Right now the measure is ahead and it will probably pass. Opponents of Proposition 8 have not conceded defeat. Many people poured onto the streets of Sacramento yesterday evening and elsewhere to protest the passage of the law that overturns the Supreme Court decision that had allowed same-sex couples to wed.
Now opponents have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to invalidate the proposed constitutional amendment. They charge that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the state constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone.
While opponents point to several million ballots that are uncounted statewide, the likelihood is that this measure will pass given its 400,000-vote advantage and the broad coalition that ended up supporting it.
Obama won California by over 24 percent, thus large groups of Obama supporters also backed Proposition 8.
For instance 59 percent of California Catholics supported Obama and 64% supported Proposition 8.
According to Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll, their exit polling showed that religion trumped party affiliation on these type of social issues. 84% of those who attend church weekly voted yes and 83% of those who never attend religious observances voted no.
Why did this measure pass when it was well behind a few months ago.
I think in part, that the No on 8 campaign was too slow to counter very deadly campaign ads from the yes side. One of the biggest was the one of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. A few weeks ago I suggested that Newsom would cost this election as he cost John Kerry the election in 2004. I stand by that comment. Key states in 2004 utilized the gay marriage issue to get out conservative voters. That proved decisive in Ohio where the margin was narrow and the victory decisive for Bush. It was Newsom in part who put the issue to the forefront and helped galvanize conservative voters across the country. And yes Massachusetts Supreme Court played a role, but then as is true now, Newsom was the face that they used.
Phil Bronstein, a San Francisco Chronicle Columnist agrees.
“Gavin Newsom screwed it up. Voters are the ones who make the decision but no one person handed the Yes on 8 campaign a more persuasive and compelling sound bite than our own mayor. Even if there were other flaws in the anti-8 operation, he was unquestionably the poster child for the pro-8 push, whether you like it or not. And unlike Willie Brown, whose 70s high afro and muttonchop sideburn photo got used as a thinly disguised racial scare tactic in the 80s by some Republican candidates for the State legislature (nothing he could do about it), Mr. Newsom willingly and imperiously handed over the ammunition in yesterday’s election.”
But it was not Newsom alone. In the last month when the No on 8 side closed the gap again, it was due to a slew of very effective ads including one from Dianne Feinstein and one from Samuel L. Jackson.
The problem was they were too slow to react to very damaging but misleading campaign ads charging that students would be forced to learn about gay marriage.
There is an irrational fear on the part of many regarding this issue.
I was listening to the people interviewed in Roseville and the one thing that was said that settled it for me was the guy with the Yes sign saying that he was afraid his kids would learn about same sex marriage in school and would think it was alright for them to marry someone of their own sex. You know there is a word for that view point and it is “homophobia.” They are afraid that their kids are going to be gay.
The truth is it is difficult for kids today not to find out about sexual orientations other than straight relationships. It is impossible to keep kids from learning about homosexuality. Learning about such things does not make someone gay. That fear is very real but it is very irrational.
However, despite the brutality of this fight, I still believe time is on the side of those who support gay rights and the right to marry. I am 35 years old. I believe that for most people my generation, the issue of same sex marriage is not a big deal. We know gay people, we have gay friends, gay family remembers, gay colleagues, acquaintances, etc. We are not threatened by their existence. In twenty years, the majority of the population will have grown up with gay people in the open. And while the very religious may still object, the majority of the population will not.
It is inevitable. Just as we once viewed the issue of civil rights as a paramount issue and some felt threatened by granting blacks the right to vote or sit at their table or in the front of their bus, people now are threatened by the prospect of same sex couples having marriage rights. But just as we now look back at the previous prejudices as antiquated and wrong, we will one day do the same for same sex marriage fears and hatred.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I expect VERY soon to see a challenge to Prop 8 in very simple terms. It takes a mere majority to make a small change to the state constitution (an amendment). It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision, and therefore the prop is invalid.
(So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…)
I expect VERY soon to see a challenge to Prop 8 in very simple terms. It takes a mere majority to make a small change to the state constitution (an amendment). It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision, and therefore the prop is invalid.
(So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…)
I expect VERY soon to see a challenge to Prop 8 in very simple terms. It takes a mere majority to make a small change to the state constitution (an amendment). It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision, and therefore the prop is invalid.
(So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…)
I expect VERY soon to see a challenge to Prop 8 in very simple terms. It takes a mere majority to make a small change to the state constitution (an amendment). It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision, and therefore the prop is invalid.
(So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…)
Here is some exit polling data from the Sacramento Bee site:
click here.
Something interesting is that voters 29 and under opposed prop. 8, 61% to 39%, whereas voters 65 and older supported prop. 8, 61% to 39%.
Also, to add some context, prop. 22 (the “Knight Initiative”) passed, 61% to 39%. Although prop. 8 mostly likely passes 52% to 48%, it is notable the shift in voter acceptance of same-sex marriage.
A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age. Maybe another 5 to 8 years?
Now that the traditional Republican “Southern strategy” appears to be running out of steam, maybe Karl Rove will help to refine some sort of “heartland strategy”, in which Republicans will adopt certain traditional values as a proxy for opposing homosexuality, and Democratic electoral support will go bi-coastal. He more or less did so in 2004, with all the same-sex marriage ammendments on various state ballots, including Ohio.
We’ll go back to voting to determine if we’re concerned about whether our kids will be exposed to the concept of homosexuality over whether we’re concerned about currernt economic or foreign policies.
Here is some exit polling data from the Sacramento Bee site:
click here.
Something interesting is that voters 29 and under opposed prop. 8, 61% to 39%, whereas voters 65 and older supported prop. 8, 61% to 39%.
Also, to add some context, prop. 22 (the “Knight Initiative”) passed, 61% to 39%. Although prop. 8 mostly likely passes 52% to 48%, it is notable the shift in voter acceptance of same-sex marriage.
A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age. Maybe another 5 to 8 years?
Now that the traditional Republican “Southern strategy” appears to be running out of steam, maybe Karl Rove will help to refine some sort of “heartland strategy”, in which Republicans will adopt certain traditional values as a proxy for opposing homosexuality, and Democratic electoral support will go bi-coastal. He more or less did so in 2004, with all the same-sex marriage ammendments on various state ballots, including Ohio.
We’ll go back to voting to determine if we’re concerned about whether our kids will be exposed to the concept of homosexuality over whether we’re concerned about currernt economic or foreign policies.
Here is some exit polling data from the Sacramento Bee site:
click here.
Something interesting is that voters 29 and under opposed prop. 8, 61% to 39%, whereas voters 65 and older supported prop. 8, 61% to 39%.
Also, to add some context, prop. 22 (the “Knight Initiative”) passed, 61% to 39%. Although prop. 8 mostly likely passes 52% to 48%, it is notable the shift in voter acceptance of same-sex marriage.
A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age. Maybe another 5 to 8 years?
Now that the traditional Republican “Southern strategy” appears to be running out of steam, maybe Karl Rove will help to refine some sort of “heartland strategy”, in which Republicans will adopt certain traditional values as a proxy for opposing homosexuality, and Democratic electoral support will go bi-coastal. He more or less did so in 2004, with all the same-sex marriage ammendments on various state ballots, including Ohio.
We’ll go back to voting to determine if we’re concerned about whether our kids will be exposed to the concept of homosexuality over whether we’re concerned about currernt economic or foreign policies.
Here is some exit polling data from the Sacramento Bee site:
click here.
Something interesting is that voters 29 and under opposed prop. 8, 61% to 39%, whereas voters 65 and older supported prop. 8, 61% to 39%.
Also, to add some context, prop. 22 (the “Knight Initiative”) passed, 61% to 39%. Although prop. 8 mostly likely passes 52% to 48%, it is notable the shift in voter acceptance of same-sex marriage.
A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age. Maybe another 5 to 8 years?
Now that the traditional Republican “Southern strategy” appears to be running out of steam, maybe Karl Rove will help to refine some sort of “heartland strategy”, in which Republicans will adopt certain traditional values as a proxy for opposing homosexuality, and Democratic electoral support will go bi-coastal. He more or less did so in 2004, with all the same-sex marriage ammendments on various state ballots, including Ohio.
We’ll go back to voting to determine if we’re concerned about whether our kids will be exposed to the concept of homosexuality over whether we’re concerned about currernt economic or foreign policies.
“So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…”
California’s(and the West) vigorous brand of populism was in response to the State Legislatures and,yes, the State Supreme Courts,being “bought and paid for” by the railroad and mining interest robber-barons of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
“Seems like a bad idea…”
Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?
I doubt that the CA Supreme Court will AGAIN overturn the will of CA voters on this issue. The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.
“So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…”
California’s(and the West) vigorous brand of populism was in response to the State Legislatures and,yes, the State Supreme Courts,being “bought and paid for” by the railroad and mining interest robber-barons of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
“Seems like a bad idea…”
Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?
I doubt that the CA Supreme Court will AGAIN overturn the will of CA voters on this issue. The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.
“So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…”
California’s(and the West) vigorous brand of populism was in response to the State Legislatures and,yes, the State Supreme Courts,being “bought and paid for” by the railroad and mining interest robber-barons of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
“Seems like a bad idea…”
Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?
I doubt that the CA Supreme Court will AGAIN overturn the will of CA voters on this issue. The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.
“So whose idea was it to let a simple majority amend the constitution anyway? Seems like a bad idea…”
California’s(and the West) vigorous brand of populism was in response to the State Legislatures and,yes, the State Supreme Courts,being “bought and paid for” by the railroad and mining interest robber-barons of the late 19th century and early 20th century.
“Seems like a bad idea…”
Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?
I doubt that the CA Supreme Court will AGAIN overturn the will of CA voters on this issue. The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.
“Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?”
Fine to be cynical, but it is a valid concept — 2/3 majority to change constitution. That’s what the US Constitution requires, I believe.
And constitutional issues should be as important as raising taxes. And anything tax related in California needs 2/3 to pass.
“Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?”
Fine to be cynical, but it is a valid concept — 2/3 majority to change constitution. That’s what the US Constitution requires, I believe.
And constitutional issues should be as important as raising taxes. And anything tax related in California needs 2/3 to pass.
“Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?”
Fine to be cynical, but it is a valid concept — 2/3 majority to change constitution. That’s what the US Constitution requires, I believe.
And constitutional issues should be as important as raising taxes. And anything tax related in California needs 2/3 to pass.
“Is a simple majority accepted as laudable for issues one supports but it’s “tyranny” of a simple majority” for those issues which one opposes?”
Fine to be cynical, but it is a valid concept — 2/3 majority to change constitution. That’s what the US Constitution requires, I believe.
And constitutional issues should be as important as raising taxes. And anything tax related in California needs 2/3 to pass.
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own. The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now. Proponents of gay marriage will not accept the majority vote, and figure on wearing down the electorate eventually, by doing whatever it takes to get their way. If the judiciary has to overstep its bounds and legislate from the bench again, so be it.
Yet these same people damn developers for making end runs around political process to get their way. At what point do you people accept a majority vote? Only when it suits your idea of right and wrong? I have a real problem with this sort of attitude – it is downright undemocratic.
Which brings me to another point. So who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Only you who are proponents of gay marriage, who seem to think you are the arbiter of all things right and relevant. How arrogant of you!
The more appropriate fight and more convincing one would have been to fight for civil unions that give true equal rights. But then this was never about equal rights – it was about legitimizing a lifestyle. And if you don’t believe that, watch the comments that are going to follow mine…
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own. The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now. Proponents of gay marriage will not accept the majority vote, and figure on wearing down the electorate eventually, by doing whatever it takes to get their way. If the judiciary has to overstep its bounds and legislate from the bench again, so be it.
Yet these same people damn developers for making end runs around political process to get their way. At what point do you people accept a majority vote? Only when it suits your idea of right and wrong? I have a real problem with this sort of attitude – it is downright undemocratic.
Which brings me to another point. So who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Only you who are proponents of gay marriage, who seem to think you are the arbiter of all things right and relevant. How arrogant of you!
The more appropriate fight and more convincing one would have been to fight for civil unions that give true equal rights. But then this was never about equal rights – it was about legitimizing a lifestyle. And if you don’t believe that, watch the comments that are going to follow mine…
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own. The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now. Proponents of gay marriage will not accept the majority vote, and figure on wearing down the electorate eventually, by doing whatever it takes to get their way. If the judiciary has to overstep its bounds and legislate from the bench again, so be it.
Yet these same people damn developers for making end runs around political process to get their way. At what point do you people accept a majority vote? Only when it suits your idea of right and wrong? I have a real problem with this sort of attitude – it is downright undemocratic.
Which brings me to another point. So who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Only you who are proponents of gay marriage, who seem to think you are the arbiter of all things right and relevant. How arrogant of you!
The more appropriate fight and more convincing one would have been to fight for civil unions that give true equal rights. But then this was never about equal rights – it was about legitimizing a lifestyle. And if you don’t believe that, watch the comments that are going to follow mine…
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own. The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now. Proponents of gay marriage will not accept the majority vote, and figure on wearing down the electorate eventually, by doing whatever it takes to get their way. If the judiciary has to overstep its bounds and legislate from the bench again, so be it.
Yet these same people damn developers for making end runs around political process to get their way. At what point do you people accept a majority vote? Only when it suits your idea of right and wrong? I have a real problem with this sort of attitude – it is downright undemocratic.
Which brings me to another point. So who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Only you who are proponents of gay marriage, who seem to think you are the arbiter of all things right and relevant. How arrogant of you!
The more appropriate fight and more convincing one would have been to fight for civil unions that give true equal rights. But then this was never about equal rights – it was about legitimizing a lifestyle. And if you don’t believe that, watch the comments that are going to follow mine…
“The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now.”
The voters have weighed in twice, I tend to view such things are snapshots rather than the final say.
And let’s look at this way, the first time the voters weighed in on it, it was a huge verdict against gay marriage.
But just a few years later it took an incredibly expensive and deceptive campaign to narrowly win on the same issue. And make no mistake, they were not arguing the merits of marriage on this campaign but rather scaring voters on side issues.
I suspect a third vote in a few years will show that the majority of voters support gay marriage.
So yes, the voters have weighed in on it, but I suspect again, that history and time is not on your side.
BTW, voters have now voted down parental notification three times now, let me know when you object to the fourth time it comes up.
“The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now.”
The voters have weighed in twice, I tend to view such things are snapshots rather than the final say.
And let’s look at this way, the first time the voters weighed in on it, it was a huge verdict against gay marriage.
But just a few years later it took an incredibly expensive and deceptive campaign to narrowly win on the same issue. And make no mistake, they were not arguing the merits of marriage on this campaign but rather scaring voters on side issues.
I suspect a third vote in a few years will show that the majority of voters support gay marriage.
So yes, the voters have weighed in on it, but I suspect again, that history and time is not on your side.
BTW, voters have now voted down parental notification three times now, let me know when you object to the fourth time it comes up.
“The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now.”
The voters have weighed in twice, I tend to view such things are snapshots rather than the final say.
And let’s look at this way, the first time the voters weighed in on it, it was a huge verdict against gay marriage.
But just a few years later it took an incredibly expensive and deceptive campaign to narrowly win on the same issue. And make no mistake, they were not arguing the merits of marriage on this campaign but rather scaring voters on side issues.
I suspect a third vote in a few years will show that the majority of voters support gay marriage.
So yes, the voters have weighed in on it, but I suspect again, that history and time is not on your side.
BTW, voters have now voted down parental notification three times now, let me know when you object to the fourth time it comes up.
“The voters have weighed in on the issue of gay marriage twice now.”
The voters have weighed in twice, I tend to view such things are snapshots rather than the final say.
And let’s look at this way, the first time the voters weighed in on it, it was a huge verdict against gay marriage.
But just a few years later it took an incredibly expensive and deceptive campaign to narrowly win on the same issue. And make no mistake, they were not arguing the merits of marriage on this campaign but rather scaring voters on side issues.
I suspect a third vote in a few years will show that the majority of voters support gay marriage.
So yes, the voters have weighed in on it, but I suspect again, that history and time is not on your side.
BTW, voters have now voted down parental notification three times now, let me know when you object to the fourth time it comes up.
“The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.”
Sometimes it’s tough when you have the tyrrany of religious tradition dictating things.
But it’s not as bad as all the bloodshed from past centuries in the name of (for and against) such concepts as divorce, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, priesthood of the believers, etc.
“The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.”
Sometimes it’s tough when you have the tyrrany of religious tradition dictating things.
But it’s not as bad as all the bloodshed from past centuries in the name of (for and against) such concepts as divorce, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, priesthood of the believers, etc.
“The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.”
Sometimes it’s tough when you have the tyrrany of religious tradition dictating things.
But it’s not as bad as all the bloodshed from past centuries in the name of (for and against) such concepts as divorce, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, priesthood of the believers, etc.
“The voters have spoken TWICE on this issue in the past few years and such a decision would probably incite an extremely divisive and damaging recall campaign.”
Sometimes it’s tough when you have the tyrrany of religious tradition dictating things.
But it’s not as bad as all the bloodshed from past centuries in the name of (for and against) such concepts as divorce, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, priesthood of the believers, etc.
Another point I thought of after I hit submit, is that we vote for new leaders every few years, we assume that voter preferences are not stable but rather fluid.
Unbelievable asks who gets to decide who is right. That’s a complicated question. From a moral standpoint, I am not a relativist, I believe in an absolute right or wrong, so from that standpoint, I believe that each individual determines that in themselves.
From a societal standpoint we have two judgments, one the constitution and the other the voters. Our framers obviously felt that the constitution and therefore the courts were the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong (ironic since many on here have dismissed the courts overruling the will of the people, but that may have been the clear intention of the founders who clearly misjudged the people).
On the contrary, I’m also a populist and believe in the will of the people. Ultimately this will be a fight for ideas and I believe that history like it has with other civil rights struggles will vindicate the fight for the right of marriage equality. I think as I said in the essay, it is a matter of time and generational change. WDF’s post validates that view point.
Another point I thought of after I hit submit, is that we vote for new leaders every few years, we assume that voter preferences are not stable but rather fluid.
Unbelievable asks who gets to decide who is right. That’s a complicated question. From a moral standpoint, I am not a relativist, I believe in an absolute right or wrong, so from that standpoint, I believe that each individual determines that in themselves.
From a societal standpoint we have two judgments, one the constitution and the other the voters. Our framers obviously felt that the constitution and therefore the courts were the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong (ironic since many on here have dismissed the courts overruling the will of the people, but that may have been the clear intention of the founders who clearly misjudged the people).
On the contrary, I’m also a populist and believe in the will of the people. Ultimately this will be a fight for ideas and I believe that history like it has with other civil rights struggles will vindicate the fight for the right of marriage equality. I think as I said in the essay, it is a matter of time and generational change. WDF’s post validates that view point.
Another point I thought of after I hit submit, is that we vote for new leaders every few years, we assume that voter preferences are not stable but rather fluid.
Unbelievable asks who gets to decide who is right. That’s a complicated question. From a moral standpoint, I am not a relativist, I believe in an absolute right or wrong, so from that standpoint, I believe that each individual determines that in themselves.
From a societal standpoint we have two judgments, one the constitution and the other the voters. Our framers obviously felt that the constitution and therefore the courts were the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong (ironic since many on here have dismissed the courts overruling the will of the people, but that may have been the clear intention of the founders who clearly misjudged the people).
On the contrary, I’m also a populist and believe in the will of the people. Ultimately this will be a fight for ideas and I believe that history like it has with other civil rights struggles will vindicate the fight for the right of marriage equality. I think as I said in the essay, it is a matter of time and generational change. WDF’s post validates that view point.
Another point I thought of after I hit submit, is that we vote for new leaders every few years, we assume that voter preferences are not stable but rather fluid.
Unbelievable asks who gets to decide who is right. That’s a complicated question. From a moral standpoint, I am not a relativist, I believe in an absolute right or wrong, so from that standpoint, I believe that each individual determines that in themselves.
From a societal standpoint we have two judgments, one the constitution and the other the voters. Our framers obviously felt that the constitution and therefore the courts were the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong (ironic since many on here have dismissed the courts overruling the will of the people, but that may have been the clear intention of the founders who clearly misjudged the people).
On the contrary, I’m also a populist and believe in the will of the people. Ultimately this will be a fight for ideas and I believe that history like it has with other civil rights struggles will vindicate the fight for the right of marriage equality. I think as I said in the essay, it is a matter of time and generational change. WDF’s post validates that view point.
“Taking away equal rights…”
The issue of equal rights was always a legal stretch for the 4 of 7 Justices. They had to utilize the subjective “suspect” discrimination category and “strict scrutiny” as the legal grounds for their decision. Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.
“It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision”
So.. the Attorney General was mistaken in allowing Prop 8 to be offered as an “amendment” and the Supreme Court’s public pronouncemt that the “amendment’s” passage would void their ruling was also now not true. The credibility and legitimacy of Jerry Brown’s AG department and the 4 State Supreme Court Justices will hinge on the positions they take to this challenge to Prop 8’s passage.
“Taking away equal rights…”
The issue of equal rights was always a legal stretch for the 4 of 7 Justices. They had to utilize the subjective “suspect” discrimination category and “strict scrutiny” as the legal grounds for their decision. Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.
“It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision”
So.. the Attorney General was mistaken in allowing Prop 8 to be offered as an “amendment” and the Supreme Court’s public pronouncemt that the “amendment’s” passage would void their ruling was also now not true. The credibility and legitimacy of Jerry Brown’s AG department and the 4 State Supreme Court Justices will hinge on the positions they take to this challenge to Prop 8’s passage.
“Taking away equal rights…”
The issue of equal rights was always a legal stretch for the 4 of 7 Justices. They had to utilize the subjective “suspect” discrimination category and “strict scrutiny” as the legal grounds for their decision. Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.
“It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision”
So.. the Attorney General was mistaken in allowing Prop 8 to be offered as an “amendment” and the Supreme Court’s public pronouncemt that the “amendment’s” passage would void their ruling was also now not true. The credibility and legitimacy of Jerry Brown’s AG department and the 4 State Supreme Court Justices will hinge on the positions they take to this challenge to Prop 8’s passage.
“Taking away equal rights…”
The issue of equal rights was always a legal stretch for the 4 of 7 Justices. They had to utilize the subjective “suspect” discrimination category and “strict scrutiny” as the legal grounds for their decision. Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.
“It takes two-thirds to make a BIG change (a revision). Taking away equal rights is clearly a revision”
So.. the Attorney General was mistaken in allowing Prop 8 to be offered as an “amendment” and the Supreme Court’s public pronouncemt that the “amendment’s” passage would void their ruling was also now not true. The credibility and legitimacy of Jerry Brown’s AG department and the 4 State Supreme Court Justices will hinge on the positions they take to this challenge to Prop 8’s passage.
“Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.”
This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.
In Chile, for instance, divorce only just recently became legal. Before you’d find some rather tortuous reasoning that couples would come up with to annul a marriage. But functionally, it was used as a way to dissolve a marriage because divorce wasn’t available.
Eventually more people will wonder what is the functional difference between civil union and marriage. Right now that reasoning (described above) looks like a fig leaf to help marriage traditionalists feel like they’re not really taking anything away from gay couples.
“Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.”
This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.
In Chile, for instance, divorce only just recently became legal. Before you’d find some rather tortuous reasoning that couples would come up with to annul a marriage. But functionally, it was used as a way to dissolve a marriage because divorce wasn’t available.
Eventually more people will wonder what is the functional difference between civil union and marriage. Right now that reasoning (described above) looks like a fig leaf to help marriage traditionalists feel like they’re not really taking anything away from gay couples.
“Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.”
This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.
In Chile, for instance, divorce only just recently became legal. Before you’d find some rather tortuous reasoning that couples would come up with to annul a marriage. But functionally, it was used as a way to dissolve a marriage because divorce wasn’t available.
Eventually more people will wonder what is the functional difference between civil union and marriage. Right now that reasoning (described above) looks like a fig leaf to help marriage traditionalists feel like they’re not really taking anything away from gay couples.
“Full and equal rights to civil-unions could have been(and can still be) extended by legislature law if the Court decides to directs them to so.”
This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.
In Chile, for instance, divorce only just recently became legal. Before you’d find some rather tortuous reasoning that couples would come up with to annul a marriage. But functionally, it was used as a way to dissolve a marriage because divorce wasn’t available.
Eventually more people will wonder what is the functional difference between civil union and marriage. Right now that reasoning (described above) looks like a fig leaf to help marriage traditionalists feel like they’re not really taking anything away from gay couples.
Why Proposition 8 Passed: A quote from “The Lessons of History” by world famous historians Will and Ariel Durant (Simon and Schuster, 1968, pp. 35-36)
“Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man or woman, however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his or her society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
Therefore, the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.”
Why Proposition 8 Passed: A quote from “The Lessons of History” by world famous historians Will and Ariel Durant (Simon and Schuster, 1968, pp. 35-36)
“Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man or woman, however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his or her society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
Therefore, the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.”
Why Proposition 8 Passed: A quote from “The Lessons of History” by world famous historians Will and Ariel Durant (Simon and Schuster, 1968, pp. 35-36)
“Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man or woman, however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his or her society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
Therefore, the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.”
Why Proposition 8 Passed: A quote from “The Lessons of History” by world famous historians Will and Ariel Durant (Simon and Schuster, 1968, pp. 35-36)
“Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man or woman, however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his or her society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
Therefore, the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.”
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own.
Misleading definition of tolerance.
The No on 8’s are tolerant of your views against gay marriage. You can hold those beliefs as much as you like. No one’s forcing you to change your mind.
But there’s a big difference between holding the views and forcing the rest of society to comply with those views.
If I’m in favor of gay marriage, I’m not going around forcing people to get married to someone of the same sex. I’m in favor of the choice to do so being available.
If you’re against it, and vote to repeal it (as you did on Tuesday), you ARE forcing others to make the choice you would make – not to marry another person of the same sex.
Tolerance is about holding your own views while letting others do and believe as they like. Forcing others to comply with your personal beliefs is not tolerance.
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own.
Misleading definition of tolerance.
The No on 8’s are tolerant of your views against gay marriage. You can hold those beliefs as much as you like. No one’s forcing you to change your mind.
But there’s a big difference between holding the views and forcing the rest of society to comply with those views.
If I’m in favor of gay marriage, I’m not going around forcing people to get married to someone of the same sex. I’m in favor of the choice to do so being available.
If you’re against it, and vote to repeal it (as you did on Tuesday), you ARE forcing others to make the choice you would make – not to marry another person of the same sex.
Tolerance is about holding your own views while letting others do and believe as they like. Forcing others to comply with your personal beliefs is not tolerance.
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own.
Misleading definition of tolerance.
The No on 8’s are tolerant of your views against gay marriage. You can hold those beliefs as much as you like. No one’s forcing you to change your mind.
But there’s a big difference between holding the views and forcing the rest of society to comply with those views.
If I’m in favor of gay marriage, I’m not going around forcing people to get married to someone of the same sex. I’m in favor of the choice to do so being available.
If you’re against it, and vote to repeal it (as you did on Tuesday), you ARE forcing others to make the choice you would make – not to marry another person of the same sex.
Tolerance is about holding your own views while letting others do and believe as they like. Forcing others to comply with your personal beliefs is not tolerance.
It never ceases to amaze me how many who preach tolerance are extremely intolerant of views that don’t agree with their own.
Misleading definition of tolerance.
The No on 8’s are tolerant of your views against gay marriage. You can hold those beliefs as much as you like. No one’s forcing you to change your mind.
But there’s a big difference between holding the views and forcing the rest of society to comply with those views.
If I’m in favor of gay marriage, I’m not going around forcing people to get married to someone of the same sex. I’m in favor of the choice to do so being available.
If you’re against it, and vote to repeal it (as you did on Tuesday), you ARE forcing others to make the choice you would make – not to marry another person of the same sex.
Tolerance is about holding your own views while letting others do and believe as they like. Forcing others to comply with your personal beliefs is not tolerance.
“This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.”
Can you imagine a constitutional ammendment to ban divorce in California? For those seeking to “preserve the sanctity of marriage”, that would make much more sense than banning same-sex marriage.
Would the hypothetical proponents of such a proposition argue that we should ban divorce so that we wouldn’t have to talk about it to our kids?
Reminds me of Tammy Wynnette’s song, D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
“This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.”
Can you imagine a constitutional ammendment to ban divorce in California? For those seeking to “preserve the sanctity of marriage”, that would make much more sense than banning same-sex marriage.
Would the hypothetical proponents of such a proposition argue that we should ban divorce so that we wouldn’t have to talk about it to our kids?
Reminds me of Tammy Wynnette’s song, D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
“This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.”
Can you imagine a constitutional ammendment to ban divorce in California? For those seeking to “preserve the sanctity of marriage”, that would make much more sense than banning same-sex marriage.
Would the hypothetical proponents of such a proposition argue that we should ban divorce so that we wouldn’t have to talk about it to our kids?
Reminds me of Tammy Wynnette’s song, D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
“This reminds me of the debate that has gone on in some Catholic-dominated countries (Phillipines) where divorce has been illegal, but annulments have been used instead to dissolve marriages.”
Can you imagine a constitutional ammendment to ban divorce in California? For those seeking to “preserve the sanctity of marriage”, that would make much more sense than banning same-sex marriage.
Would the hypothetical proponents of such a proposition argue that we should ban divorce so that we wouldn’t have to talk about it to our kids?
Reminds me of Tammy Wynnette’s song, D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
WDF: “A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age.”
While I think this statement is largely true — as gays have come out of the closet, each generation is becoming more and more aware that gay people are just people and deserve full human and civil rights — I think a lot of people, as they get older, become more conservative. It is natural to have a nostalgic feeling for how things were when you were younger. Older people see various societal changes that make them feel detached from society, like they are losing what they once held dear, and more conservative politics follows that.
So it is possible that people in their 40s and 50s today, who don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other on this issue, may in 20 years feel threatened by societal changes and become conservative on this topic. And thus another generation might have to pass on for change to occur.
I think that is just what happened with marijuana legalization. The teenagers of the 1960s grew older and more conservative and lost interest in legalization. So while the percentage of society is today much higher for rational drug policies, it is still a minority.
WDF: “A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age.”
While I think this statement is largely true — as gays have come out of the closet, each generation is becoming more and more aware that gay people are just people and deserve full human and civil rights — I think a lot of people, as they get older, become more conservative. It is natural to have a nostalgic feeling for how things were when you were younger. Older people see various societal changes that make them feel detached from society, like they are losing what they once held dear, and more conservative politics follows that.
So it is possible that people in their 40s and 50s today, who don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other on this issue, may in 20 years feel threatened by societal changes and become conservative on this topic. And thus another generation might have to pass on for change to occur.
I think that is just what happened with marijuana legalization. The teenagers of the 1960s grew older and more conservative and lost interest in legalization. So while the percentage of society is today much higher for rational drug policies, it is still a minority.
WDF: “A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age.”
While I think this statement is largely true — as gays have come out of the closet, each generation is becoming more and more aware that gay people are just people and deserve full human and civil rights — I think a lot of people, as they get older, become more conservative. It is natural to have a nostalgic feeling for how things were when you were younger. Older people see various societal changes that make them feel detached from society, like they are losing what they once held dear, and more conservative politics follows that.
So it is possible that people in their 40s and 50s today, who don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other on this issue, may in 20 years feel threatened by societal changes and become conservative on this topic. And thus another generation might have to pass on for change to occur.
I think that is just what happened with marijuana legalization. The teenagers of the 1960s grew older and more conservative and lost interest in legalization. So while the percentage of society is today much higher for rational drug policies, it is still a minority.
WDF: “A few more old people need to die off, and a few more younger people need to become of voting age.”
While I think this statement is largely true — as gays have come out of the closet, each generation is becoming more and more aware that gay people are just people and deserve full human and civil rights — I think a lot of people, as they get older, become more conservative. It is natural to have a nostalgic feeling for how things were when you were younger. Older people see various societal changes that make them feel detached from society, like they are losing what they once held dear, and more conservative politics follows that.
So it is possible that people in their 40s and 50s today, who don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other on this issue, may in 20 years feel threatened by societal changes and become conservative on this topic. And thus another generation might have to pass on for change to occur.
I think that is just what happened with marijuana legalization. The teenagers of the 1960s grew older and more conservative and lost interest in legalization. So while the percentage of society is today much higher for rational drug policies, it is still a minority.
There are roughly 17,000 same sex marriages out there. Time will prove that those marriages are not a threat to anyone or anything else. I suspect the unfounded fears will diminish.
By the way I am one of those 1960’s teenagers – I am not getting any older (not much anyway)and I am not getting more conservative.
There are roughly 17,000 same sex marriages out there. Time will prove that those marriages are not a threat to anyone or anything else. I suspect the unfounded fears will diminish.
By the way I am one of those 1960’s teenagers – I am not getting any older (not much anyway)and I am not getting more conservative.
There are roughly 17,000 same sex marriages out there. Time will prove that those marriages are not a threat to anyone or anything else. I suspect the unfounded fears will diminish.
By the way I am one of those 1960’s teenagers – I am not getting any older (not much anyway)and I am not getting more conservative.
There are roughly 17,000 same sex marriages out there. Time will prove that those marriages are not a threat to anyone or anything else. I suspect the unfounded fears will diminish.
By the way I am one of those 1960’s teenagers – I am not getting any older (not much anyway)and I am not getting more conservative.
You’re right. I think the few months of legal gay marriage did a lot to help many voters realize that things didn’t fall apart because same-sex marriages were happening.
You’re right. I think the few months of legal gay marriage did a lot to help many voters realize that things didn’t fall apart because same-sex marriages were happening.
You’re right. I think the few months of legal gay marriage did a lot to help many voters realize that things didn’t fall apart because same-sex marriages were happening.
You’re right. I think the few months of legal gay marriage did a lot to help many voters realize that things didn’t fall apart because same-sex marriages were happening.
Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity. Don’t note it on birth certificates, drivers licenses, applications of all sorts, Social Security benefits, hospital records . No Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, no men’s room or women’s toilets, use any available. Eliminate Title 9 sports teams, professional teams. No PGA or LPGA. Get patted down by a cop no matter if their plumbing doesn’t match yours. No schools or clubs for women or men, no sororities, fraternities and eliminate the words “His”, “Hers”. No prom queens, no home coming kings.
When that’s done same sex marriage wouldn’t matter to anyone.
Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity. Don’t note it on birth certificates, drivers licenses, applications of all sorts, Social Security benefits, hospital records . No Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, no men’s room or women’s toilets, use any available. Eliminate Title 9 sports teams, professional teams. No PGA or LPGA. Get patted down by a cop no matter if their plumbing doesn’t match yours. No schools or clubs for women or men, no sororities, fraternities and eliminate the words “His”, “Hers”. No prom queens, no home coming kings.
When that’s done same sex marriage wouldn’t matter to anyone.
Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity. Don’t note it on birth certificates, drivers licenses, applications of all sorts, Social Security benefits, hospital records . No Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, no men’s room or women’s toilets, use any available. Eliminate Title 9 sports teams, professional teams. No PGA or LPGA. Get patted down by a cop no matter if their plumbing doesn’t match yours. No schools or clubs for women or men, no sororities, fraternities and eliminate the words “His”, “Hers”. No prom queens, no home coming kings.
When that’s done same sex marriage wouldn’t matter to anyone.
Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity. Don’t note it on birth certificates, drivers licenses, applications of all sorts, Social Security benefits, hospital records . No Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, no men’s room or women’s toilets, use any available. Eliminate Title 9 sports teams, professional teams. No PGA or LPGA. Get patted down by a cop no matter if their plumbing doesn’t match yours. No schools or clubs for women or men, no sororities, fraternities and eliminate the words “His”, “Hers”. No prom queens, no home coming kings.
When that’s done same sex marriage wouldn’t matter to anyone.
“Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity.”
Why?
“Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity.”
Why?
“Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity.”
Why?
“Let’s eliminate all references to sexual identity.”
Why?
I just wait for the day when gay marriage is legal, and we no longer have to see the endless stream of photos of Shelly and Ellen getting wed, again and again, in every city and state where it becomes legal.
Please, for the love of god, legalize gay marriage!
I just wait for the day when gay marriage is legal, and we no longer have to see the endless stream of photos of Shelly and Ellen getting wed, again and again, in every city and state where it becomes legal.
Please, for the love of god, legalize gay marriage!
I just wait for the day when gay marriage is legal, and we no longer have to see the endless stream of photos of Shelly and Ellen getting wed, again and again, in every city and state where it becomes legal.
Please, for the love of god, legalize gay marriage!
I just wait for the day when gay marriage is legal, and we no longer have to see the endless stream of photos of Shelly and Ellen getting wed, again and again, in every city and state where it becomes legal.
Please, for the love of god, legalize gay marriage!
Why?
Because the Yes on 8ers have to come up with straw man arguments, since the actual arguments they would have to support their position don’t make any sense.
Why?
Because the Yes on 8ers have to come up with straw man arguments, since the actual arguments they would have to support their position don’t make any sense.
Why?
Because the Yes on 8ers have to come up with straw man arguments, since the actual arguments they would have to support their position don’t make any sense.
Why?
Because the Yes on 8ers have to come up with straw man arguments, since the actual arguments they would have to support their position don’t make any sense.
I am very disappointed that Prop 8 passed. I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets. I'm not sure when or why this changed but the change is frightening. The Mormon Church's purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists' goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.
I am very disappointed that Prop 8 passed. I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets. I'm not sure when or why this changed but the change is frightening. The Mormon Church's purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists' goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.
I am very disappointed that Prop 8 passed. I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets. I'm not sure when or why this changed but the change is frightening. The Mormon Church's purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists' goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.
I am very disappointed that Prop 8 passed. I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets. I'm not sure when or why this changed but the change is frightening. The Mormon Church's purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists' goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.
This blog gave voice to the yes on 8 position.
This blog gave voice to the yes on 8 position.
This blog gave voice to the yes on 8 position.
This blog gave voice to the yes on 8 position.
Or did you get paid by the Mormans your pieces of silver? If not you carried water for the forces of hate and division for free.
Or did you get paid by the Mormans your pieces of silver? If not you carried water for the forces of hate and division for free.
Or did you get paid by the Mormans your pieces of silver? If not you carried water for the forces of hate and division for free.
Or did you get paid by the Mormans your pieces of silver? If not you carried water for the forces of hate and division for free.
8 opponents are tolerant just as long as you agree with them.
their tolerance knows no bounds.
lets just chronologue their tolerance first.
1. prop 22 passes
2. the supreme court overturns 22near 60 percent of the electorate majority.
3. the 8 backers respond by putting 8 on the ballot.
4. the 8 opponents respond by trying to keep 8 off the ballot and prevent the voter from having a say.
5. 8 passes
6. 8 backers seek to challenge the voters will again, and now declare the constitution unconstitutional.
so, the aclu and a few unelected judges should be the final arbiters over the voter.
Gee, do Republicans still have an opportunity to nullify the Obama victory too utilizing the courts?
let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS.
you want tolerance just as long as it fits your definition of the word.
What tolerance is to you is not tolerance to me.
many have claimed I cannot come up with a good reason for 8. Well, I can.
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
Gay marriage just adds gasoline on the fire. I don’t just want 8 to pass, but I want a ban on the porn industry, and I want hollywood regulated.
Our kids need to be protected, and that concern supercedes in my view the selfish desires of a few adults.
If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.
“think in part, that the No on 8 campaign was too slow to counter very deadly campaign ads from the yes side. One of the biggest was the one of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.”
yes, if this is the one I heard Mayor Newsom said we will just have to accept it “whether we like it or not.” He put his foot in his mouth and unmasked the intolerance of 8 opponents. The moderator of this blog is admitting this loudmouth didn’t make 8 opponents look good and they know it.
So what do 8 opponents do now? Take to the streets and get arrested. If nothing else, that DEFINITELY IS A BAD MESSAGE TO CHILDREN BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU DON’T HAVE BEHAVE LIKE AN ADULT WHEN YOU DON’T GET YOUR WAY AT A BALLOT BOX.
AND that my friends is one more reason to see 8 succeed.
YOU JUST HANDED 8 SUPPORTERS MORE AMMUNITION. Bravo.
8 opponents are tolerant just as long as you agree with them.
their tolerance knows no bounds.
lets just chronologue their tolerance first.
1. prop 22 passes
2. the supreme court overturns 22near 60 percent of the electorate majority.
3. the 8 backers respond by putting 8 on the ballot.
4. the 8 opponents respond by trying to keep 8 off the ballot and prevent the voter from having a say.
5. 8 passes
6. 8 backers seek to challenge the voters will again, and now declare the constitution unconstitutional.
so, the aclu and a few unelected judges should be the final arbiters over the voter.
Gee, do Republicans still have an opportunity to nullify the Obama victory too utilizing the courts?
let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS.
you want tolerance just as long as it fits your definition of the word.
What tolerance is to you is not tolerance to me.
many have claimed I cannot come up with a good reason for 8. Well, I can.
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
Gay marriage just adds gasoline on the fire. I don’t just want 8 to pass, but I want a ban on the porn industry, and I want hollywood regulated.
Our kids need to be protected, and that concern supercedes in my view the selfish desires of a few adults.
If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.
“think in part, that the No on 8 campaign was too slow to counter very deadly campaign ads from the yes side. One of the biggest was the one of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.”
yes, if this is the one I heard Mayor Newsom said we will just have to accept it “whether we like it or not.” He put his foot in his mouth and unmasked the intolerance of 8 opponents. The moderator of this blog is admitting this loudmouth didn’t make 8 opponents look good and they know it.
So what do 8 opponents do now? Take to the streets and get arrested. If nothing else, that DEFINITELY IS A BAD MESSAGE TO CHILDREN BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU DON’T HAVE BEHAVE LIKE AN ADULT WHEN YOU DON’T GET YOUR WAY AT A BALLOT BOX.
AND that my friends is one more reason to see 8 succeed.
YOU JUST HANDED 8 SUPPORTERS MORE AMMUNITION. Bravo.
8 opponents are tolerant just as long as you agree with them.
their tolerance knows no bounds.
lets just chronologue their tolerance first.
1. prop 22 passes
2. the supreme court overturns 22near 60 percent of the electorate majority.
3. the 8 backers respond by putting 8 on the ballot.
4. the 8 opponents respond by trying to keep 8 off the ballot and prevent the voter from having a say.
5. 8 passes
6. 8 backers seek to challenge the voters will again, and now declare the constitution unconstitutional.
so, the aclu and a few unelected judges should be the final arbiters over the voter.
Gee, do Republicans still have an opportunity to nullify the Obama victory too utilizing the courts?
let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS.
you want tolerance just as long as it fits your definition of the word.
What tolerance is to you is not tolerance to me.
many have claimed I cannot come up with a good reason for 8. Well, I can.
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
Gay marriage just adds gasoline on the fire. I don’t just want 8 to pass, but I want a ban on the porn industry, and I want hollywood regulated.
Our kids need to be protected, and that concern supercedes in my view the selfish desires of a few adults.
If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.
“think in part, that the No on 8 campaign was too slow to counter very deadly campaign ads from the yes side. One of the biggest was the one of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.”
yes, if this is the one I heard Mayor Newsom said we will just have to accept it “whether we like it or not.” He put his foot in his mouth and unmasked the intolerance of 8 opponents. The moderator of this blog is admitting this loudmouth didn’t make 8 opponents look good and they know it.
So what do 8 opponents do now? Take to the streets and get arrested. If nothing else, that DEFINITELY IS A BAD MESSAGE TO CHILDREN BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU DON’T HAVE BEHAVE LIKE AN ADULT WHEN YOU DON’T GET YOUR WAY AT A BALLOT BOX.
AND that my friends is one more reason to see 8 succeed.
YOU JUST HANDED 8 SUPPORTERS MORE AMMUNITION. Bravo.
8 opponents are tolerant just as long as you agree with them.
their tolerance knows no bounds.
lets just chronologue their tolerance first.
1. prop 22 passes
2. the supreme court overturns 22near 60 percent of the electorate majority.
3. the 8 backers respond by putting 8 on the ballot.
4. the 8 opponents respond by trying to keep 8 off the ballot and prevent the voter from having a say.
5. 8 passes
6. 8 backers seek to challenge the voters will again, and now declare the constitution unconstitutional.
so, the aclu and a few unelected judges should be the final arbiters over the voter.
Gee, do Republicans still have an opportunity to nullify the Obama victory too utilizing the courts?
let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS.
you want tolerance just as long as it fits your definition of the word.
What tolerance is to you is not tolerance to me.
many have claimed I cannot come up with a good reason for 8. Well, I can.
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
Gay marriage just adds gasoline on the fire. I don’t just want 8 to pass, but I want a ban on the porn industry, and I want hollywood regulated.
Our kids need to be protected, and that concern supercedes in my view the selfish desires of a few adults.
If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.
“think in part, that the No on 8 campaign was too slow to counter very deadly campaign ads from the yes side. One of the biggest was the one of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.”
yes, if this is the one I heard Mayor Newsom said we will just have to accept it “whether we like it or not.” He put his foot in his mouth and unmasked the intolerance of 8 opponents. The moderator of this blog is admitting this loudmouth didn’t make 8 opponents look good and they know it.
So what do 8 opponents do now? Take to the streets and get arrested. If nothing else, that DEFINITELY IS A BAD MESSAGE TO CHILDREN BECAUSE IT SAYS YOU DON’T HAVE BEHAVE LIKE AN ADULT WHEN YOU DON’T GET YOUR WAY AT A BALLOT BOX.
AND that my friends is one more reason to see 8 succeed.
YOU JUST HANDED 8 SUPPORTERS MORE AMMUNITION. Bravo.
Why stop with the eliminating language that allows one to make a distinction between marriage and civil-unions? Let’s eliminate other words that allow us to use our brains and “discriminate”….using the politically acceptable dictionary definition of the word “discriminate”,i.e.,”to be able to perceive and mark distinguishing features”; perhaps we should consider substituting the word comrade or citizen for the “discriminating” descriptive terms Mr., Mrs.or Ms.
Why stop with the eliminating language that allows one to make a distinction between marriage and civil-unions? Let’s eliminate other words that allow us to use our brains and “discriminate”….using the politically acceptable dictionary definition of the word “discriminate”,i.e.,”to be able to perceive and mark distinguishing features”; perhaps we should consider substituting the word comrade or citizen for the “discriminating” descriptive terms Mr., Mrs.or Ms.
Why stop with the eliminating language that allows one to make a distinction between marriage and civil-unions? Let’s eliminate other words that allow us to use our brains and “discriminate”….using the politically acceptable dictionary definition of the word “discriminate”,i.e.,”to be able to perceive and mark distinguishing features”; perhaps we should consider substituting the word comrade or citizen for the “discriminating” descriptive terms Mr., Mrs.or Ms.
Why stop with the eliminating language that allows one to make a distinction between marriage and civil-unions? Let’s eliminate other words that allow us to use our brains and “discriminate”….using the politically acceptable dictionary definition of the word “discriminate”,i.e.,”to be able to perceive and mark distinguishing features”; perhaps we should consider substituting the word comrade or citizen for the “discriminating” descriptive terms Mr., Mrs.or Ms.
“let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS”
Actually most people I know are just talking about this like adults.
Our frustration is that we know the approval of same sex marriages is inevitable. Considering that we feel all of the effort that went into “winning” 8 was wasted effort. Might does not make right and your victory is only temporary.
“let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS”
Actually most people I know are just talking about this like adults.
Our frustration is that we know the approval of same sex marriages is inevitable. Considering that we feel all of the effort that went into “winning” 8 was wasted effort. Might does not make right and your victory is only temporary.
“let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS”
Actually most people I know are just talking about this like adults.
Our frustration is that we know the approval of same sex marriages is inevitable. Considering that we feel all of the effort that went into “winning” 8 was wasted effort. Might does not make right and your victory is only temporary.
“let me make it clear: you people are SORE LOSERS”
Actually most people I know are just talking about this like adults.
Our frustration is that we know the approval of same sex marriages is inevitable. Considering that we feel all of the effort that went into “winning” 8 was wasted effort. Might does not make right and your victory is only temporary.
"I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets."
That isn’t completely wrong, but it mostly is. The abolition movement in the United States was largely organized by Protestant churches, particularly the Quakers and the Congregationalists, and the Unitarians.
Ever since the Civil War, black churches were involved in politics, more or less depending on the opportunities they had.
Beginning in the post-Civil War era, it was Protestant churches, most notably the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists, which pushed for prohibition of alcohol across the United States. (In part, this was motivated by anti-Catholicism.) The same groups were behind the idiotic politics of WJ Bryan; and years later they were the ones trying to ban the teaching of evolution in science classes (as some of them are today).
And, of course, Christian churches (not counting the Adventists, of course) were great enforcers (by government power) of maintaining the Sunday Sabbath across the U.S. It wasn’t until pro football broke this ban in the post-WWII era that the enforcement of Sunday laws started to recede. (I have heard anecdotally that Sunday church attendance fell beginning in the 1950s, when the NFL became more popular and was a fixture on TV.)
What has changed since 1973 (Roe) is the politicization of the evangelical churches (joining up with the already politicized Catholic Church and Mormon Church) to use politics to fight abortion. Insofar as these groups are now fighting against gay rights, it is mostly an extension of the post-Roe movement.
The Mormon Church’s purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists’ goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.”
There is a huge difference and you do a disservice to your argument to compare them.
First, even if the entire agenda of the American fundamentalists were enacted, not too much would change in most of our lives. I’m not saying I endorse their agenda. I don’t. I think they are wrong on most things. But their agenda is terribly mild compared with that of the Islamists.
The Islamists not only are using mass violence to get their way, killing civilians all over the globe; they would violently enforce very restrictive covenants (mandatory burkas or hajibs on women; beatings for consuming a beer, etc.), once they took power, just as they have in a number of countries.
"I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets."
That isn’t completely wrong, but it mostly is. The abolition movement in the United States was largely organized by Protestant churches, particularly the Quakers and the Congregationalists, and the Unitarians.
Ever since the Civil War, black churches were involved in politics, more or less depending on the opportunities they had.
Beginning in the post-Civil War era, it was Protestant churches, most notably the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists, which pushed for prohibition of alcohol across the United States. (In part, this was motivated by anti-Catholicism.) The same groups were behind the idiotic politics of WJ Bryan; and years later they were the ones trying to ban the teaching of evolution in science classes (as some of them are today).
And, of course, Christian churches (not counting the Adventists, of course) were great enforcers (by government power) of maintaining the Sunday Sabbath across the U.S. It wasn’t until pro football broke this ban in the post-WWII era that the enforcement of Sunday laws started to recede. (I have heard anecdotally that Sunday church attendance fell beginning in the 1950s, when the NFL became more popular and was a fixture on TV.)
What has changed since 1973 (Roe) is the politicization of the evangelical churches (joining up with the already politicized Catholic Church and Mormon Church) to use politics to fight abortion. Insofar as these groups are now fighting against gay rights, it is mostly an extension of the post-Roe movement.
The Mormon Church’s purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists’ goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.”
There is a huge difference and you do a disservice to your argument to compare them.
First, even if the entire agenda of the American fundamentalists were enacted, not too much would change in most of our lives. I’m not saying I endorse their agenda. I don’t. I think they are wrong on most things. But their agenda is terribly mild compared with that of the Islamists.
The Islamists not only are using mass violence to get their way, killing civilians all over the globe; they would violently enforce very restrictive covenants (mandatory burkas or hajibs on women; beatings for consuming a beer, etc.), once they took power, just as they have in a number of countries.
"I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets."
That isn’t completely wrong, but it mostly is. The abolition movement in the United States was largely organized by Protestant churches, particularly the Quakers and the Congregationalists, and the Unitarians.
Ever since the Civil War, black churches were involved in politics, more or less depending on the opportunities they had.
Beginning in the post-Civil War era, it was Protestant churches, most notably the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists, which pushed for prohibition of alcohol across the United States. (In part, this was motivated by anti-Catholicism.) The same groups were behind the idiotic politics of WJ Bryan; and years later they were the ones trying to ban the teaching of evolution in science classes (as some of them are today).
And, of course, Christian churches (not counting the Adventists, of course) were great enforcers (by government power) of maintaining the Sunday Sabbath across the U.S. It wasn’t until pro football broke this ban in the post-WWII era that the enforcement of Sunday laws started to recede. (I have heard anecdotally that Sunday church attendance fell beginning in the 1950s, when the NFL became more popular and was a fixture on TV.)
What has changed since 1973 (Roe) is the politicization of the evangelical churches (joining up with the already politicized Catholic Church and Mormon Church) to use politics to fight abortion. Insofar as these groups are now fighting against gay rights, it is mostly an extension of the post-Roe movement.
The Mormon Church’s purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists’ goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.”
There is a huge difference and you do a disservice to your argument to compare them.
First, even if the entire agenda of the American fundamentalists were enacted, not too much would change in most of our lives. I’m not saying I endorse their agenda. I don’t. I think they are wrong on most things. But their agenda is terribly mild compared with that of the Islamists.
The Islamists not only are using mass violence to get their way, killing civilians all over the globe; they would violently enforce very restrictive covenants (mandatory burkas or hajibs on women; beatings for consuming a beer, etc.), once they took power, just as they have in a number of countries.
"I am also very concerned by the significant efforts by religious entities to influence political decisions and, thus, to control how people not of that religion are required to live. Religious bodies did not do this 30 or 40 years ago — when they apparently believed there should be a separation of church & state and that only members of their faith should have to adhere to its tenets."
That isn’t completely wrong, but it mostly is. The abolition movement in the United States was largely organized by Protestant churches, particularly the Quakers and the Congregationalists, and the Unitarians.
Ever since the Civil War, black churches were involved in politics, more or less depending on the opportunities they had.
Beginning in the post-Civil War era, it was Protestant churches, most notably the Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists, which pushed for prohibition of alcohol across the United States. (In part, this was motivated by anti-Catholicism.) The same groups were behind the idiotic politics of WJ Bryan; and years later they were the ones trying to ban the teaching of evolution in science classes (as some of them are today).
And, of course, Christian churches (not counting the Adventists, of course) were great enforcers (by government power) of maintaining the Sunday Sabbath across the U.S. It wasn’t until pro football broke this ban in the post-WWII era that the enforcement of Sunday laws started to recede. (I have heard anecdotally that Sunday church attendance fell beginning in the 1950s, when the NFL became more popular and was a fixture on TV.)
What has changed since 1973 (Roe) is the politicization of the evangelical churches (joining up with the already politicized Catholic Church and Mormon Church) to use politics to fight abortion. Insofar as these groups are now fighting against gay rights, it is mostly an extension of the post-Roe movement.
The Mormon Church’s purchase of passage of Prop 8 is no different than radical Islamists’ goal of imposing Shariah on the entire world.”
There is a huge difference and you do a disservice to your argument to compare them.
First, even if the entire agenda of the American fundamentalists were enacted, not too much would change in most of our lives. I’m not saying I endorse their agenda. I don’t. I think they are wrong on most things. But their agenda is terribly mild compared with that of the Islamists.
The Islamists not only are using mass violence to get their way, killing civilians all over the globe; they would violently enforce very restrictive covenants (mandatory burkas or hajibs on women; beatings for consuming a beer, etc.), once they took power, just as they have in a number of countries.
Rich —
Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law. The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.
As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference. And this was just the Mormon Church’s first major success in controlling secular law. Who knows how many people may be directly affected by their next success.
Your distinction between buying an election and using terrorism and other violence is clear only at first glance. Note the fact that the Treasury Dept is giving instruction to its personnel beginning today on Shariah Compliant Finance. Is this new approach to having Shariah incorporated into Western government practices less frightening because it was not accomplished through violence, or simply more insidious?
Rich —
Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law. The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.
As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference. And this was just the Mormon Church’s first major success in controlling secular law. Who knows how many people may be directly affected by their next success.
Your distinction between buying an election and using terrorism and other violence is clear only at first glance. Note the fact that the Treasury Dept is giving instruction to its personnel beginning today on Shariah Compliant Finance. Is this new approach to having Shariah incorporated into Western government practices less frightening because it was not accomplished through violence, or simply more insidious?
Rich —
Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law. The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.
As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference. And this was just the Mormon Church’s first major success in controlling secular law. Who knows how many people may be directly affected by their next success.
Your distinction between buying an election and using terrorism and other violence is clear only at first glance. Note the fact that the Treasury Dept is giving instruction to its personnel beginning today on Shariah Compliant Finance. Is this new approach to having Shariah incorporated into Western government practices less frightening because it was not accomplished through violence, or simply more insidious?
Rich —
Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law. The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.
As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference. And this was just the Mormon Church’s first major success in controlling secular law. Who knows how many people may be directly affected by their next success.
Your distinction between buying an election and using terrorism and other violence is clear only at first glance. Note the fact that the Treasury Dept is giving instruction to its personnel beginning today on Shariah Compliant Finance. Is this new approach to having Shariah incorporated into Western government practices less frightening because it was not accomplished through violence, or simply more insidious?
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
If you don’t like extramarital sex, then shouldn’t you be in favor of two loving people making a commitment to each other, rather than remaining single?
How is banning gay marriage going to stop anyone from sleeping around?
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
If you don’t like extramarital sex, then shouldn’t you be in favor of two loving people making a commitment to each other, rather than remaining single?
How is banning gay marriage going to stop anyone from sleeping around?
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
If you don’t like extramarital sex, then shouldn’t you be in favor of two loving people making a commitment to each other, rather than remaining single?
How is banning gay marriage going to stop anyone from sleeping around?
children grow up nowadays being bombarded with negative sexual messages telling them to “experiment”, “explore their sexuality”, go wild by breaking all sexual taboos including sleeping around, oral/anal sex. and sometimes sex with multiple partners in the same bedroom. The result has been increased std’s and destruction.
If you don’t like extramarital sex, then shouldn’t you be in favor of two loving people making a commitment to each other, rather than remaining single?
How is banning gay marriage going to stop anyone from sleeping around?
I wonder how many of the proponents of Prop 8 have been/are involved in failed marriages or are not married at all. So much for promoting the sanctity of marriage.
I wonder how many of the proponents of Prop 8 have been/are involved in failed marriages or are not married at all. So much for promoting the sanctity of marriage.
I wonder how many of the proponents of Prop 8 have been/are involved in failed marriages or are not married at all. So much for promoting the sanctity of marriage.
I wonder how many of the proponents of Prop 8 have been/are involved in failed marriages or are not married at all. So much for promoting the sanctity of marriage.
“Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law.”
I think the money and time given by Mormons was as individuals. The Church in SLC did not fund Prop 8.
“The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.”
Almost all Christian churches in America, including the Catholic Church, fought for years to maintain Sunday Sabbath laws in the United States. The effect was that in most communities it was illegal to have a store open on a Sunday or to conduct any kind of business. They did this to publicly enforce their “religious tenets.”
Also, I think the Prohibition movement is analogous.
“As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference.”
I think the main difference is one is brutally violent and in some senses inhumane, while the other is unfair and continues our unfortunate tradition of discrimination.
“Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law.”
I think the money and time given by Mormons was as individuals. The Church in SLC did not fund Prop 8.
“The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.”
Almost all Christian churches in America, including the Catholic Church, fought for years to maintain Sunday Sabbath laws in the United States. The effect was that in most communities it was illegal to have a store open on a Sunday or to conduct any kind of business. They did this to publicly enforce their “religious tenets.”
Also, I think the Prohibition movement is analogous.
“As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference.”
I think the main difference is one is brutally violent and in some senses inhumane, while the other is unfair and continues our unfortunate tradition of discrimination.
“Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law.”
I think the money and time given by Mormons was as individuals. The Church in SLC did not fund Prop 8.
“The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.”
Almost all Christian churches in America, including the Catholic Church, fought for years to maintain Sunday Sabbath laws in the United States. The effect was that in most communities it was illegal to have a store open on a Sunday or to conduct any kind of business. They did this to publicly enforce their “religious tenets.”
Also, I think the Prohibition movement is analogous.
“As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference.”
I think the main difference is one is brutally violent and in some senses inhumane, while the other is unfair and continues our unfortunate tradition of discrimination.
“Members of particular faiths working as individuals for what they believe (which may be informed by their religious background or may be cultural) is very different than churches as entities spending vast sums to turn their religious tenets into secular law.”
I think the money and time given by Mormons was as individuals. The Church in SLC did not fund Prop 8.
“The only example you gave that I see as analogous is the Catholic Church’s efforts to overturn Roe. But that is recent. The Catholic Church certainly never attempted to make it unlawful for the general population to eat meat on Fridays when the Church forbid Catholics to do so.”
Almost all Christian churches in America, including the Catholic Church, fought for years to maintain Sunday Sabbath laws in the United States. The effect was that in most communities it was illegal to have a store open on a Sunday or to conduct any kind of business. They did this to publicly enforce their “religious tenets.”
Also, I think the Prohibition movement is analogous.
“As for the comparison between the Mormon Church’s efforts on Prop 8 and the efforts of fundamental Islamists, I don’t see the difference in the number of people who would be directly affected (we are all indirectly affected) as being a substantive difference.”
I think the main difference is one is brutally violent and in some senses inhumane, while the other is unfair and continues our unfortunate tradition of discrimination.
“Now opponents have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to invalidate the proposed constitutional amendment.”
According to a Slate article today(Nov. 6),written by the Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law, there are only two legal avenues that can reverse Prop 8, a legal challenge in the federal system, taking it up to the US Supreme Court or CA voter approval of ANOTHER constitutional amendment proposition, reversing Prop 8.
“Now opponents have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to invalidate the proposed constitutional amendment.”
According to a Slate article today(Nov. 6),written by the Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law, there are only two legal avenues that can reverse Prop 8, a legal challenge in the federal system, taking it up to the US Supreme Court or CA voter approval of ANOTHER constitutional amendment proposition, reversing Prop 8.
“Now opponents have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to invalidate the proposed constitutional amendment.”
According to a Slate article today(Nov. 6),written by the Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law, there are only two legal avenues that can reverse Prop 8, a legal challenge in the federal system, taking it up to the US Supreme Court or CA voter approval of ANOTHER constitutional amendment proposition, reversing Prop 8.
“Now opponents have filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to invalidate the proposed constitutional amendment.”
According to a Slate article today(Nov. 6),written by the Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law, there are only two legal avenues that can reverse Prop 8, a legal challenge in the federal system, taking it up to the US Supreme Court or CA voter approval of ANOTHER constitutional amendment proposition, reversing Prop 8.
“If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.”
So I suppose the civil right pioneers of the 60’s were intolerant bigots because the didn’t tolerate the racist segregation of the day?
No one was being hurt when same-sex marriage was legal.
“If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.”
So I suppose the civil right pioneers of the 60’s were intolerant bigots because the didn’t tolerate the racist segregation of the day?
No one was being hurt when same-sex marriage was legal.
“If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.”
So I suppose the civil right pioneers of the 60’s were intolerant bigots because the didn’t tolerate the racist segregation of the day?
No one was being hurt when same-sex marriage was legal.
“If you think that makes me a hating bigot or something well then, I’m sorry but your judgment is beyond repair.”
So I suppose the civil right pioneers of the 60’s were intolerant bigots because the didn’t tolerate the racist segregation of the day?
No one was being hurt when same-sex marriage was legal.
I think someday Prop. 8 will go down like Plessy v. Ferguson.
I think someday Prop. 8 will go down like Plessy v. Ferguson.
I think someday Prop. 8 will go down like Plessy v. Ferguson.
I think someday Prop. 8 will go down like Plessy v. Ferguson.