SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 57 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-06-2008, 01:45 PM   #841
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and keep reminding everyone of that fact.

at least i ain't a faggot!

Well, we've found that some of the most vocal anti-gay preachers really are!!


Haven't we.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 01:49 PM   #842
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
could have written
I don't know, I remember wrote as being active while written is passive. Someone wrote, something is written.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 01:50 PM   #843
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 359
Local Time: 12:58 AM
Just wanted to tell you all how disappointed the majority of us are here in the SF Bay Area. Luckily Solano county has said it will continue to marry same sex couples until ordered to stop by the government.
__________________
MissMoo is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 01:58 PM   #844
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:58 AM
That editorial doesn't even attempt to explain why gay marriage is such a potent threat to society and to families as to necessitate a multimillion dollar opposition campaign. It's just a laundry list of self-pitying grievances about having to share public space with meanie pundits, celebrities and academics, as if actual disagreements over the moral status of gay marriage were irrelevant. One might conclude she believes that "the gay lobby and its allies" have only ever been involved in this for kicks and the sadistic glee of watching social conservatives squirm, and have never actually been dead serious about gay couples and their children deserving the same dignity as families that married straight people enjoy.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 02:00 PM   #845
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 06:58 PM
i'm just glad that INDY used the quote function this time.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-06-2008, 02:22 PM   #846
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:58 PM
I laughed for about 5 minutes at this. I believe it's called pwnage
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 02:42 PM   #847
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
guys, come on. we all know that people don't object to gay people, they just object to judicial activism.

No one objects to people,
gay, straight, bi, trans
it is just the immoral behavior.


remember, Love the sinner, hate the sin.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:26 PM   #848
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I don't know, I remember wrote as being active while written is passive. Someone wrote, something is written.
It's a not a voice issue.

"wrote" is the past tense
"written" is the past participle used with "have"


For further reference Irregular Verbs
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:30 PM   #849
War Child
 
u2gek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sunny CA
Posts: 715
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
Not with Grammar like that............
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
could have written
__________________
u2gek is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:32 PM   #850
An Interferer
 
Miringeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Staring at u(2)
Posts: 7,074
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissMoo View Post
Luckily Solano county has said it will continue to marry same sex couples until ordered to stop by the government.
Solano County was the only Bay Area county to vote yes on 8.
__________________
Miringeltje is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:43 PM   #851
War Child
 
u2gek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sunny CA
Posts: 715
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i don't understand this at all. how am i a threat to the family? how do i threaten any family? why is my existence so dangerous? what am i doing that's so wrong to you?
You're not a threat to my family Irvine!

I've been reading this "debate" and will jump in here....

I'm a catholic, married for 13 years, with two beautiful daughters, age 9 and 7. Their aunt, my sister in law, is gay. My daughters are thrilled that she's in love and has a girlfriend, just like their other aunt has a boyfriend. They are just happy that each one has someone to love. When we discussed what prop 8 was and what it meant, they didn't understand why two people in love can't get "married". We go to church every Sunday and I explained what the bible says and what our church says about marriage and my 9 year old said, "well, Fr. W---- must be wrong. If they're in love they should be able to get married. God would want them to be happy."

If only it were that simple....
__________________
u2gek is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:43 PM   #852
An Interferer
 
Miringeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Staring at u(2)
Posts: 7,074
Local Time: 03:58 PM
From the San Francisco Chronicle :

San Francisco Bay Area — News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Classifieds: SFGate

Same-sex marriage issue back to state top court

(11-05) 18:16 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A day after California voters approved a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the incendiary issue returned to the state Supreme Court, where gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco filed lawsuits Wednesday seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

And Attorney General Jerry Brown, who represents the state in court, said he would defend the legality of the thousands of same-sex marriages conducted in the 5 1/2 months leading up to election day - even though sponsors of Prop. 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages. That controversy is also likely to end up before California's high court and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It is my belief that the courts will hold that these same-sex marriages entered into are valid," Brown said in a statement. He said he would defend Prop. 8 against legal challenges, but would also defend "the marriages contracted during the time that same-sex marriage was the law in California."

A research institute at UCLA has estimated that 18,000 same-sex couples have married in California since the state Supreme Court's ruling legalizing such marriages took effect June 16. In a victory statement Tuesday night, the Yes on 8 campaign asserted that from now on, "only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed."

Campaign manager Frank Schubert said Wednesday, however, that his organization has no plans to challenge any of those marriages in court. The question will have to be decided by "the court that created that problem" by refusing to suspend its ruling until after the election, he said, without describing how it might reach the court.

Prop. 8 would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing "activist judges" of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.

Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.

The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.

Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution.

That leaves the plaintiffs with the difficult task of showing that Prop. 8, a state constitutional amendment, violates other, more basic provisions of California's Charter. The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments.

Some of the same legal organizations filing suit Wednesday offered similar arguments this summer to try to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot, but the court refused, while leaving room for a postelection challenge.

The couples' lawsuits contend Prop. 8 is so far-reaching that it is not merely a constitutional amendment but a revision, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot. Such a vote would be unlikely with the Legislature's houses overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.

Plaintiffs argued the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority - gays and lesbians - while stripping judges of their power to protect that group.

"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups suing on behalf of the six unmarried couples. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions."

The suit by San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County argues that any measure allowing a majority of the public to take away minority rights violates principles of equality at the heart of the state Constitution.

"If allowed to stand, Prop. 8 so devastates the principle of equal protection that it endangers the fundamental rights of any potential electoral minority," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

Sponsors of the initiative were unimpressed. Andrew Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign, called the legal challenges "an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process."
__________________
Miringeltje is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:47 PM   #853
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2gek View Post
I'm a catholic, married for 13 years, with two beautiful daughters, age 9 and 7. Their aunt, my sister in law, is gay. My daughters are thrilled that she's in love and has a girlfriend, just like their other aunt has a boyfriend. They are just happy that each one has someone to love. When we discussed what prop 8 was and what it meant, they didn't understand why two people in love can't get "married". We go to church every Sunday and I explained what the bible says and what our church says about marriage and my 9 year old said, "well, Fr. W---- must be wrong. If they're in love they should be able to get married. God would want them to be happy."

The new generation!

Nice job with the kids!
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:48 PM   #854
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2gek View Post
You're not a threat to my family Irvine!


i totally understand and appreciate the kind words.

however, i am curious to know why this line of thought -- gays as a threat -- is resonant with some people. i want to understand how something that seems like such nonsense to me makes sense to other people. i want to understand that thought process.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-06-2008, 03:49 PM   #855
An Interferer
 
Miringeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Staring at u(2)
Posts: 7,074
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Prop. 8 foes concede defeat, vow to fight on

(11-06) 12:19 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Opponents of Proposition 8, after taking a close look at the ballot totals from Tuesday's election, today conceded defeat in their effort to keep same-sex marriage legal in California.

The estimated 3 million votes yet to be counted across the state are not enough to close the 500,000-vote lead the "Yes" side holds with all California precincts reporting, officials from the No on 8 campaign said.

"While we think the margin will close, we are convinced we will not be able to overcome the small deficit we are in and that Proposition 8 will pass," Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said in a telephone news conference this morning.

The measure, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage in the state, has received 52.5 percent of votes in favor to 47.5 percent of votes against it.

Kors and other opponents of the measure complained today about what they considered to be false statements and questionable tactics from Prop. 8 supporters.

They also predicted victory for the rights of same-sex couples in the future.

"That day is not today and it may not be tomorrow but I do not believe it is far off," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Prop. 8 supporters won a surprisingly widespread victory Tuesday, winning almost everywhere in the state but in the Bay Area and a few other counties. Voters in Florida and Arizona also voted in favor of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
__________________

__________________
Miringeltje is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com