Yeah, but Little Richard did it first and better.

And the people, down through the centuries, have spoken. Not just the Bible, but Webster's Dictionary, defines this covenantal relationship called "marriage" as a commitment between one man and one woman.

Well, if Websters Dictionary says it, I guess I should just go about being a happy little second class citizen.

The hate isn't coming from the No on 8 side. It is coming from those who would deny rights from others.

I'd be surprised to find out that Pat Boone had opposable thumbs. The fact that he's even quoted at all anymore just shows how desperate are the people who read WingNutDaily. Reality is starting to penetrate their little, tiny brains, and they can't stand it.

Obviously. I mean, clearly peaceful demonstrations, voluntary boycotts, and slogan-shouting are exactly the same thing as murdering several hundred people and destroying a couple buildings.

beirmaster: The hate isn't coming from the No on 8 side. It is coming from those who would deny rights from others.

Of course! Don't you know that denying certain civil rights to certain groups of people is exactly what Jesus would do?

Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification. This was democracy in action, not mob rule. As noted journalist Thomas Sowell has said, there never was "a right to win." In America, at least the America we've known till now, rights are earned and won in a deliberative, legal way - at the polls.

Can someone really be this ignorant of history? To say that slavery was ended by some sort of quiet, legislative deliberation? To completely disregard the role of "civil disruptions" (i.e., civil disobedience) in the civil rights movement?

I mean, I know it's WND, but, c'mon

Not just the Bible, but Webster's Dictionary, defines this covenantal relationship called "marriage" as a commitment between one man and one woman.

What bible is HE reading? My bible defines "marriage" as a commitment between one man and as many women as that man can afford to support.

Deuteronomy 21:15

Does Pat Boone permanently live in 1953?

What this idiot doesn't realize is that the definition of marriage has changed dramatically over the centuries. To give one example, people of different races can marry now. And the people who fought that change were as sure the Bible prohibited interracial marriage as they are sure that the Bible prohibits gay marriage now.

But what would you expect from a guy whose career was built on doing bland copies of great rock songs that parents made their kids buy so they wouldn't buy records from a Negro?

/his version of "Tutti Frutti" might be one of the worst things ever recorded

The only penis I like is my own. But I'm sure the fundies would find something about me objectionable, so in my own self interest I support gay marriage to keep religious objections from being a legitimate reason to ban something.

Just come out already, Pat...you'll feel so much better.

beirmaster: The hate isn't coming from the No on 8 side. It is coming from those who would deny rights from others.

No, some of the gay rights activists cross the line. Not all of them, but enough to make it somewhat scary. I'm referring to the people who automatically assume that disagreeing with a gay rights activist = homophobe. which isn't at all true, but a fanatic won't see it that way.

Who are these anti-Prop 8 protesters trying to influence, anyway? The election is over and the votes have all been counted. Protesting is not going to change that.

So how about comparing the Religious right to Radical Islam; neither will rest until they force their religion onto others?

/my two cents
//worth far less

SkinnyHead: Who are these anti-Prop 8 protesters trying to influence, anyway? The election is over and the votes have all been counted. Protesting is not going to change that.

Yeah, I can't believe the blacks thought protesting Jim Crow laws would do anything either. They should've just accepted what the white majority said was right for them.

Weaver95: beirmaster: The hate isn't coming from the No on 8 side. It is coming from those who would deny rights from others.

No, some of the gay rights activists cross the line. Not all of them, but enough to make it somewhat scary. I'm referring to the people who automatically assume that disagreeing with a gay rights activist = homophobe. which isn't at all true, but a fanatic won't see it that way.

No offense, but I can't really see an argument denying gay marriage that doesn't essentially come down to: Your sexual orientation and desires are inferior to mine.

Honestly? That's a textbook definition of bigotry.

He should go back to writing love letters in the sand.

Weaver95: beirmaster: The hate isn't coming from the No on 8 side. It is coming from those who would deny rights from others.

No, some of the gay rights activists cross the line. Not all of them, but enough to make it somewhat scary. I'm referring to the people who automatically assume that disagreeing with a gay rights activist = homophobe. which isn't at all true, but a fanatic won't see it that way.

It's really dumb to conflate people protesting about a right or issue and the issue itself. You aren't doing this, but I think you're giving cover to someone who is.

Of course its true that there have been some protesters who have done stupid shiat - this is basically true for every protest all the time. But just like we don't base gun rights on what some idiots do, and we don't base racial equality rights on the LA riots, we shouldn't base gay rights on some bad actions of protesters. To even entertain the notion that there's any relevance or connection does a serious disservice.

MindfulModeration: No offense, but I can't really see an argument denying gay marriage that doesn't essentially come down to: Your sexual orientation and desires are inferior to mine.

Honestly? That's a textbook definition of bigotry.

I don't like the gay marrage debate because of the sheer insanity involved around it. The activists on BOTH sides seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to rewrite - or just plain ignore - the law AND the constitution if things don't turn out the way they want.

Weaver95: MindfulModeration: No offense, but I can't really see an argument denying gay marriage that doesn't essentially come down to: Your sexual orientation and desires are inferior to mine.

Honestly? That's a textbook definition of bigotry.

I don't like the gay marrage debate because of the sheer insanity involved around it. The activists on BOTH sides seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to rewrite - or just plain ignore - the law AND the constitution if things don't turn out the way they want.

Both sides are equally bad, so the "no gay marriage" crowd wins? Wat.

SkinnyHead: Who are these anti-Prop 8 protesters trying to influence, anyway? The election is over and the votes have all been counted. Protesting is not going to change that.

because it's not like an amendment has ever been repealed before...

Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification.

And it took 200 years! I think the gays just want things to happen quicker than that.

And slavery was still wrong back then, and everyone knew it.

liberalish: because it's not like an amendment has ever been repealed before...

I'll drink to that!

Etchy333: Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification.

And it took 200 years! I think the gays just want things to happen quicker than that.

And slavery was still wrong back then, and everyone knew it.

Has this dude heard of the Civil War?

Dick.


/Have Hotlink
//Will Travel

liberalish: because it's not like an amendment has ever been repealed before...

It takes a vote of the people to amend the state constitution. They just had that vote, and Prop 8 won. Are the protesters working to have the constitution amended at the next election (which would be the proper way to do it), or are these just pointless demonstrations of rage?

SkinnyHead: Who are these anti-Prop 8 protesters trying to influence, anyway? The election is over and the votes have all been counted. Protesting is not going to change that.

I know, right. Why won't those people just accept that their rights will be denied and get on with their life? Geez.

MindfulModeration: Both sides are equally bad, so the "no gay marriage" crowd wins? Wat.

How about both sides stop acting like children and admit that yes, the rules apply to both sides of the debate.

Ok, the gay rights groups don't like Prop 8. But it was a legal vote and everyone had a chance to be heard. They lost. Get over it. And if they don't like it, then they can gear up and come up with a new amendment and change things to the way they want next election cycle. But don't start telling everyone who voted for Prop 8 that they're a bigot or that they're stupid. that'll lose you the next election cycle for sure. And definately don't start shopping around for a friendly court to overturn the results of a legal election. THAT will really lose you electorial support and will come back to haunt you in all sorts of ways.

bulldg4life: SkinnyHead: Who are these anti-Prop 8 protesters trying to influence, anyway? The election is over and the votes have all been counted. Protesting is not going to change that.

I know, right. Why won't those people just accept that their rights will be denied and get on with their life? Geez.

so work to overturn things next election cycle. If they win via popular vote, then i'm cool with it.

Nothing frustrates me more than when it is claimed that "rights" groups are trying to impose their views on the rest of us. THIS IS A TOTAL BS ARGUMENT. No one is going to make you get gay-married, or have an abortion. No one is going to make you support, like, or agree with any actions you don't want to. No one is going to make you even talk to a gay person if you don't want to. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. You can go right on practicing you religion, marriage, beliefs, customs or anything else you want to do, totally unhindered. People are only fighting to allow themselves the same options many already enjoy.

The NO-8 crowd is not fighting for allowing only gay marriages. That is the only alternate reality in which this article would have made any sense.

/and then there's also the church vs state part.

Weaver95: MindfulModeration: Both sides are equally bad, so the "no gay marriage" crowd wins? Wat.

How about both sides stop acting like children and admit that yes, the rules apply to both sides of the debate.

Ok, the gay rights groups don't like Prop 8.



But it was a legal vote and everyone had a chance to be heard.

That's still up in the air.

They lost. Get over it. And if they don't like it, then they can gear up and come up with a new amendment and change things to the way they want next election cycle.

Or we could use perfectly accepted legal challenges now to override the vote because the "No gay marriage" crowd wanted to push through a revision as an amendment.

But don't start telling everyone who voted for Prop 8 that they're a bigot or that they're stupid.

As I've said, the arguments for prop 8 come down to heterosexuality being "more valid" than homosexuality, or accusations "judicial activism". Bigotry and stupidity, respectively.

That'll lose you the next election cycle for sure.

Mind giving me next week's lotto numbers while you're staring into your crystal ball?

And definitely don't start shopping around for a friendly court to overturn the results of a legal election.

Don't invalidate what we want! Don't you even think about fighting back, just sit there and take it, you hear me?

THAT will really lose you electoral support and will come back to haunt you in all sorts of ways.

Only from those that are idiotic enough to fall for the "judicial activism" line. And I doubt they're going to vote for gay marriage anyway.

Weaver95: bulldg4life: SkinnyHead: Who are these anti-Prop 8 protesters trying to influence, anyway? The election is over and the votes have all been counted. Protesting is not going to change that.

I know, right. Why won't those people just accept that their rights will be denied and get on with their life? Geez.

so work to overturn things next election cycle. If they win via popular vote, then i'm cool with it.

Popular opinion should never be the standard by which we measure acceptability.

MindfulModeration: Weaver95: MindfulModeration: Both sides are equally bad, so the "no gay marriage" crowd wins? Wat.

How about both sides stop acting like children and admit that yes, the rules apply to both sides of the debate.

Ok, the gay rights groups don't like Prop 8.



But it was a legal vote and everyone had a chance to be heard.

That's still up in the air.

They lost. Get over it. And if they don't like it, then they can gear up and come up with a new amendment and change things to the way they want next election cycle.

Or we could use perfectly accepted legal challenges now to override the vote because the "No gay marriage" crowd wanted to push through a revision as an amendment.

But don't start telling everyone who voted for Prop 8 that they're a bigot or that they're stupid.

As I've said, the arguments for prop 8 come down to heterosexuality being "more valid" than homosexuality, or accusations "judicial activism". Bigotry and stupidity, respectively.

That'll lose you the next election cycle for sure.

Mind giving me next week's lotto numbers while you're staring into your crystal ball?

And definitely don't start shopping around for a friendly court to overturn the results of a legal election.

Don't invalidate what we want! Don't you even think about fighting back, just sit there and take it, you hear me?

THAT will really lose you electoral support and will come back to haunt you in all sorts of ways.

Only from those that are idiotic enough to fall for the "judicial activism" line. And I doubt they're going to vote for gay marriage anyway.


Oop. FTFM

SkinnyHead: liberalish: because it's not like an amendment has ever been repealed before...

It takes a vote of the people to amend the state constitution. They just had that vote, and Prop 8 won. Are the protesters working to have the constitution amended at the next election (which would be the proper way to do it), or are these just pointless demonstrations of rage?

I do not have anywhere near the legal knowledge to know if the protesters lawsuits about changing vs. amending or whatever are valid. It seems to be this is going to be a PR campaign that lasts an entire election cycle in support of an amendment to repeal this amendment.

Regardless, I would like to see a judicial ruling that amendments and laws passed (even by majority vote) that arbitrarily or illegally (ie, religion-based) restrict rights otherwise available to other citizens are unconstituitionl. We should not be able to vote as a country that you, SkinnyHead, are not entitled to rights granted to all other citizens, even if they are not specifically enumerated in law.

MindfulModeration: Popular opinion should never be the standard by which we measure acceptability.

So you would rather have an elite circle quietly decide all matters moral and impose that directive on the unwashed masses from above?

scary thought indeed.

I prefer a public debate followed by an informed electorate making a decision based on what they feel is the best possible choice. And that appears to be exactly what happened with Prop 8.

I didn't say you had to like it, but the proper forms were filed and the rules were obeyed. that's how it works in a democratic republic. And you have the option to overturn the decision in the next election cycle. If you really believe that your cause is just, then I have little doubt you will win next time around.

Weaver95: MindfulModeration: Popular opinion should never be the standard by which we measure acceptability.

So you would rather have an elite circle quietly decide all matters moral and impose that directive on the unwashed masses from above?

scary thought indeed.

I prefer a public debate followed by an informed electorate making a decision based on what they feel is the best possible choice. And that appears to be exactly what happened with Prop 8.

I didn't say you had to like it, but the proper forms were filed and the rules were obeyed. that's how it works in a democratic republic. And you have the option to overturn the decision in the next election cycle. If you really believe that your cause is just, then I have little doubt you will win next time around.

And this is where you utterly fail to comprehend both the system of checks and balances that make up the government, what a democratic republic is, and the founding father's intent when it came to a public vote.

PROTIP: A democratic republic does not work on direct democracy. You bet your sweet ass that there's an "elite" that handles legal matters. It's called THE LEGISLATURE.

Weaver95: So you would rather have an elite circle quietly decide all matters moral and impose that directive on the unwashed masses from above?

scary thought indeed.

Why is it scary? Judges are experts in law, just like engineers are experts in railroads. We appoint agency heads of transportation and commerce to figure out our railroad system - we don't leave that up to a vote. So why would we want people voting on whether or not something is a fundamental and equal right, legally speaking?

Judges don't know down stuff because its immoral. They knock stuff down because its illegal.

Weaver95: I prefer a public debate followed by an informed electorate making a decision based on what they feel is the best possible choice. And that appears to be exactly what happened with Prop 8.

I agree. Lots of us are gearing up for 2010 - I think that's what alot of these protests are about. Rising up to change public opinion.

Weaver95: I didn't say you had to like it, but the proper forms were filed and the rules were obeyed.

How do you know this? You don't know much about California law and procedure - I wouldn't expect you to, seeing as you're neither or a lawyer nor a Californian. On what basis do you make this claim? If a CA court says this was an invalid law, procedurally, seems like they would know better than either of us.

I admit I have no idea whether or not this is legal, but I also don't pretend to.

Weaver95: If you really believe that your cause is just, then I have little doubt you will win next time around.

Both sides believe their cause is just. This doesn't make sense.

Weaver95: so work to overturn things next election cycle. If they win via popular vote, then i'm cool with it.

I don't see why there should be a popular vote on whether or not a certain group of people deserve certain rights.

I mean, let's have a popular vote on gun control issues. I'm sure that would go over awesome-like.

Ok, the gay rights groups don't like Prop 8. But it was a legal vote and everyone had a chance to be heard. They lost. Get over it.

It's a vote to deny rights and privileges to a certain group of people. That shouldn't happen in a simple majority vote. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly.

And it's really damn arrogant to throw around the "they lost. get over it".

If a majority of people in this country voted to take away rights or privileges granted to you...you'd be talking about armageddon and revolution before you accepted "you lost. get over it."

But don't start telling everyone who voted for Prop 8 that they're a bigot or that they're stupid.

I would suggest not engaging in stupid bigoted behavior. It's a simple solution, really.


I prefer a public debate followed by an informed electorate making a decision based on what they feel is the best possible choice. And that appears to be exactly what happened with Prop 8.

How does a well-informed electorate vote to restrict the rights and privileges of a group of people? To me, that seems to portray an ill-informed electorate driven by hypocrisy, religion, bigotry, and ignorance.

Weaver95: Ok, the gay rights groups don't like Prop 8. But it was a legal vote and everyone had a chance to be heard. They lost. Get over it. And if they don't like it, then they can gear up and come up with a new amendment and change things to the way they want next election cycle. But don't start telling everyone who voted for Prop 8 that they're a bigot or that they're stupid. that'll lose you the next election cycle for sure. And definately don't start shopping around for a friendly court to overturn the results of a legal election. THAT will really lose you electorial support and will come back to haunt you in all sorts of ways.

So you supported the DC handgun ban? That was democratic legislation.

I'm usually not one to automatically say homophobe = secret penis enthusiast, but this:





just screams "hey, nice penis."

DamnYankees: So you supported the DC handgun ban? That was democratic legislation.

Actually, it wasn't. that was the result of an elite few deciding that 'guns was badz' and legislating accordingly.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: So you supported the DC handgun ban? That was democratic legislation.

Actually, it wasn't. that was the result of an elite few deciding that 'guns was badz' and legislating accordingly.

It was legislation of Washington DC. It was struck down by the courts.

You either have a fundamental problem with people challenging laws in courts or you don't. I don't see the difference.

liberalish: Regardless, I would like to see a judicial ruling that amendments and laws passed (even by majority vote) that arbitrarily or illegally (ie, religion-based) restrict rights otherwise available to other citizens are unconstituitionl. We should not be able to vote as a country that you, SkinnyHead, are not entitled to rights granted to all other citizens, even if they are not specifically enumerated in law.

What about my right to vote to amend the state constitution, and my right to have a say (through my vote) on how the state should define marriage. You want a judicial ruling to take away my right to vote on certain matters of public policy, and to take away my right to fully participate in the democratic process.

DamnYankees: It was legislation of Washington DC.

Legislation not voted on directly by the public.

It was struck down by the courts.

yeah. that pesky constitution just gets in the way of all sorts of things!

You either have a fundamental problem with people challenging laws in courts or you don't. I don't see the difference.

Or you could continue to completely (and deliberately?) mis-understand the argument.

either way, I really don't care. we'll have to watch and see how this all shakes out, and that's about the only thing anyone here will ever agree on concerning this issue.

SkinnyHead: liberalish: Regardless, I would like to see a judicial ruling that amendments and laws passed (even by majority vote) that arbitrarily or illegally (ie, religion-based) restrict rights otherwise available to other citizens are unconstituitionl. We should not be able to vote as a country that you, SkinnyHead, are not entitled to rights granted to all other citizens, even if they are not specifically enumerated in law.

What about my right to vote to amend the state constitution, and my right to have a say (through my vote) on how the state should define marriage.

You don't have one.

You want a judicial ruling to take away my right to vote on certain matters of public policy, and to take away my right to fully participate in the democratic process.

When it comes to determining the rights of others. Hell. Yes.

Weaver95: Legislation not voted on directly by the public.

So you make a distinction between legislation and refernda? Firstly, I don't know if there's any actual distinction in law. But if there was - if CA passes a constitutional amendment through referendum to ban guns, you would no want that challenged in court?

Weaver95: yeah. that pesky constitution just gets in the way of all sorts of things!

Exactly the point of people who want prop 8 struck down.

Weaver95: Or you could continue to completely (and deliberately?) mis-understand the argument.

Up until this post, you have made no argument at all about the difference between legislation and public referenda.

SkinnyHead: What about my right to vote to amend the state constitution, and my right to have a say (through my vote) on how the state should define marriage. You want a judicial ruling to take away my right to vote on certain matters of public policy, and to take away my right to fully participate in the democratic process.

Your rights don't get to restrict or otherwise trample on the rights of others.

Weaver95: yeah. that pesky constitution just gets in the way of all sorts of things!

Yes, the whole part about treating people equally does get looked over for various reasons from time to time.

Or you could continue to completely (and deliberately?) mis-understand the argument.

You are saying that people should accept the decision because it was voted on by a majority. However, other legislation accepted by the majority should be struck down because of that pesky Constitution.

The idea of "you lost. get over it" is insanely ridiculous and I can't believe that you of all people would be saying such things to other American citizens. I would think you'd be right at the front concerning the idea of fighting for rights that you feel are being stripped from people.

But, yet again, we see that it is just issues that you feel are important and screw everybody else with a different opinion.

I wish you'd be consistent on that part.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: Or you could continue to completely (and deliberately?) mis-understand the argument.

Up until this post, you have made no argument at all about the difference between legislation and public referenda.

Ah. Deliberately then.

Fair enough.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: Weaver95: Or you could continue to completely (and deliberately?) mis-understand the argument.

Up until this post, you have made no argument at all about the difference between legislation and public referenda.

Ah. Deliberately then.

Fair enough.

Just want to note you have ignored the rest of my post, so I will repeat it:

Weaver95: Legislation not voted on directly by the public.

ME: So you make a distinction between legislation and refernda? Firstly, I don't know if there's any actual distinction in law. But if there was - if CA passes a constitutional amendment through referendum to ban guns, you would no want that challenged in court?

Weaver95: yeah. that pesky constitution just gets in the way of all sorts of things!

ME: Exactly the point of people who want prop 8 struck down.