can and cannot read, which relates to Farenheit 451), and they support the idea of a big brother figure (1984 involves a big brother figure which didn't exist, halfway through the novel it is revealed that big brother is just a front for the government that monitors and controlls the people, which is the origin of the term 'big brother')

ALSO the people that I am referring to are members of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT, an fundamentalist group that ASSOSIATES itself with the Republican party and pull many strings from behind the stage.

You would not know a lot about the Religious Right or else you would see the connections to the books and why they were banned FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL LIBRARIES.

I live less than kilometers from the house of the Rev. Jerry Fallwel, best known as a prominent religious figure.

He started as a con artist before getting into politics. He is still a con artist and he sell mutual funds and other stuff like that during his televised sermons. He is also one of the most important leaders of the Religious Right. During his sermons he preaches hatred against democrats, gays, and everything else he disagrees with.

John Ashcroft is the most prominent Religious Right leader employed by the Federal government, although Bush has strong ties to the group also.

Oh, I almost forgot to tell you about book burnings. Thats right, I said book burnings. The members of Jerry Fallwel's organisations takes his message to heart. Occasionally a couple of them will get together and go to the local bookstore, and buy some 'evil' books, like 1984, Animal Farm, and Harry Potter. Then they burn them in protest.
They settles down a little after the media started ignoring them, and I haven't heard a report of a book burning in a couple years.


Yes, it IS bullshit, but unfortunately is is TRUE bullshit.

You really shouldn't comment if you don't have any knowledge of the issue at hand.

Oh, did you know that Jerry Fallwel spent a week telling lies about islam and it's followers getting full media coverage in many areas?

if im getting this straight (sorry David ), anything "...far Right" or "...far Left"means bad/wrong (Badong)? Until you agree?

Anything involving greed, corruption, hate, and religion is wrong.

People need to stop fsking around. The courts need to take a step and say either a) gays can marry or b) they can't. No more "We're not going to address the big issue just the little one."

I have agreed with almost everything you have said Quack. I do not agree with the part about religion being wrong. I consider myself part of the Christian religious left, who unfortunately are often drwoned out by the right. I would say, though, that almost without fail, religious fanatics will cause more problems than they solve.

As far as 1984 goes, my take was that it was a commentary on totalitarian societies in general. Communists just happened to be the local whipping boy at the time. It is clear that a lot of parallels can be drawn between the direction we are headed and where they ultimately ended up in 1984.

I meant religion in making laws, I should have clarified.

[quote name='Wshakspear']if im getting this straight (sorry David ), anything "...far Right" or "...far Left"means bad/wrong (Badong)? Until you agree?[/quote]

Duh! I'm God everything I say is right, and for sure everything PAD says is wrong.

Only the first part of that is a joke.

Real answer...

What he said....

[quote name='Quackzilla']Anything involving greed, corruption, hate, and religion is wrong.[/quote]

[quote name='Stryffe2004']It is clear that a lot of parallels can be drawn between the direction we are headed and where they ultimately ended up in 1984.[/quote]

Damn straight.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='Stryffe2004']It is clear that a lot of parallels can be drawn between the direction we are headed and where they ultimately ended up in 1984.[/quote]

Damn straight.[/quote]

I give us 20 years before the country goes to hell, with the assumption that we only elect presidents with direct connections to the religious right.

That would be kind of cool to do a documentary on, but we would not have freedom of the press.

Quackzilla


F441 and 1984 are not banded, I found copies in my school Library, I haven't gone to the public one is years, and they had copies. Why would they ban books that they make the students read in school?

They are terribly writen books and should be ban for just being some pointlessly detailed.