Very disappointed in California

[caitlinlee]

Prop 8 passed. I don't understand why people can't realize it's discrimination. Our constitution is about EQUALITY, 8 just threw that out the window.

And I know many people probably voted yes on it because they were worried about their kids being taught about gay marriage in school, while in reality that was just a big lie from the Yes On 8 campaign.

[vaguestcargo]

agreed. ugh.

[sjb2k1]

my wife and i were married in San Francisco on Sept. 22. we are absolutely devastated now. and very uncertain of the future, if gay marriage opponents will use this to negate our marriage and the thousands of other marriages that have taken place since june.

today was supposed to be a day of change, of hope for the future. and yet, here we are.

[tambam]

I can't believe that in this day and age, people still voted for this ridiculous proposition. The US really needs to get over some of the blatant discrimination that exists within it to this day. I'm disgusted.

[Adeniz19]

we are supposed to be one of the most progressive states in america, and yet this still happens. just shows that the fear-mongering right still has way too much power

[aoftbsten]

shit i heard it was close, but i didn't know it passed. that sucks. with one huge step forwards we also made one huge step backwards

[Adeniz19]

shit i heard it was close, but i didn't know it passed. that sucks. with one huge step forwards we also made one huge step backwardsi don't think it's officially passed yet, but it's really not looking good. it looks like arizona's and florida's props for gay marriage are passing so thats at least a little good news

[aoftbsten]

i don't think it's officially passed yet, but it's really not looking good. it looks like arizona's and florida's props for gay marriage are passing so thats at least a little good news

that is good news, still legal in Massachusetts as well

[TheWatermelon]

I think it's really surprising.... California? Weird that more Yes than No....

[KellyGleason]

From MSNBC:
California joins Arizona and Florida, where voters also approved amendments banning gay marriage. Gay-rights forces also suffered a loss in Arkansas, where voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents

This is terrible. Sjb2k1, I'm really sorry that this had to happen to you. Two people who are truly in love deserve the right to get married. :(

[snowtires]

WHAT! that's fucking awful. i can't believe this passed. i voted no, all of my friends voted no, i don't know a single person who thought to vote yes. before people start bitching that i couldn't vote for prop 8: i'm registered to vote in california.

[twitchyfingers]

I can't even express how disappointed I am in Florida. I'm ashamed to know people who voted yes.
The way it was written on the ballot was actually really confusing, and some people may have had issues understanding what they were being asked. But that's still no excuse for the others...

[Vick5y]

This is horrible. It really is a shame that people still think this way and want to take away the rights of regular, ordinary people just like themselves, who have simply decided to live a different lifestyle. Nothing the gays/lesbians are doing affects or harms anyone else, and it's their own business, so let them be!

[apoemtothedead]

I do not understand why they were allowed the vote on this. It is not up for debate whether people get rights.
Seriously, the sole fact that people in CA voted to take away the rights of a certain people is despicable.

[snowtires]

look at thee faces on these pieces of shit. i don't understand how anyone could find this much joy in stripping away a group of people's civil rights

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story

[KellyGleason]

look at thee faces on these pieces of shit. i don't understand how anyone could find this much joy in stripping away a group of people's civil rights

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story
Absolutely disgusting.

[kshtoinks12]

Are civil unions stopped by this or just marriages?

[jtsnazzy]

At least proposition 4 got rejected.

What was prop 4?

[sjb2k1]

as far as i know this did not affect the domestic partnership registry.

and i wish i had not looked at that photo. pieces of shit.

[Adeniz19]

What was prop 4?Alerting a minors parents before performing an abortion.

[KellyGleason]

What was prop 4?
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop4-title-sum.htm

[ActionActionFan]

Alerting a minors parents before performing an abortion.

So does the bill mean that they have to alert there parents or they don't have to.

[CaryGrant]

So does the bill mean that they have to alert there parents or they don't have to.

Because Prop 4 is getting voted down, doctors do not have to notify parents of a minor seeking an abortion and wait a few days to do it.

[apoemtothedead]

So does the bill mean that they have to alert there parents or they don't have to.
Don't have to since it didn't pass.

[jtsnazzy]

Basically, what momma doesn't know won't hurt her?

[leifstar]

That is terrible news. I remember keeping an eye out on that. Disappointing. Sorry.

[circasurviver]

I think it's really surprising.... California? Weird that more Yes than No....
It's mostly the central valley. Large farming communities that migrated over from Oklahoma during the dust bowl. Ya know 'Grapes of wrath' kinda shit. My county Kern County is very right wing.

[themadsilentist]

This really makes me sick. Definitely kills some of my buzz from last night...

I just can't honestly believe that California, one of the most progressive states in the nation, is still so fucking backwards when it comes to this. Ugh.

[Machu505]

Fuck everyone who voted for this.

[snowtires]

prop 7 got voted down? what the fuck is wrong with people? jesus christ

[caitlinlee]

"Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 – out of 10 million votes tallied.


Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.


Given that fundamental rights are at stake, we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from.


It is clearly a very close election and we monitored the results all evening and this morning.


As of this point, the election is too close to call.


Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome.


Geoff Kors
Executive Committee NO on Prop 8


Kate KendellExecutive Committee
NO on Prop 8


So, there's still a tiny bit of hope I guess. But I think it's going to pass.

[themadsilentist]

That's mildly encouraging...I was watching the votes tally up last night, though, and I have a feeling that unless the majority of those votes are from progressive (coastal) counties, it won't change too much.

[caitlinlee]

Yea, I heard from someone this morning that they hadn't counted SF yet, but I really doubt that. That would give me too much hope.

[themadsilentist]

Mmm, CNN was reporting last night that a good portion of SF had been counted. I don't think we can hope for any massive influx of noes from that quarter, unfortunately.

[speakhandsforme]

Honestly, there are some things that I will never understand: this being one of them. I can understand not believing in the practice of homosexuality and thus not engaging in the act...but to be able to vote on the basic rights of another human being and then rejoice upon hearing that you've successfully deprived someone of a great life virtue? I just don't get it.

[demora]

this is ridiculous. i can't believe so many churches held rallies and crap in support of prop 8 and people weren't entirely slapped in the face by such a horrible display of the oppression of rights. and surely half the people attending those rallies let the church make up their minds for them instead of exercising THEIR OWN FREE WILL to research what prop 8 entails and making an independent, educated decision. just cause they don't want to utilize their free will and rights doesn't mean the glbqt community wants the same.

[caitlinlee]

Probably the first time in my life that I'm truly not proud to be from California.

[saofan_315]

I never though I'd see the day where I'm more proud to be an American than a Californian, but today does it for me

It's so surreal to see my entire campus erupt in celebration last night for Obama but to see to many people hurt and pissed off today

[hero_dujour]

I think people should be required to give a logical reason as to why they choose option a over option b before being allowed to vote on anything. That way no stupid, ignorant, rasict, discrimanting idiots would be allowed to vote, because their answer would be: "uhhh because they're {black, gay, hispanic, jewish, etc.}

[jeremyfromva]

Seriously this is so twisted that they can amend the constitution, regardless of whether or not on a state or federal level. I just pray to my God that their children will end up being gay to teach them a lesson in tolerance. I know my parents learned from me (or are learning).

I don't think this is the end of this issue though. I think that the supreme court has every power to overturn this proposition, and I'm pretty damn sure Pres. Obama will do something. Obama is more for civil rights for the gay community than one may gather simply from his speeches...just sit back and watch.

[jeremyfromva]

And if they want to get right down to the shit...

"Yes on 8: Protect Marriage"...shouldn't they be voting to ban divorce?

[themadsilentist]

I don't think this is the end of this issue though. I think that the supreme court has every power to overturn this proposition, and I'm pretty damn sure Pres. Obama will do something. Obama is more for civil rights for the gay community than one may gather simply from his speeches...just sit back and watch.

He won't, at the risk of alienating every right-wing supporter he's ever gained. He voiced his support for the No on 8 campaign but I don't believe he's ever come out in favor of gay marriage.

[Jumpoff]

We were talking about the Florida proposition in my typing class about banning gay rights. The teacher told everyone that if gay marriage is allowed then America will be in trouble because we already have a much smaller population than most and gay marriage would lead to less babies being born. He went on to talk about how much he hated illegal immigrants.

People like this are the reason I really question the education system.

[Adeniz19]

Obama can't really do anything about this, seeing as how it is a state issue.

[Jason Tate]

Obama can't really do anything about this, seeing as how it is a state issue.
Or it could be JFK'esque.

I don't think he'll get involved to be honest. I believe the courts will though.

[Ailite]

I am infuriated that this didn't pass./

[caitlinlee]

I am infuriated that this didn't pass./

I think you're confused? It did pass.

We were talking about the Florida proposition in my typing class about banning gay rights. The teacher told everyone that if gay marriage is allowed then America will be in trouble because we already have a much smaller population than most and gay marriage would lead to less babies being born. He went on to talk about how much he hated illegal immigrants.

People like this are the reason I really question the education system.

One of my teachers actually voiced his opinion about it one day, too. His argument for voting Yes was that if it didn't pass, marriage certificates would say Person A and Person B. He's more worried about being called Person A instead of husband than about equal rights. It disgusts me really. He made another comment for it, too, on a different day. If anyone in our class had gone to the principal and told him about his comments the teacher would be in so much trouble.

[themadsilentist]

I think you're confused? It did pass.



One of my teachers actually voiced his opinion about it one day, too. His argument for voting Yes was that if it didn't pass, marriage certificates would say Person A and Person B. He's more worried about being called Person A instead of husband than about equal rights. It disgusts me really. He made another comment for it, too, on a different day. If anyone in our class had gone to the principal and told him about his comments the teacher would be in so much trouble.

Should have. Your teachers should not be using class time to talk about their personal politics. (I'm assuming you're in public school.)

[jklo16]

It's strange. Last night I had this feeling that people were on the same page as me. That this election was about coming together and really proving that we are ALL equal, and that this country can get back on the right path. That feeling definitely took a step backwards upon seeing this. How California can say "no you can't" just feels so big right now.

[jeremyfromva]

My biggest issue with these right wing antigay mongers is..."What the fuck was the point of this? I mean seriously. Just because they voted to ban gay marriage does not mean couples will disappear. The only thing that changes is legal documentation. Was it really worth 30 million dollars to take away a piece of paper from them? This money could have gone towards hungry children.

One of my gay friends and his partner of 12 years in california was clearly upset, and said that if this is the way things will be, and they need to redefine marriage, then they also should redefine civil unions so that it only applies to same sex couples.

Give them their scriptural doctrine, then give us our legal doctrine.

marriage = scripture
unions = law

[xshady121]

I think people should be required to give a logical reason as to why they choose option a over option b before being allowed to vote on anything. That way no stupid, ignorant, rasict, discrimanting idiots would be allowed to vote, because their answer would be: "uhhh because they're {black, gay, hispanic, jewish, etc.}

That's unconstitutional, and borderline racist.

[xshady121]

Seriously this is so twisted that they can amend the constitution, regardless of whether or not on a state or federal level. I just pray to my God that their children will end up being gay to teach them a lesson in tolerance. I know my parents learned from me (or are learning).

I don't think this is the end of this issue though. I think that the supreme court has every power to overturn this proposition, and I'm pretty damn sure Pres. Obama will do something. Obama is more for civil rights for the gay community than one may gather simply from his speeches...just sit back and watch.

1) what can obama do? It's not like his veto power can apply here. His only option would be influencing congress to push forth a gay marraige amendment to the US constitution, which will be political suicide, honeymoon period or not.

2) The Supreme Court of the US wouldn't even hear the case, it wouldn't have standing on a federal level.

[jklo16]

That's unconstitutional, and borderline racist.

and stating that one group of people should be treated differently than everyone else isn't?

[xshady121]

and stating that one group of people should be treated differently than everyone else isn't?

Irrelevant. The OPs point has been challenged in the Supreme Point and has been proven, in a court of law, to be both suppressive and unconstitutional. A Ban on Gay Marriage has yet to be challenged in the supreme court, thus is only suppressive and unconstitutional in the opinion of the minority of the State of California.

And hero_dujor, I find it funny that for someone so "progressive" and wanting to allow gay marriage, you are also encouraging voter suppression. We're picking and choosing which civil liberties we want to allow now right?

[jeremyfromva]

It will only be a matter of time before NY makes it legal for same sex couples to marry. There are now pro-equality lawmakers in NY

[xshady121]

It will only be a matter of time before NY makes it legal for same sex couples to marry. There are now pro-equality lawmakers in NY

You obviously haven't looked at an election map of NY recently. New York is heavily, heavily republican, sans the Hudson Valley Region. And even in NYC they've managed to elect Rudy Giuliani and Bloomberg for what looks like a third term.

And Clintons overwhelming victories as senators are pure anomalies when you see that she basically had no opposition in Lazio and Spencer.

Bottom line- we're not as progressive as you may think.

[caitlinlee]

Should have. Your teachers should not be using class time to talk about their personal politics. (I'm assuming you're in public school.)

Yes, I am in public school. A friend and I were actually talking about 8, and how we didn't understand why people can't see it's about equality. Not saying it was okay for him to jump in with his opinions, because it isn't at all. The second comment he made we all just kind of looked at each other like "did he really just say that?" While I'm against his views, I don't know if I could tell on him for two comments, you know?

[lovekillsgirl]

I am so sorry to hear about this, I cannot believe people just don't seem to care about each other. It is actually disgusting, love should not be something the government dictates.

[lew_1987]

I do not understand why they were allowed the vote on this. It is not up for debate whether people get rights.

I thought you were that ACA guy then for a few seconds. Please change your avatar.

[jeremyfromva]

Should 51% of the vote be enough to pass such a disgusting, discriminating law?

[xshady121]

Should 51% of the vote be enough to pass such a disgusting, discriminating law?

Now your just being a sore loser. A Proposition is arguably the most democratic process in our government. To complain that we are not democratic enough, and then complain when the majority speaks and you don't agree with it is just ridiculous.

[lew_1987]

A lot of the hope that I had for America through Obama being elected has been wiped out by this.

[caitlinlee]

Should 51% of the vote be enough to pass such a disgusting, discriminating law?

My thoughts exactly.

[Praetor]

I agree with what was said earlier (I think lunchforthesky) that the people should not have the power to decide to take the rights away from other people.

[jklo16]

I agree with what was said earlier (I think lunchforthesky) that the people should not have the power to decide to take the rights away from other people.

Exactly. And saying that it's fair because it was "democratic" in the way it was carried out is just plain ridiculous.

[lew_1987]

No

- lunchforthesky

Haha.

[jeremyfromva]

Now your just being a sore loser. A Proposition is arguably the most democratic process in our government. To complain that we are not democratic enough, and then complain when the majority speaks and you don't agree with it is just ridiculous.


Not when the tactics that were used by the proposition were mostly grounded on lies.

[Jumpoff]

Now your just being a sore loser. A Proposition is arguably the most democratic process in our government. To complain that we are not democratic enough, and then complain when the majority speaks and you don't agree with it is just ridiculous.

So, you're allowed to be stripped of rights as long as the majority believe you don't deserve them?

[Jason Tate]

Now your just being a sore loser. A Proposition is arguably the most democratic process in our government. To complain that we are not democratic enough, and then complain when the majority speaks and you don't agree with it is just ridiculous.
The idea that the majority should be allowed to oppress the minority is what is ridiculous.

[SilenceBrokenTT]

Stoked.


Also is banned in AZ now too (again).

[speakhandsforme]

Stoked.


Also is banned in AZ now too (again).

Perhaps you could fill us simple folk in on the ideology as to why you would even care if a gay couple got married? Or how it is in any way your right to decide their marital future? Or why you're a complete douche?

[Jason Tate]

Pretty disgusting to watch people be "happy" about discrimination.

[themadsilentist]

Good news for the No on 8 crowd (and therefore humanity in general)...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/125155/110/471/654479

[SilenceBrokenTT]

Yeah. It's fucking gross seeing dudes getting it on and pda'ing it up. They're all going to burn in hell.

[caitlinlee]

My favorite quote from that article above:

I still can't believe that millions of total strangers who have never so much as laid eyes on me had the right to vote on my rights and equality at all, let alone that they voted against them.

[SilenceBrokenTT]

You honestly think you will be able to keep this up forever?

At least for another year... which is fine by me.

[walkingby]

Fuck California, I can't believe it got passed. :-(

[splitsecond]

We had a similar ban pass in AZ as well, which was surprising because it failed last time they tried it here. I did voted against the ban, and I am about as conservative and religious as it gets. For me the bottom line is I would much rather promote committed relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality isn't going to disappear because of a ban on marriage.


On that note, I still think people need to what the rhetoric they use when talking about this subject, because I see as much stereotyping of religious/"right wing"/etc. coming from this thread as I do from nutjobs and their stereotyping of homosexuals. Someone has to be the bigger person here.

[xshady121]

So, you're allowed to be stripped of rights as long as the majority believe you don't deserve them?

It's not really stripping them of rights if they never had them (via the state) in the first place.

Cities tried to be rebels and be trail blazers, when infact they were overstepping there bounds.

[KrebstarKansas]

I never though I'd see the day where I'm more proud to be an American than a Californian, but today does it for me




Seriously. I have such mixed emotions from last night's outcomes and it's going to be a while before I can tell people out here that I'm from California with pride. I know in time (hopefully sooner than later) there will be equality but seriously California...I had way more faith in my homestate. I totally blame it on all those Central Valley towns. Fuckers.

[Heart-A-Tact]

I can't even express how disappointed I am in Florida. I'm ashamed to know people who voted yes.
The way it was written on the ballot was actually really confusing, and some people may have had issues understanding what they were being asked. But that's still no excuse for the others...

Hearing that it passed really dampened my mood last night. I'm still frustrated just thinking about it.

[incredulous]

Seriously. I have such mixed emotions from last night's outcomes and it's going to be a while before I can tell people out here that I'm from California with pride. I know in time (hopefully sooner than later) there will be equality but seriously California...I had way more faith in my homestate. I totally blame it on all those Central Valley towns. Fuckers.
Plus Orange County.

Fucking disgusting. But at least my county was strongly NO.

[hero_dujour]

That's unconstitutional, and borderline racist.

How is it racist of me to want voters to make choices based not on prejudices toward race, or religion, or sexual orientation?

[Imperfektion]

I was so angry when I heard this was so close. I seriously thought the majority of Californians would vote No.

[Jason Tate]

It's not really stripping them of rights if they never had them (via the state) in the first place.

Cities tried to be rebels and be trail blazers, when infact they were overstepping there bounds.
I look forward to the day when you'll be looked at with the same disdain as those speaking out against equality between races and genders.

[xshady121]

How is it racist of me to want voters to make choices based not on prejudices toward race, or religion, or sexual orientation?

You said:

I think people should be required to give a logical reason as to why they choose option a over option b before being allowed to vote on anything. That way no stupid, ignorant, rasict, discrimanting idiots would be allowed to vote.




That's voter suppression. That was ended with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (And I guess you could apply the 24th Amendment here as well). I'm not going to give you a history lesson, but the south would pass ridiculous laws saying "you have to be able to read this or you can't vote" or other stupid tests to suppress the black vote, even after they were technically allowed to vote via the 15th amendment. Now, you are saying "lets not allow this person to vote because they are racist, or ignorant, or dumb". Guess what? That's protected under the constitution. The first amendment gives them the right to be as racist as they want, and as ignorant as they want, but there vote still counts every much as yours.

[CarryOn09]

so fucking bummed with how this turned out. i hope all those fucking people who voted yes get the plague.

[xshady121]

Not a solid argument. Can I apply this to the 60's civil rights movement?

Apples and oranges. Last I checked, homosexuals were still allowed Civil Unions in California. That's a lot different then segregation.

[Adeniz19]

Apples and oranges. Last I checked, homosexuals were still allowed Civil Unions in California. That's a lot different then segregation.
haha what? that's like saying, well why are black people complaining? it's not like we aren't letting them on the bus, they can sit in the back.

[xshady121]

haha what? that's like saying, well why are black people complaining? it's not like we aren't letting them on the bus, they can sit in the back.

Not at all. The situation you are describing allows for two separate places for blacks and whites (schools, seating areas...) The difference is visually apparent in this case. Civil Unions allow for the same rights to homosexuals, without the title "marriage". This difference doesn't exist in a tangible sense.

[musicroxmysox]

So, there's still a tiny bit of hope I guess. But I think it's going to pass.


thank you for posting that, although i can say i'm very disappointed in my state or more the religous conservatives out here, know that most of us are still holding out for a no vote until the very end...everyone on this site is truly amazing, all of the reactions other people had when they heard 8 might be passed probably saved me from being extremely depressed today haha...this prop shouldn't have even existed, it's not anyone's place to vote to take away any other persons specific rights

[CarryOn09]

thank you for posting that, although i can say i'm very disappointed in my state or more the religous conservatives out here, know that most of us are still holding out for a no vote until the very end...everyone on this site is truly amazing, all of the reactions other people had when they heard 8 might be passed probably saved me from being extremely depressed today haha...this prop shouldn't have even existed, it's not anyone's place to vote to take away any other persons specific rights
this :thumbup:

[jeremyfromva]

I think I just found a video of some of these idiots that voted yes..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm9mq3ORpX4&feature=related

[musicroxmysox]

Not at all. The situation you are describing allows for two separate places for blacks and whites (schools, seating areas...) The difference is visually apparent in this case. Civil Unions allow for the same rights to homosexuals, without the title "marriage". This difference doesn't exist in a tangible sense.

i'm just curious, but what really is the problem with it being called a marriage, everyone is acting as though by allowing gay marriages to be called just that they're tainting the word or something...so please, enlighten me as to what the big issue is with one simple word being used to encompass both gay and heterosexual marriage

[Adeniz19]

Not at all. The situation you are describing allows for two separate places for blacks and whites (schools, seating areas...) The difference is visually apparent in this case. Civil Unions allow for the same rights to homosexuals, without the title "marriage". This difference doesn't exist in a tangible sense.Both cases offer a group of people a lower quality version of what the majority get.

[xshady121]

Both cases offer a group of people a lower quality version of what the majority get.

Not true. If you look at "musicroxmysox" post above yours, the only difference between Civil Unions and marriage is merely the word marriage. The difference between Civil Rights and Segregation was more than just the word "civil rights". It was suppression, separate seating areas, etc... Unless Musicroxmysox is wrong in her evaluation of civil unions.

[Adeniz19]

Not true. If you look at "musicroxmysox" post above yours, the only difference between Civil Unions and marriage is merely the word marriage. The difference between Civil Rights and Segregation was more than just the word "civil rights". It was suppression, separate seating areas, etc... Unless Musicroxmysox is wrong in her evaluation of civil unions.
If that's the only difference then what is the big deal? Why not just let them call it marriage?

[Jarbear]

Yeah it is very disappointing

[musicroxmysox]

Not true. If you look at "musicroxmysox" post above yours, the only difference between Civil Unions and marriage is merely the word marriage. The difference between Civil Rights and Segregation was more than just the word "civil rights". It was suppression, separate seating areas, etc... Unless Musicroxmysox is wrong in her evaluation of civil unions.


which is precisely my point, if they mean the same thing why not just allow them to use the word marriage? i don't understand people's argument when they say that they could care less if they have the same rights just as long as they don't call it marriage

[musicroxmysox]

If that's the only difference then what is the big deal? Why not just let them call it marriage?

haha exactly what i'm wondering

[xshady121]

If that's the only difference then what is the big deal? Why not just let them call it marriage?

If that is the only difference, then your analogy to civil rights movement is garbage and inapplicable.

[saysmydoctor]

Civil unions do not allow the same rights under federal law. FACT. Also, the term marriage and married is symbolically meaningful

[Adeniz19]

If that is the only difference, then your analogy to civil rights movement is garbage and inapplicable.YOU said it's the only difference. Not me. Banning marriage might not be segregation in the physical sense, but it is still segregation.

[xshady121]

which is precisely my point, if they mean the same thing why not just allow them to use the word marriage? i don't understand people's argument when they say that they could care less if they have the same rights just as long as they don't call it marriage

This needs to be handled at a federal level. Clinton signed into law the "defense against marriage" bill in 96.

[xshady121]

Civil unions do not allow the same rights under federal law. FACT. Also, the term marriage and married is symbolically meaningful

Marriages are man/woman under federal law. (1996 DOMA). Passing a proposition in your state would be fruitless.

[saysmydoctor]

Marriages are man/woman under federal law. (1996 DOMA). Passing a proposition in your state would be fruitless.
Sounds like federal law is flawed and needs to be adjust.

[musicroxmysox]

Civil unions do not allow the same rights under federal law. FACT. Also, the term marriage and married is symbolically meaningful

Exactly! The sad thing is some people that are gay want to be able to marry in a church and do everything the traditional way and even if they are christian, their faith completely turns their back on them...I can never understand how they can so easily contradict their teachings when they already promote equality and forgiveness

[xshady121]

which is precisely my point, if they mean the same thing why not just allow them to use the word marriage? i don't understand people's argument when they say that they could care less if they have the same rights just as long as they don't call it marriage

Section 3.7 of Federal DOMA

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.


This needs to be addressed at the Federal Level before the state level.

[xshady121]

Sounds like federal law is flawed and needs to be adjust.

And THAT needs to be fixed via constitutional amendment before one state can go and change their constitution. Last I checked, Federal Constitutions override state constitutions anyway.

[xshady121]

Exactly! The sad thing is some people that are gay want to be able to marry in a church and do everything the traditional way and even if they are christian, their faith completely turns their back on them...I can never understand how they can so easily contradict their teachings when they already promote equality and forgiveness

Take your argument up with the federal government. They say marriage is one man one woman, not just me.

[Jason Tate]

If that is the only difference, then your analogy to civil rights movement is garbage and inapplicable.
Separate but equal is against the law.

[musicroxmysox]

This needs to be handled at a federal level. Clinton signed into law the "defense against marriage" bill in 96.

I hope it will be as there are way too many people that are ready and willing to use the bible as an excuse to take away peoples rights...the problem with things like this is that there are way too many people who are afraid of change or anything they don't understand, so they resort to the age-old excuse of religion to say that they're right because god said so

[saysmydoctor]

Separate but equal is against the law.
People forget Plessy v Ferguson was overruled by Brown vs Board.

[musicroxmysox]

Section 3.7 of Federal DOMA

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.


This needs to be addressed at the Federal Level before the state level.

This all just adds to the complexity of this issue, it's so many things layered on top of one another; you have this and then you have the fact that the courts already overruled the ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional and now we have prop 8 and we'll probably end up with something to counter-act prop 8, this is turning into an endless cycle with each side pushing just as hard for the decision it wants

[Jason Tate]

Section 3.7 of Federal DOMA

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.


This needs to be addressed at the Federal Level before the state level.
Wrong, that directly impacts ONLY the federal level.

The definition of who may marry is uniquely a state law (http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=In+determining+the+meaning+of+an y+Act+of+Congress,+or+of+any+ruling ,&source=web&ots=WYnGNTl_pc&sig=USNVbGst3Fxz-e2gMfVxbNREaCw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result). The general rule for determining the validity of a marriage is lex celebrationis - that is, marriage is valid if it is valid according to the law of the place where it is celebrated.

[xshady121]

Wrong, that directly impacts ONLY the federal level.

The definition of who may marry is uniquely a state law (http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=In+determining+the+meaning+of+an y+Act+of+Congress,+or+of+any+ruling ,&source=web&ots=WYnGNTl_pc&sig=USNVbGst3Fxz-e2gMfVxbNREaCw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result). The general rule for determining the validity of a marriage is lex celebrationis - that is, marriage is valid if it is valid according to the law of the place where it is celebrated.

Yeah, but then Prop 8 doesn't grant full rights to homosexuals. Why not just push for a federal one? A federal amendment would blanket and grant state rights as well. If the state of California isn't going to challenge pre-existing marriages, than these people are no worse off. They should be fighting for a federal amendment rather than a state one. It would solve all this pointless debating.

[Jason Tate]

Apples and oranges. Last I checked, homosexuals were still allowed Civil Unions in California. That's a lot different then segregation.

Brown V Board of Education. Stop being such a fucking bigot.

[musicroxmysox]

Yeah, but then Prop 8 doesn't grant full rights to homosexuals. Why not just push for a federal one? A federal amendment would blanket and grant state rights as well. If the state of California isn't going to challenge pre-existing marriages, than these people are no worse off. They should be fighting for a federal amendment rather than a state one. It would solve all this pointless debating.

Hmm although I'm not sure whether or not I agree, this is actually a theory I have not heard all day today

[Jason Tate]

Not true. If you look at "musicroxmysox" post above yours, the only difference between Civil Unions and marriage is merely the word marriage. The difference between Civil Rights and Segregation was more than just the word "civil rights". It was suppression, separate seating areas, etc... Unless Musicroxmysox is wrong in her evaluation of civil unions.
Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm). These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

[musicroxmysox]

Wrong, that directly impacts ONLY the federal level.

The definition of who may marry is uniquely a state law (http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=In+determining+the+meaning+of+an y+Act+of+Congress,+or+of+any+ruling ,&source=web&ots=WYnGNTl_pc&sig=USNVbGst3Fxz-e2gMfVxbNREaCw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result). The general rule for determining the validity of a marriage is lex celebrationis - that is, marriage is valid if it is valid according to the law of the place where it is celebrated.

I have no idea how you manage to find the perfect link to prove your point every single time haha this is definitely a skill I need to pick up

[Jason Tate]

Yeah, but then Prop 8 doesn't grant full rights to homosexuals. Why not just push for a federal one? A federal amendment would blanket and grant state rights as well. If the state of California isn't going to challenge pre-existing marriages, than these people are no worse off. They should be fighting for a federal amendment rather than a state one. It would solve all this pointless debating.
Correct, it doesn't. Which is why it's baby steps. Not all of the states abolished slavery right away either. It takes time. So, stop arguing against their rights, first on a state level - and we'll all move closer to federal acceptance.

[xshady121]

Immigration:
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm). These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Neither of these 3 would have applied to California residents under a denial of Prop 8. So your linking to them is irrelevant.

[Jason Tate]

I have no idea how you manage to find the perfect link to prove your point every single time haha this is definitely a skill I need to pick up
Heh, I've had these arguments so many times that I have so many bookmarks. I look forward to being able to go through and delete so many McCain/Palin ones now. I'll have to see if any apply and should be moved to other folders.

[Jason Tate]

Neither of these 3 would have applied to California residents under a denial of Prop 8. So your linking to them is irrelevant.
Wrong, they apply in a variety of ways to those in California. For example: They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to.

Seriously, how can you honestly argue against another human being like this? Why do you care? I feel like I am talking to a fucking nazi.

[xshady121]

Brown V Board of Education. Stop being such a fucking bigot.

Any other state court would not have applied Brown v Board of Ed to Goodridge v. Dept of Health. Massachusetts went a little too far with there "loose" interpretation of brown v board ed.

[xshady121]

Wrong, they apply in a variety of ways to those in California. For example: They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to.

Seriously, how can you honestly argue against another human being like this? Why do you care? I feel like I am talking to a fucking nazi.

In your answer you explicitly said "federal government". DOMA forbids them from being recognized, thus they would not receive anything from the federal govt.

[saysmydoctor]

Any other state court would not have applied Brown v Board of Ed to Goodridge v. Dept of Health. Massachusetts went a little too far with there "loose" interpretation of brown v board ed.
It's not loose.

[Jason Tate]

Any other state court would not have applied Brown v Board of Ed to Goodridge v. Dept of Health. Massachusetts went a little too far with there "loose" interpretation of brown v board ed.
By no means is the interpretation loose - separate but equal is against the law. Period.

[Jason Tate]

In your answer you explicitly said "federal government". DOMA forbids them from being recognized, thus they would not receive anything from the federal govt.
And it also used words like "They also include" ... you're arguing over your inability to read and comprehend? Really?

[xshady121]

And it also used words like "They also include" ... you're arguing over your inability to read and comprehend? Really?

No. Parts of the third (taxes I believe) would apply. But certainly not all of it, and certainly not the majority of the 3 points you posted.

[xshady121]

By no means is the interpretation loose - separate but equal is against the law. Period.

Read the dissenting opinion sometime.

[musicroxmysox]

Heh, I've had these arguments so many times that I have so many bookmarks. I look forward to being able to go through and delete so many McCain/Palin ones now. I'll have to see if any apply and should be moved to other folders.

Haha I can only imagine how many things you have saved, I bookmarked so many good points people made and articles to look over in the course of 2 days and the list of bookmarks on my sidekick goes on forever now haha this is the first election I've paid remotely any attention to so I've been trying to soak in as much information as possible over the past couple of months

[saysmydoctor]

Read the dissenting opinion sometime.
Dissenting opinion is regardless, majority rules--separate but equal is not legal.

[Jason Tate]

Read the dissenting opinion sometime.
Read the opinion that actually becomes precedent. I could read the dissenting opinion on all kinds of cases -- wouldn't do me a whole lot of good when presenting a legal case.

[Jason Tate]

No. Parts of the third (taxes I believe) would apply. But certainly not all of it, and certainly not the majority of the 3 points you posted.
The vast majority applies. Not only that but it clearly shows the difference between the terminology on a legal level, state and federal, which was the original point. You said it was just a word. It's not. It means a lot from a legal and sociological perspective.

It's quite simple - if you, as a heterosexual, would not be willing to accept the lesser phrase - you can not assume to apply it to others. And it is reasonable to say that heterosexuals would not be willing to call themselves 'civil unions' and give the word 'marriage' to homosexuals - therefore, it is discrimination to do the opposite.

[xshady121]

Read the opinion that actually becomes precedent. I could read the dissenting opinion on all kinds of cases -- wouldn't do me a whole lot of good when presenting a legal case.

Jason, I guess your comprehension skills aren't too good either. I had said it wouldn't have had the same outcome in any other state. A 4-3 ruling is close enough to say that.

[open mind]

i don't understand why any christian would be against gay marriage......there's maybe 2 outright condemnations of homosexuality in the bible.......and there's probably a hundred or so passages telling you to love your neighbor no matter what, and to not be a judgemental prick.....and the sticklers of biblical law were roundly condemned as hypocrites that missed the point by jesus.....AND those same sticklers were the ones who called loudest for his crucifixion.

[Jason Tate]

Jason, I guess your comprehension skills aren't too good either. I had said it wouldn't have had the same outcome in any other state. A 4-3 ruling is close enough to say that.
That assumption is purely conjecture.

Does that mean that Bush v. Gore - which was also a 4-3 ruling - is close enough to use the dissenting opinion? Guess we've really had Gore has President the last 8 years. Sort of defeats the entire purpose of the ruling when you say, "eh, it was close enough ... it doesn't really mean it then."

It doesn't matter how "close" the ruling is -- I'll just start citing hundreds of 4-3 rulings. Go use the dissenting opinion in Brown v Board ... see how far that gets you.

[CarryOn09]

Jason, I guess your comprehension skills aren't too good
thats not very nice

[xshady121]

i don't understand why any christian would be against gay marriage......there's maybe 2 outright condemnations of homosexuality in the bible.......and there's probably a hundred or so passages telling you to love your neighbor no matter what, and to not be a judgemental prick.....and the sticklers of biblical law were roundly condemned as hypocrites that missed the point by jesus.

If your talking about christians, your going to get Leviticus 18.22 as an answer. Love thy neighbor generally only applies when they're following God's way.

[open mind]

If your talking about christians, your going to get Leviticus 18.22 as an answer. Love thy neighbor generally only applies when they're following God's way.

like i said there's maybe 2 outright condemnations of homosexuality in the bible.
love thy neighbor does not only apply to those following god's way....what reasoning do you have for believing that? what about loving your enemies?

[xshady121]

That assumption is purely conjecture.

Does that mean that Bush v. Gore - which was also a 4-3 ruling - is close enough to use the dissenting opinion?

It doesn't matter how "close" the ruling is -- I'll just start citing hundreds of 4-3 rulings.


You still fail to see my point. My point was any other state wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. It was highly controversial. And yes Gore v Bush was highly controversial as well. And it's obvious another composition of the Rehnquist court might have swung heavily one way or the other.

[xshady121]

like i said there's maybe 2 outright condemnations of homosexuality in the bible.
love thy neighbor does not only apply to those following god's way....what reasoning do you have for believing that? what about loving your enemies?

Genesis 18 is Noahs Ark I believe? Then in Exodus with the worshiping of the golden calf. Sinners get punished by God, as they go against his covenant.

The Old Testament is full of this mentality. The new testament not so much, but I know the whole sinners that go against gods will are not worthy mentality remains.


edit; nope, it was 8.

[Jason Tate]

If your talking about christians, your going to get Leviticus 18.22 as an answer. Love thy neighbor generally only applies when they're following God's way.
Yeah, fuck those that aren't following "God's way" -- who needs them. :rolleyes:

[Jason Tate]

You still fail to see my point. My point was any other state wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. It was highly controversial. And yes Gore v Bush was highly controversial as well. And it's obvious another composition of the Rehnquist court might have swung heavily one way or the other.
Your point is pure fucking conjecture. To sit here and just pull, "oh, this court would have seen it a different way," out of your ass is ridiculous. We could sit here and argue about things that could have happened, or may have happened, or didn't happen -- but that's a waste of my fucking time. Some of us live in reality. Of course most of us in reality don't feel the need to disenfranchise a group of people simply because they're different than us either.

The court decisions that weren't made don't mean a whole lot to me. Nor do the ones you make up in your twisted head.

[CarryOn09]

i still think that it isnt fair that one group of people can take away another groups rights just because they disagree with it.

[open mind]

Genesis 18 is Noahs Ark I believe? Then in Exodus with the worshiping of the golden calf. Sinners get punished by God, as they go against his covenant.

The Old Testament is full of this mentality. The new testament not so much, but I know the whole sinners that go against gods will are not worthy mentality remains.

haha....you're reaching horribly, and none of those passages tell people it's okay to judge others....and christians (at least they're supposed to) believe the old testament law has been fullfilled by jesus, and that the new testament law takes precedence.

[xshady121]

like i said there's maybe 2 outright condemnations of homosexuality in the bible.
love thy neighbor does not only apply to those following god's way....what reasoning do you have for believing that? what about loving your enemies?

Also, Proverbs 8:12-13 can be applied as well. The King James Version really helps my point out alot, but that one isn't respected by any bible scholar. It takes such liberties with translation it's ridiculous. However, the NIV version is the same intent.

[Jason Tate]

There are some people that should simply not argue theology. Ironically this seems to be most true for those that follow it.

[open mind]

Also, Proverbs 8:12-13 can be applied as well. The King James Version really helps my point out alot, but that one isn't respected by any bible scholar. It takes such liberties with translation it's ridiculous. However, the NIV version is the same intent.

that's 2 so far....which is the number of passages i said people can point to.
so you're a biblical scholar capable of discerning intent?

[toothfairy]

Argh, the passing of Prop 8 put me in the worst mood possible today.
I can't believe. 4%. Just 4 freaking percent.

[saysmydoctor]

Homosexuality is not once directly mentioned in the Bible.

[open mind]

There are some people that should simply not argue theology. Ironically this seems to be most true for those that follow it.

the reformation and the subsequent splinters it resulted in creating in america has resulted in alot of idiocy....agnostics and atheists will say that about christianity in general.....but i think it's definately a more pronounced phenomenon in the churches that originated in america.

[Jason Tate]

It's unfortunate any discussion of homosexuality has to spiral into a biblical discussion. How would people live their lives if it wasn't for an oft translated, extremely old, inconsistent, book? Not like any of those that do this follow the parts that apply to them anyway ... but they sure love trying to make others fit into the parts they think they should.

[xshady121]

haha....you're reaching horribly, and none of those passages tell people it's okay to judge others....and christians (at least they're supposed to) believe the old testament law has been fullfilled by jesus, and that the new testament law takes precedence.

The whole old testament is judgements and curses. The story of Noah's children seeing him naked and Noah cursing Ham (and his descendants). We learn Ham's decendents become the Canaanites, and this could be the Israelites trying to justify them being the chosen ones and not the Canaanites.

Ultimately, I want to say the answer to your question is that you're not supposed to love sinners, but at the time I can't think of any relevant passage. I want to look into this, so I'll get back to you tomorrow with a better answer.

[xshady121]

Homosexuality is not once directly mentioned in the Bible.

Not unless you're reading King James (implied)
It is however explicitly mentioned in NLT.

[xshady121]

that's 2 so far....which is the number of passages i said people can point to.
so you're a biblical scholar capable of discerning intent?

Nope, never said I was. Just passing a comment that you can't trust King James. It basically takes a story, and summarizes it in a flowery, judgmental, political sort of text.

For example, compare any copy of Leviticus 18 to King James' copy. You'll get a kick out of it.

[open mind]

It's unfortunate any discussion of homosexuality has to spiral into a biblical discussion. How would people live their lives if it wasn't for an oft translated, extremely old, inconsistent, book? Not like any of those that do this follow the parts that apply to them anyway ... but they sure love trying to make others fit into the parts they think they should.

it's unfortunate for sure....but the reality is that christians with backwards theology are going to have to be brought around to understanding that thier faith is supposed to be about love, tolerance, forgiveness, charity, and self betterment before we see progress......that and in this country faith isn't supposed to legislated because seperation of church and state is best for both the church and the state.

[Jason Tate]

Not unless you're reading King James.
http://i38.tinypic.com/29lk70y.png

[CarryOn09]

this is the problem that i have with organized religion. it creates these divides and people justify their actions and thoughts by throwing God into the mix. i really dont think that Jesus would have hated gays or banned anyone from getting married.

[open mind]

The whole old testament is judgements and curses. The story of Noah's children seeing him naked and Noah cursing Ham (and his descendants). We learn Ham's decendents become the Canaanites, and this could be the Israelites trying to justify them being the chosen ones and not the Canaanites.

Ultimately, I want to say the answer to your question is that you're not supposed to love sinners, but at the time I can't think of any relevant passage. I want to look into this, so I'll get back to you tomorrow with a better answer.

the christian faith by definition is a faith that believes the old testament has been fulfilled.
you're supposed to love everyone as there's never been a truly sinless human being (barring jesus)......the new testament is pretty explicit in making this point again and again.

[Jason Tate]

this is the problem that i have with organized religion. it creates these divides and people justify their actions and thoughts by throwing God into the mix. i really dont think that Jesus would have hated gays or banned anyone from getting married.
The same people used the Bible to defend slavery. It's not like this is a new tactic. :shrug:

[xshady121]

http://i38.tinypic.com/29lk70y.png

Leviticus 18.22 in the New Living Translation (KJV)

do not practice homosexuality, it is a sin.


Leviticus 18.22 in the American Bible Society (KJV)

It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man.




This is from the two I have lying around, give me a few to find a digital copy to link to

heres the first: http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/ssresults.asp?txtSearchString=levit icus+18&find.x=0&find.y=0

[open mind]

Nope, never said I was. Just passing a comment that you can't trust King James. It basically takes a story, and summarizes it in a flowery, judgmental, political sort of text.

For example, compare any copy of Leviticus 18 to King James' copy. You'll get a kick out of it.

i know about the various discrepencies in translations.....and how alot of them have resulted in a skewed interpretation of theology.....something as simple as the concept of creation (cosmos) is commonly mistranslated as the world.

[themadsilentist]

Ultimately, I want to say the answer to your question is that you're not supposed to love sinners, but at the time I can't think of any relevant passage. I want to look into this, so I'll get back to you tomorrow with a better answer.

Maybe because there really aren't any?

Romans 3:23 - For all [/URL] (http://absolutepunk.net/)have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 13:8/10 - Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves  (http://absolutepunk.net/)his neighbor has fulfilled the law...Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore [URL="http://absolutepunk.net/"] (http://absolutepunk.net/)love is the fulfillment of the law.

[Jason Tate]

Leviticus 18.22 in the New Living Translation (KJV)

do not practice homosexuality, it is a sin.


Leviticus 18.22 in the American Bible Society (KJV)

It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man.




This is from the two I have lying around, give me a few to find a digital copy to link to.
Not unless you're reading King James.

..

[xshady121]

Maybe because there really aren't any?

Romans 3:23 - For all [/URL] (http://absolutepunk.net/)have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 13:8/10 - Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves  (http://absolutepunk.net/)his neighbor has fulfilled the law...Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore [URL="http://absolutepunk.net/"] (http://absolutepunk.net/)love is the fulfillment of the law.

Or perhaps because I haven't memorized the whole bible. That's far more logical.

[xshady121]

My bad jason, you're right. it's late. KJV only goes as far as "thou not lie with mankind as with womankind. it's an abomination"

Still my original point remains... It's mentioned out there, and some christians believe it.

[open mind]

The same people used the Bible to defend slavery. It's not like this is a new tactic. :shrug:

yeah it's an age old tactic for those in power to say god backs thier agenda.

[themadsilentist]

I haven't memorized the entire bible either (I'm such a slacker), but the funny thing is a five second google search comes up with a whole lot about loving thy neighbor, and not much about really hating sinners at all.

[speakhandsforme]

Leviticus is bullshit and every biblical scholar knows how questionable it is. It was clearly postexilic and completely biased in correspondence.

[CarryOn09]

yeah it's an age old tactic for those in power to say god backs thier agenda.

its still fucked up. religion wasnt created to justify shit like this. its a shame for those of us who believe in God AND who believe in equality for all. i think my cousin has the right to marry the guy hes been with for 13+ years, but because of this 'justification' he cant now. its bullshit.

[xshady121]

Leviticus is bullshit and every biblical scholar knows how questionable it is. It was clearly postexilic and completely biased in correspondence.

It is clearly postexilic, no argument, but as to your "knows how questionable it is", i'm not quite understanding your point.

[open mind]

if christians were completely bound to the old testament we couldn't eat pork or shellfish without it being considered a sin......a christian basing a belief on old testament passages while ignoring the plethora of new testament passages that go against it is just someone who has thier theology completely backwards.

[jtsnazzy]

Most of the people who are against gay marriage based on christianity don't even know the real reasons why the faith is against it.

The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one’s life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger—or, in Scripture’s understanding, re-merger—of essential maleness and femaleness. The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”) to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and woman.
This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements.



This is the most basic reason. Multiple times Paul talks on the topic of sexually sinful acts such as beastiality, incest, and homosexuality. Jesus himself also talks on the topic however neither use the phrases "gay" or "homosexuality" which fuels the counter-argument. I just thought I would provide some information so you can continue your debate.

Edit:Of course the story of Sodom as well(doh!).


If you would like to read more http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm

[xshady121]

if christians were completely bound to the old testament we couldn't eat pork or shellfish without it being considered a sin......a christian basing a belief on old testament passages while ignoring the plethora of new testament passages that go against it is just someone who has thier theology completely backwards.

That doesn't negate the entire old testament. Like I said, I'm going to look into that point on does "love thy neighbor" apply to sinners when I get a chance to read tomorrow. You're question is intriguing.

However, why limit the conversation to Christians? I don't think they're the only ones opposed to gay marriage.

[Jason Tate]

That doesn't negate the entire old testament. Like I said, I'm going to look into that point on does "love thy neighbor" apply to sinners when I get a chance to read tomorrow. You're question is intriguing.

However, why limit the conversation to Christians? I don't think they're the only ones opposed to gay marriage.
They sure seem to be the most vocal.

[open mind]

its still fucked up. religion wasnt created to justify shit like this. its a shame for those of us who believe in God AND who believe in equality for all. i think my cousin has the right to marry the guy hes been with for 13+ years, but because of this 'justification' he cant now. its bullshit.

there's no denying that the concept of god being abused for personal gain and/or to divide people against eachother is wrong. it flies directly in the face of the entire mission of christianity.
it's always justified on the flimsiest and most nonsensical theological basises to boot.

[open mind]

That doesn't negate the entire old testament. Like I said, I'm going to look into that point on does "love thy neighbor" apply to sinners when I get a chance to read tomorrow. You're question is intriguing.

However, why limit the conversation to Christians? I don't think they're the only ones opposed to gay marriage.
no the entire old testament isn't thrown out....but pretty much all the condemnation and fine print type stuff is no longer applied.......in a nutshell the old testament is what it is because it was supposed to create a certain set of circumstances in order for a goal to be met....the goal has been met so much of the old testament no longer applies and has been replaced with the new.

you aren't going to find any passages saying it's ok to hate your neighbor and judge them anywhere in the new testament.

i'm limiting this conversation to christians because it's the only faith i have a decent grasp on (being christian myself)......and i believe the most vocal and staunchly anti-gay marriage lobby is mostly made up of misinformed and misguided christians.

[maledixtion]

Isn't there a way the entire country could try to overturn this by petitioning the Supreme Court? They are equal citizens under the law and pay the same taxes, so why don't they get the same rights? Government failure to recognize marriage between any American citizens is a violation of the 14th Amendment, supported by the 9th Amendment. Any government official who has to swear and Oath to uphold the Constitution to take their office (Presidents, senators, and congressmen), are violating their oath by not supporting this right, and their offices should be challenged.

[saofan_315]

Leviticus 18:19 "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period" (NIV)

Leviticus 19:19:
"Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (NIV)







Do we still want to take the Bible 100% literally?

[CarryOn09]

there's no denying that the concept of god being abused for personal gain and/or to divide people against eachother is wrong. it flies directly in the face of the entire mission of christianity.
it's always justified on the flimsiest and most nonsensical theological basises to boot.
its saddening to see this happening

[jtsnazzy]

Leviticus 18:19 "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period" (NIV)

Leviticus 19:19:
"Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (NIV)







Do we still want to take the Bible 100% literally?

Most of the rules became irrelevant with the promise of salvation through jesus because you no longer needed to adhere to the standards of "cleanliness".

[open mind]

Most of the people who are against gay marriage based on christianity don't even know the real reasons why the faith is against it.

The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one’s life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger—or, in Scripture’s understanding, re-merger—of essential maleness and femaleness. The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”) to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and woman.
This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements.



This is the most basic reason. Multiple times Paul talks on the topic of sexually sinful acts such as beastiality, incest, and homosexuality. Jesus himself also talks on the topic however neither use the phrases "gay" or "homosexuality" which fuels the counter-argument. I just thought I would provide some information so you can continue your debate.

Edit:Of course the story of Sodom as well(doh!).


If you would like to read more http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm

the problem with this argument comes in with the science of human development.....a penis is essentially a developed clitoris....and a vagina is an undeveloped penis....which to me makes it possible to become whole with a person of the same sex......so on a biological level this argument doesn't wash for me......i'm sure many will beg to differ with that on a bunch of levels and say i'm splitting hairs though.

[rcrook]

gays rioting in LA!

[jtsnazzy]

the problem with this argument comes in with the science of human development.....a penis is essentially a developed clitoris....and a vagina is an undeveloped penis....so on a biological level this argument doesn't wash for me......i'm sure many will beg to differ with that on a bunch of levels and say i'm splitting hairs.

That's exactly the point, that the two opposites create one flesh.

[open mind]

That's exactly the point, that the two opposites create one flesh.

but i'd argue that the reality is they aren't really opposites.

[jtsnazzy]

I will bow out of this argument, as I am apathetic towards topic.

[vaguestcargo]

the problem with this argument comes in with the science of human development.....a penis is essentially a developed clitoris....and a vagina is an undeveloped penis....which to me makes it possible to become whole with a person of the same sex......so on a biological level this argument doesn't wash for me......i'm sure many will beg to differ with that on a bunch of levels and say i'm splitting hairs though.

As a Christian I was always torn on all this stuff until I took a Psych of Human Sexuality class and we studied people born transgendered or with deformed genitalia, giving them sexual/gender identification issues. It was at that point I had to realize that not every situations is as cut-and-dry and "normal" as I wanted to believe... and refused to assume a Creator God would make a being who was destined to never be allowed to love or express love in the ways they want because they do not fit a stereotype.

[neo506]

Most of the rules became irrelevant with the promise of salvation through jesus because you no longer needed to adhere to the standards of "cleanliness".But Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. In fact it comes up 4 times in the New Testament and that's stretching it: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7. The only one that even references gay sex is Romans, the same Roman that says 3 passages later that disobedient children are just as bad, actually worse, since disobedient kids are actually listed as "depraved" whereas when Paul was talking about the "gay people" part he didn't call those folks depraved, he just said they "didn't know God."

[vaguestcargo]

This here (http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.pdf) is an awesome resource for the response to alleged biblical basis for the condemnation of Christianity.

To paraphrase the whole paper, the idea that whatever english translation you read and see "god hates gays" is a very trusting one, as the real truth behind the verses comes from the original greek/hebrew/aramaic. The author takes the verses apart and studies the words individually and finds that there is a good possibility the translators didn't put the effort into the accuracy of their translations that they should have.

I would recommend it for all .

[saofan_315]

Most of the rules became irrelevant with the promise of salvation through jesus because you no longer needed to adhere to the standards of "cleanliness".


exactly my point. show me where Jesus ever says anything about homosexuality. can't find it? that's because he never did. all of the old testament stuff that talks about homosexuality is now irrelevant.

[Domenic182]

so upset about this

[Domenic182]

I have not heard one genuinely good reason to ban gay marriage.
All I've heard is easily broken, ignorant arguments.

[salad fingers]

It reformed the constitution too. They added onto it. You aren't supposed to do that. You are supposed to reform the consitution to better suit society's tolerance towards different mentalities/groups etc.

[hero_dujour]

You said:

I think people should be required to give a logical reason as to why they choose option a over option b before being allowed to vote on anything. That way no stupid, ignorant, rasict, discrimanting idiots would be allowed to vote.




That's voter suppression. That was ended with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (And I guess you could apply the 24th Amendment here as well). I'm not going to give you a history lesson, but the south would pass ridiculous laws saying "you have to be able to read this or you can't vote" or other stupid tests to suppress the black vote, even after they were technically allowed to vote via the 15th amendment. Now, you are saying "lets not allow this person to vote because they are racist, or ignorant, or dumb". Guess what? That's protected under the constitution. The first amendment gives them the right to be as racist as they want, and as ignorant as they want, but there vote still counts every much as yours.

Yes, I am aware of what voter supression is. This country is supposed to stand for freedom and equality for all, I merely wish people would live up to that standard.

[Praetor]

Isn't there a way the entire country could try to overturn this by petitioning the Supreme Court? They are equal citizens under the law and pay the same taxes, so why don't they get the same rights? Government failure to recognize marriage between any American citizens is a violation of the 14th Amendment, supported by the 9th Amendment. Any government official who has to swear and Oath to uphold the Constitution to take their office (Presidents, senators, and congressmen), are violating their oath by not supporting this right, and their offices should be challenged.
The ACLU is filing suit.

[Kbm600]

Disgusting that it passed, what are people's issues with it that actually have a backbone to their argument?

Going out on a limb and betting 90% of the men who voted yes on this, don't mind watching women kiss though.

[jeremyfromva]

But Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. In fact it comes up 4 times in the New Testament and that's stretching it: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7. The only one that even references gay sex is Romans, the same Roman that says 3 passages later that disobedient children are just as bad, actually worse, since disobedient kids are actually listed as "depraved" whereas when Paul was talking about the "gay people" part he didn't call those folks depraved, he just said they "didn't know God."


Exactly, and this is the precise argument my dad tried to use when I came out to them. He said that in Romans, God condemns homosexuality. I told him that God didn't speak to the church in Rome, Paul did. He shut right up. The point is, as Jason was saying, that the new testament does in fact take precedent to the old testament because of Jesus dying on the cross. If you do theoglogical research and study some of these verses, such as the verse in Leviticus; you will find that in the original translations that it is referring to heterosexual men that are practicing homosexual acts. It is not referring to those who are in fact homosexual. I really HATE that Christians use the Bible to defend their bigotry and hate, when in fact they aren't even living up to their end of the bargain.

For a very interesting read and interpretations of verses that talk about this issue in the Bible, go here:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/winkhombib.htm


Also:

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

[jeremyfromva]

I really hope that these lawsuits can make a difference. This is clearly a violation of separation of church and state. The fact that so many religious organizations funded this proposition in the first place.

[FayeQC]

It passed? I don't get it, wouldn't its effect be retroactive and I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional.

[musicroxmysox]

gays rioting in LA!
Wow are there really riots going on?

[themadsilentist]

It passed? I don't get it, wouldn't its effect be retroactive and I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional.

Actually, no. The Attorney General has said that California will continue to honor the marriages performed between May (or June? whenever) and November.

[QuikTrig]

sure its sad that prop 8 passed.

but im equally disaappointed that prop k (san francisco) did not.
actually, maybe its a good thing...it would have made me broke in mere hours.

[jeremyfromva]

Instead of trying to change minds of the bigot fucks known as super right wing religious nuts, what we should be doing now is trying to amend the constitution so that civil unions are granted EVERY right which are granted to married couples. After all, the Yes on 8 Campaign was built on the very lie that Same Sex Couples would still have the same rights, they just couldn't call it marriage.

[Mercy Medical]

Instead of trying to change minds of the bigot fucks known as super right wing religious nuts, what we should be doing now is trying to amend the constitution so that civil unions are granted EVERY right which are granted to married couples. After all, the Yes on 8 Campaign was built on the very lie that Same Sex Couples would still have the same rights, they just couldn't call it marriage.
While civil unions are a step in the right direction, same-sex couples should still be allowed to get married.

Marriage is not recognized as a religious institution in the eyes of the state. It has no religious benefits when it comes to law.

[jeremyfromva]

While civil unions are a step in the right direction, same-sex couples should still be allowed to get married.

Marriage is not recognized as a religious institution in the eyes of the state. It has no religious benefits when it comes to law.

Would things be different if the proposition also included the words..."I admit I am a bigot in support of...."

[sjb2k1]

Actually, no. The Attorney General has said that California will continue to honor the marriages performed between May (or June? whenever) and November.it is an odd feeling being in this limbo, part of this select group who made it "in before the lock" (to borrow from AP terms lol...i'm in a lot better mood today).

and it's kinda weird being directly part of American history.

[vaguestcargo]

Would things be different if the proposition also included the words..."I admit I am a bigot in support of...."

doubt it. I think everyone on both sides already understands the truth in that vote ;)

[TheWatermelon]

It's mostly the central valley. Large farming communities that migrated over from Oklahoma during the dust bowl. Ya know 'Grapes of wrath' kinda shit. My county Kern County is very right wing.
Really? ..... Woa...But hey my town too....although it's in L.A county but it's a upper middle class suburb..so More right wing for sure....I see like huge Yes On 8 protester at the street corner...but surprisingly...No On 8 crowd is smaller.

[TheWatermelon]

I guess Majority had spoken...sadly.

[caitlinlee]

Isn't there a way the entire country could try to overturn this by petitioning the Supreme Court? They are equal citizens under the law and pay the same taxes, so why don't they get the same rights? Government failure to recognize marriage between any American citizens is a violation of the 14th Amendment, supported by the 9th Amendment. Any government official who has to swear and Oath to uphold the Constitution to take their office (Presidents, senators, and congressmen), are violating their oath by not supporting this right, and their offices should be challenged.



The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and NCLR filed a writ petition with the state Supreme Court Wednesday, urging the high court to invalidate Prop 8 if it passes.


Also on Wednesday, attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, were to hold a news conference at noon announcing they would file a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court and would contain "a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop 8 is unconstitutional."


Tyler and Olson were part of the consolidated marriage case in which the state Supreme Court ruled in its 4-3 decision on May 15 that same-sex couples have the right to marry in California. The couple became the first to marry in Los Angeles County in June. Tyler did not respond to a request for comment.


And in another development Wednesday, City Attorney Dennis Herrera joined Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne C. Ravel in filing a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8. ...

There's a petition going around to re-open the Prop, here (http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/petition.html).

[musicroxmysox]

Exactly, and this is the precise argument my dad tried to use when I came out to them. He said that in Romans, God condemns homosexuality. I told him that God didn't speak to the church in Rome, Paul did. He shut right up. The point is, as Jason was saying, that the new testament does in fact take precedent to the old testament because of Jesus dying on the cross. If you do theoglogical research and study some of these verses, such as the verse in Leviticus; you will find that in the original translations that it is referring to heterosexual men that are practicing homosexual acts. It is not referring to those who are in fact homosexual. I really HATE that Christians use the Bible to defend their bigotry and hate, when in fact they aren't even living up to their end of the bargain.

For a very interesting read and interpretations of verses that talk about this issue in the Bible, go here:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/winkhombib.htm


Also:

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

Thanks for the link to that, it was definitely an interesting read with a lot to say on both sides

[CarryOn09]

...

There's a petition going around to re-open the Prop, here (http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/petition.html).
thanks so much for posting this. im calling everybody i know to sign it.

[CarryOn09]

Wow are there really riots going on?
yeah in hollywood.

[caitlinlee]

thanks so much for posting this. im calling everybody i know to sign it.

You're welcome, but you have to be 18 and over.

[musicroxmysox]

thanks so much for posting this. im calling everybody i know to sign it.

Same here, I wish I could sign this but I'm not 18

[FayeQC]

Actually, no. The Attorney General has said that California will continue to honor the marriages performed between May (or June? whenever) and November.

Ah okay, I was thinking they might try to render those marriages void or something which would be horrible.

[CarryOn09]

word on the street (via text messages) is that there are protests still going on and prop 8 could be overturned. stay tuned. im getting as much info as i can

[TK]

How can this be overturned? I'm sorry, I'm not too knowledgeable on these things...

[CarryOn09]

i have no idea. but i still think its awesome. heres an article . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

[jeremyfromva]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7713334.stm

Rodney King much?

[Jason Tate]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7713334.stm

Rodney King much?
The kids pushed into the wall here are friends of mine that I work with (http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3332271/mark-rich-detained-police-prop/?cp=13#comtop).

[jeremyfromva]

The kids pushed into the wall here are friends of mine that I work with (http://www.buzznet.com/web/community/journals/entry/3332271/mark-rich-detained-police-prop/?cp=13#comtop).

Wow...I was just coming here to post the same exact thing but on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb6POxsxUrU

FUCKED UP!!!

[themadsilentist]

So scary.
So fucked up.

:-(

[jeremyfromva]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbXMZEO6lv8&NR=1

[jeremyfromva]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb2owRmLMko

Gavin Newsom is amazing.

[sjb2k1]

today is a new day. thank you all for the support. sign the petition if you can. i don't know how much good it will do, but it will at least show how much support there is for same-sex marriage.

[Mercy Medical]

I find it mildly amusing that there is so much focus on protesting going on in Cali since same-sex marriage has been banned, but the same was done in Arizona and Florida and there doesn't seem to be a lot of focus there.

Granted, it was legal in Cali up until this point and Cali is definitely a more liberal state then the other two, but still..

[jeremyfromva]

I find it mildly amusing that there is so much focus on protesting going on in Cali since same-sex marriage has been banned, but the same was done in Arizona and Florida and there doesn't seem to be a lot of focus there.

Granted, it was legal in Cali up until this point and Cali is definitely a more liberal state then the other two, but still..

Gavin Newsom is amazing, and has refused to stop issuing marriage licenses until he gets sued. He is the mayor of SF and is very behind gay marriage.

[sjb2k1]

I find it mildly amusing that there is so much focus on protesting going on in Cali since same-sex marriage has been banned, but the same was done in Arizona and Florida and there doesn't seem to be a lot of focus there.

Granted, it was legal in Cali up until this point and Cali is definitely a more liberal state then the other two, but still..exactly.
1) because this is the first time gay marriage has been banned in a state where it was previously legal
2) california is supposed to be a bastion of progressive thinking. not so much arizona and florida. shit in florida gay people can't adopt kids or even be foster parents. so the marriage ban was not much of a surprise.

[vaguestcargo]

I find it mildly amusing that there is so much focus on protesting going on in Cali since same-sex marriage has been banned, but the same was done in Arizona and Florida and there doesn't seem to be a lot of focus there.

Granted, it was legal in Cali up until this point and Cali is definitely a more liberal state then the other two, but still..

and to the best of my understanding AZ's Prop 102 was just a redundancy that restated what was already in law. If it was voted down it wouldn't have changed the az constitution (which already defined marriages as man and woman). On top of that, while the gay community in az (phoenix, especially) is pretty substantial, they aren't nearly as active in their politics as they should be. That's probably why you haven't seen much from down there.

[c_rob2700]

Those riots were crazy

[CountMeOut923]

http://i35.tinypic.com/121qqdl.jpg

[xshady121]

http://i35.tinypic.com/121qqdl.jpg[/URL]

[url]http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/pol/907693781.html (http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANSWERLA)

[domotime2]

thats a crazy stat...70% of blacks voted to ban gay marriage in Caifornia, 43% of whites, and i think 54% of latinos...etc....

interesting.

[domotime2]

sorry if im behind on this stat, i just came across it.

[open mind]

the gay/homosexual/i don't really know what gay people prefer to be called these days lobby has done a very poor job of reaching out to minorities and displaying the parallels between the civil rights movement and gay rights.

i believe minority groups will concede the point that equality can't depend on the idea of seperate but equal (since that was the justification for not allowing inter-racial marriage) long before the majority of misguided white christians do.

[johnnyreno]

As a Catholic, I don’t necessarily object to gay marriage, but I positively cannot condone gay divorce. And under no circumstances should gay married couples ever be permitted to use contraceptives.

[johnnyreno]

Gay Marriage Quotes
"Congratulations gay people -- you are about to discover the joys of alimony." --Craig Ferguson, on a California judge's ruling legalizing gay marriage
"The Bush administration renewed its call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So I guess they feel the only time that guys should be on top of each other naked is in an Iraqi prison." —Jay Leno
"President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in San Francisco. He said on important issues like this the people should make the decision, not judges. Unless of course we're choosing a president, then he prefers judges." —Jay Leno
"Some see the move as an attempt to preserve traditional values, while others see it as a cynical ploy to ensure that Vice President Dick Cheney will never have to pay for his gay daughter's wedding." —Jon Stewart, on President Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
"Legalized same-sex marriage has prompted a new slogan, 'We're here, we're queer and we're registered at Williams-Sonoma.'" —Craig Kilborn
"Governor Schwarzenegger has come out against gay marriage and then he went back to slathering body oil all over his muscles in front of other guys." —Craig Kilborn
"President Bush said today he's troubled by all the gay marriages... He said the only time two men should ever be in bed together is if one is a lobbyist and one is a politician." —Jay Leno
"If the last two days are any indication, the race for the White House will be pretty much decided by whether two middle-aged women can open a joint checking account." —Jon Stewart
"Although he supports a constitutional ban of gay marriage, President Bush says he supports a civil union. It has all the legal rights of a married couple but it's more like an arrangement than a real marriage. Hey, it worked for the Clintons." —Jay Leno
"President Bush says he's troubled by all the gay weddings that have been going on in San Francisco. Bush also says he's troubled by Bert and Ernie's relationship on 'Sesame Street.'" —Conan O'Brien
"Conservative groups are demanding that President Bush support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. They feel that when the founding fathers were putting the Constitution together they made a mistake by not outlawing it. Have you ever seen the paintings of the founding fathers? The powdered wigs, the frilly collars, the pedal pushers — I think they were for it." —Jay Leno
"Earlier today, President Bush said gay marriage is immoral and that heterosexual marriage must be defended, that's what he said. ... You can tell Bush is serious because he said the new Axis of Evil is Cher, Bette Middler and Clay Aiken." —Conan O'Brien
"Our governor here has weighed in on the San Francisco situation. He said he wants them to stop the gay marriages going on up there, but he said that he still supports same sex groping. ... Governor Schwarzenegger says this is not the proper venue to express gay sexuality, but try the locker room at Gold's Gym." —Bill Maher
"President Bush is out of control. Now he says he doesn't even want gays to plan weddings." —Craig Kilborn
"The Massachusetts court decision to allow gay marriages this week may prove to be a divisive issue in the upcoming presidential election. President Bush is likely torn because he has to protect what he sees as a sacred institution and yet he knows gay marriage would boost the economy because you know those gay guys would go all out. We're talking about designer wedding cakes, $20,000 sleeveless tuxedos, giant naked man ice sculptures that pee mojitos. They'd hire Pattie La Belle as the band, give out African parrots as party favors. It'd be ridiculous. Remember, whatever your political beliefs, a vote to allow gay marriage is a vote for a fabulous economy." —Tina Fey

[johnnyreno]

http://www.ezsoftech.com/stories/images/wise_men.gifOne day some wise men, who were going about the country trying to find answers to some of the great questions of their time, came to Mulla Nasruddin's district and asked to see the wisest man in the place. Mulla Nasruddin was brought forward, and a big crowd gathered to listen.
The first wise man began by asking, "Where is the exact center of the world?"
"It is under my right heel," answered Mulla Nasruddin.
"How can you prove that?" asked the first wise man.
"If you don't believe me," answered Mulla Nasruddin, "measure and see."
The first wise man had nothing to answer to that, so the second wise man asked his question. "How many stars are there in the sky?" he said. "As many as there are hairs on my donkey," answered Mulla Nasruddin.
"What proof have you got of that?" asked the second wise man.
"If you don't believe me," answered Mulla Nasruddin, "count the hairs on my donkey and you will see."
"That's foolish talk," said the other. "How can one count the hairs on a donkey?"
"Well," answered Mulla Nasruddin, "How can one count the stars in the sky? If one is foolish talk, so is the other." The second wise man was silent.
The third wise man was becoming annoyed with Mulla Nasruddin and his answers, so he said, "You seem to know a lot about your donkey, so can you tell me how many hairs there are in its tail?"
"Yes," answered Mulla Nasruddin. "There are exactly as many hairs in its tail as there are in your beard."
"How can you prove that?" said the other.
"I can prove it very easily," answered Mulla Nasruddin. "You can pull one hair out of my donkey's tail for every one I pull out of your beard. If the hairs on my donkey's tail do not come to an end at exactly the same time as the hairs in your beard, I will admit that I was wrong."
Of course, the third wise man was not willing to do this, so the crowd declared Mulla Nasruddin the winner of the day's arguments.

[theguilt engine]

must not be a lot of homosexual illegal immigrants. a little surprising due to the fact that they will take whatever they can get.

wait, was that racist?

[Skadrist]

thats a crazy stat...70% of blacks voted to ban gay marriage in Caifornia, 43% of whites, and i think 54% of latinos...etc....

interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110703786.html


49% of whites and Asians supported the measure

I certainly expected a lot more Hispanics to be against the bill and I expected it to top around 60%

[CountMeOut923]

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/pol/907693781.html

wow, that's absolutely awful.

[vaguestcargo]

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/pol/907693781.html

craigslist IS sorta the underbelly of society. something about anonymity that gets peoples' hardons a-ragin'.

[caitlinlee]

"Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4939340.story)"

[sjb2k1]

"Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4939340.story)"i'd like him more if he hadn't vetoed the gay marriage bill when it came across his desk originally. legislature freaking decides to legalize it and he says no.

[Machu505]

"Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4939340.story)"

Cool. I thought Ahnold was against same-sex marriage? Or have his feelings changed?

[themadsilentist]

Cool. I thought Ahnold was against same-sex marriage? Or have his feelings changed?

Apparently he's become one of those flip-flopping girly men. :-d

[Machu505]

Apparently he's become one of those flip-flopping girly men. :-d

Guhly men.