Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol not true at all. See the link above. Gay activists do not want equality, that is not their real agenda. They really just want to push their lifestyle onto everyone else and make society pander to them. And if you disagree with them even in the slightest they will label you as a bigot.
Tolerance only for those you agree with is not tolerance.
This is rich. Homosexuals want to be treated as equals and given the same right and liberties as heterosexuals yet they're the ones forcing their lifestyle down our throats?
Have you seen any sexualized television or magazine ad for clothing, make up, alcohol, cigarettes, etc,etc? Yeah don't give me that tripe of homosexuals wanting society to pander to them when society panders to the heterosexuals and throws it in our face every day.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I agree on the part about churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. not having to marry same sex couples.
That kind of goes without saying since those people already have the option of not sanctifying marriages of people outside their religion or outside their religious belief (mixed religion marriages).
But civil judges? If it's part of the job description, you have to do it and can't fall back on your religion to discriminate. If a Christian was actually following their religion, for example, they could say their religion prohibits them from marrying two Buddhist folks.... since being Buddhist is against the Christian religion. BIG TIME.
I recall a judge in Texas refusing to do this mainly in part that it's completely optional for a them to do the ceremony/sign the certificate of marriage. I remember clearly there was a big uproar about it on here from the naysayers saying she should be removed from office, but it was proven by me and several others that the specific duty she was talking about was clearly optional for judges to do.
So basically whatever people want to call a "right" or "equal protection" - will now give the federal judiciary branch the leverage to trump the will of the states - correct?
It has always been the case that the will of the states is subordinate to the Constitution and laws of the United States. A slight familiarity with the Constitution would have enabled you to realize that.
This is rich. Homosexuals want to be treated as equals and given the same right and liberties as heterosexuals yet they're the ones forcing their lifestyle down our throats?
Have you seen any sexualized television or magazine ad for clothing, make up, alcohol, cigarettes, etc,etc? Yeah don't give me that tripe of homosexuals wanting society to pander to them when society panders to the heterosexuals and throws it in our face every day.
It never fails, the subconscious comes out in 'gay threads' with "forcing their lifestyle down our throats" and "throws it in our face every day"
Not even 3 million of Californias citizens voted yes on proposition 8, there were at the time 38 million people in the state, so how does less than 3 million voters constitute a majority of Californias population?. But it does not matter for no one should have the right to vote on someones rights, that would make us an elitest society where the majority rules on the rights of the minorities. We are not a theocracy or a tyranny of the majority. Always when it comes to same sex marriage, the opponents want to lose all those 1049 federal rights, protections and benefits, yet I have not seem them flocking to the courts demanding divorces, nor stop getting married. It is also interesting that the judges are corrupt if they support equality, yet they must be fair if they support religious domination. The LDS church was behind prop 8 as they have been behind many other initiatives and propositions demanding bans on same sex marriage. Not everyone is Mormon, Christian or even religious and those that want religion to dominate law forget and ignore that their religion is not a state religion.
Just over 7 million Californians voted yes on prop 8.
Just over 7 million Californians voted yes on prop 8.
I've always wondered how many people misvoted on Prop 8 - people who thought a yes vote meant yes to gay marriage. I saw an interview with Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy) in which she opined that since the measure was popularly referred to as the "Gay Marriage Vote" many people voted the opposite of their intent, and had it been presented in a way that Yes meant Yes to gay marriage and No meant No gay marriage, it would have passed.
Last edited by hammertime33; 02-27-2014 at 02:14 PM..
Just over 7 million Californians voted yes on prop 8.
I stand corrected and that is still not a majority of the population and why should the majority rule on any minority and why not make it blacks or Asians too, or Jewish people, why just gays? Any discrimination or denial of rights of the minority by the majority is wrong and wrought with problems.
I've always wondered how many people misvoted on Prop 8 - people who thought a yes vote meant yes to gay marriage. I saw in interview with Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy) in which she opined that since the measure was popularly referred to as the "Gay Marriage Vote" many people voted the opposite of their intent, and had it been presented in a way that Yes meant Yes to gay marriage and No meant No gay marriage, it would have passed.
For this reason and others, I think there should be a much higher hurdle for amending a constitution. I proposed something like this to a couple of my state representatives after the 2012 election:
- can only be on the ballot in presidential election years
- must be signed by the governor
- must pass both houses of the legislature with at least 75% in two consecutive presidential election years (i.e., 2012 AND 2016)
- must win the general public ballot with at least 75% in two consecutive presidential election years
This would prevent ramming thru of amendments simply because "this is our only chance" like what happened in Minnesota during the 2011 session. The Republicans knew they were likely to get their asses kicked in 2012 (which they deservedly did), so they scrambled together a marriage ban and a voter ID amendment. Luckily both failed.
This is disgusting and illegal. Activist judges going against the will of the people of the great state of Texas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The LDS church was behind prop 8 as they have been behind many other initiatives and propositions demanding bans on same sex marriage. Not everyone is Mormon, Christian or even religious and those that want religion to dominate law forget and ignore that their religion is not a state religion.