Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes that's just so pro family. The children will suffer, and I don't know how adults can live with themselves when they do.
don't you see? it's complicated.
Yes that's just so pro family. The children will suffer, and I don't know how adults can live with themselves when they do.
Pro-Gay Marriage Forces Finally Organizing, After Losing
By Pareene, 5:52 PM on Tue Nov 11 2008, 6,267 views
We mentioned it before, but it was sad when, on Election Night, America once again said thanks, but no thanks, to recognizing the rights of gay people. Specifically, California's Proposition 8, which banned the state's previously legal gay marriages, passed. Now, hey, everyone's going nuts. The gays are currently blaming Black People, Mormons, the governor, Barack Obama, and others, and they're protesting and demonstrating and doing all the other things everyone forgot to do before the vote happened.
We know everyone was totally distracted by Barack Obama and his magical election, but guys, even we out here in New York knew you faced a well-funded, well-organized, media-savvy campaign of lies and misinformation, and the pro-gay marriage response was abysmal.
Now—now!—Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it's a shame gay marriage was banned, oh boo hoo. He didn't lift a finger to campaign against Prop 8 before! Now David Geffen is quoted in The Daily Beast babbling about the lack of outreach to black voters. Where was his money, before? [Update: Geffen gave $200k, out of his billions.] Did he get his rich liberal friends to contribute as much as the Mormon Church did? Did they use the money to build a grassroots movement as well-organized as the pro-Prop 8 guys did? Check out the list of Hollywood's non-donors as of September 10—many of them did eventually donate, but see how they didn't feel the need to until the last second?
Blaming the blacks is ridiculous and unhelpful and stupid. There aren't enough black people in California to have make the ultimate difference, even with bigger turnout, unless you consider these black voters a subset of religious voters, a giant group everyone should've known they'd have to contend with months ago. Black people certainly posed less of an electoral threat than Catholics did in the California polls.
It seems like everyone just assumed Prop 8 would fail, magically, even when the polls tightened significantly. And now—now!—the protests are ramping up. Now—now!—Keith Olbermann delivers his heartfelt Special Comment. Hey, let's all boycott Sundance! That'll show the Mormons! They won't meddle in our affairs ever again!
Of course the anger and resentment is already hardening. But yes, outreach and education and organization and money (and maybe some genuine help from Barack Obama, who was against Prop 8, though you'd never know it) might've won the battle.
Garnering support for gay rights in Arizona, in Arkansas, even in Florida, are difficult challenges that will still probably take years of work, but to get a gay marriage ban passed in California smacks of enlightened rich liberals not trying hard enough.
So all that anti-choice bullshit about adoption being the solution really was just bullshit?
So, the gay agenda is all about providing loving, caring homes.While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.”
See, this is what will wake straights up. When they see that this bullshit affects them.Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild;
because the Supreme Court of California found that banning gay citizens from access to the institution of marriage and it's subsequent legal rights and benefits was unconstitutional.
why is it okay to retain a law that has been found to violate the civil rights of millions of Californians?
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex.
Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.
And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.
And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.
And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
True.
I think they honestly believe in the fight, they just don't know why.
You voted for the side of Proposition 8 that was totally against separation of church and state. You do realize that, don't you? You're for a group that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds.
As Irvine said, there's nothing here about the rights of churches that would change.
Please stop ignoring facts.
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.
And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.
but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
They know why. They just don't have the cojones to say it.
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it.
just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.
but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
isn't this the essence of almost 99% of the threads in FYM though?
There are rarely any threads on here where the opposing sides are split 50/50...
that's true. i remember once getting ganged up on by a bunch of Canadian women.
there was a more equal ideological spread a few years ago, but i think the pendulum has swung quite a bit (at least in the US), and things just aren't as contentious as they were in 2003/4 at the peak of the Bush administrations excesses and the Iraq War.
Plus, when you're constantly called out on stuff and have to actually defend the things you say, well, some people take their ball and go home, don't they?
Yeah, this is by the craziest of arguments I've seen. I think some folks are truly confused and mainly because the church has done a good job at selling the lie.
THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. A church can still deny a marriage just like they could deny the marriage of heterosexual couple they see unfit.
I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.
And the woman who did end up performing our ceremony spent 2 hours interviewing us before she would agree to marry us and made it clear she could turn us down for any reason.
Unfit hetero couple chiming in!
I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.
Denying other people choices is not an individual right, you want to put liberties to the vote, a mob rule which effectively abolishes the point of a constitution.Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.
And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
to piggyback on this, you know what's amazing about these arguments that say, "once gays start to marry, who's next?"
you know what i've noticed? it's been almost 90 years since women got the right to vote, and still, animals and children don't have the right to vote.
Denying other people choices is not an individual right, you want to put liberties to the vote, a mob rule which effectively abolishes the point of a constitution.