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.
And look at all the backlash it caused. It will mean financial losses for businesses who supported it, it alienated a portion of the church, and it could cause ramifications from the government on the Mormon church. Congratulations...
But wait, the prop will eventually be overturned, and when it does it will probably be made in many more states that it might have never had a chance in for a very long while.
So you call for demonstrations by the opposing parties and boycotts which can work both ways.Afterall their are alot more that supported it that didn't across the voters spectrum.
This is just opening a door..whats next after gay marriage is approved? Adults marrying children? People marrying farm animals? Why not? after all...people will say that since gays can marry...why not some 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl?
To whoever said this, I wanted to tell you that I think this is the most idiotic post I have read on this forum to this day.
So you call for demonstrations by the opposing parties and boycotts which can work both ways.Afterall their are alot more that supported it that didn't across the voters spectrum.
demographically, i think that you would find that poorer, older folks and uneducated dominated the FOR side. The side that voter YES are the spenders (for the most part anyway and the most politically involved). Those unrepentant businesses that supported Prop 8 could, should and will pay a price. btw, a 4% spread is not exactly "alot more". Once ppl hear the truth in response to the mormon lies, you would see a different result from fair-minded californians who will listen to both sides of the issue.
Which ethnic group voted in large numbers against it?
Thats why you and I always disagree as you see things through rose colored lenses which refuse to blame Dems .
ONLY politician in all of CA ocean of Dem congress-Senate to want the courts to rule for gay marriage or at least look at is a Rep named Arnold actually Jerry Brown also but not any other Dems.[/
Your statement is incorrect. The California Democratic party urged no on Prop 8. The Democrat-controlled state assemby/senate legislated twice to approve gay marriage & recently voted to recommend that the Court overturn Prop 8. Senator Feinstein appeared in TV ads urging voters to accept gay marriage. All other noted Democrats [including mayors of all the major cities\ California Teachers Association\ Office of Education\ bishops from Episcopal & Lutheran churches\ etc were publicly against Prop 8.
Schwarzenegger is a Republican but strongly disagrees with the GOP. Republicans & Religious Right [Catholics\ Mormons\ evangelicals were the driving force behind Prop 8 & will pay the consequences.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,082,780 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELOrocks17
This is just opening a door..whats next after gay marriage is approved? Adults marrying children? People marrying farm animals? Why not? after all...people will say that since gays can marry...why not some 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl?
Don't get your hopes up,I doubt they'll ever let you marry that sheep of yours.
What ever happened to NAMBLA, or the North American Man-Boy Love Ass-oh-ciation?
I'm sure that if the court overturns the will of the majority of voters yet again, systematically undermining the political process, basically making it worthless, we'll see all sorts of other groups DEMAND the same "treatment" based on the courts striking down of Prop. 8. And since it's all relative any argument used to hold the line will be tossed out, to the point where basically ANYTHING will be accepted behavior.
Basically what we have is a situation where the liberals have become the power base for defining all that people are and all that they do. (this is the fault of CONSERVATIVES for not being engaged in the political process enough, basically leaving the field and GIVING the control to liberals/socialists)
Marriage is what LIBERALS say it is...and since according to the 1960's paradigm of everything is "relative" then marriage IS what EVER anyone SAYS it is....basically it becomes "undefined".
Not with out risk this is a very dangerous president should the courts rule in favor of the liberals.
Imagine if crime is what ever anyone says it is, or free speech, or freedom of assembly.....etc
The notion that if homosexuals loose the (manufactured "right") to "marry" then all other minority groups that have NATURAL rights based on something that they actually are by birth, will be denied these rights is a bogus argument at best.
This is, however the mentality will all liberal issues and agendas.
I'm sure that if the court overturns the will of the majority of voters yet again, systematically undermining the political process, basically making it worthless, we'll see all sorts of other groups DEMAND the same "treatment" based on the courts striking down of Prop. 8.
It's so frustrating that people still won't abandon this line of argument. The will of the people is wholly irrelevant to the courts. The Judiciary was not founded as an extension of the people's political clout, but as a weight to balance out the power of a majority and ensure that they(Or the Legislative or Executive branches themselves, for that matter) do not enact unconstitutional statutes and legislation.
What ever happened to NAMBLA, or the North American Man-Boy Love Ass-oh-ciation?
I'm sure that if the court overturns the will of the majority of voters yet again, systematically undermining the political process, basically making it worthless, we'll see all sorts of other groups DEMAND the same "treatment" based on the courts striking down of Prop. 8. And since it's all relative any argument used to hold the line will be tossed out, to the point where basically ANYTHING will be accepted behavior.
Basically what we have is a situation where the liberals have become the power base for defining all that people are and all that they do. (this is the fault of CONSERVATIVES for not being engaged in the political process enough, basically leaving the field and GIVING the control to liberals/socialists)
Marriage is what LIBERALS say it is...and since according to the 1960's paradigm of everything is "relative" then marriage IS what EVER anyone SAYS it is....basically it becomes "undefined".
Not with out risk this is a very dangerous president should the courts rule in favor of the liberals.
Imagine if crime is what ever anyone says it is, or free speech, or freedom of assembly.....etc
The notion that if homosexuals loose the (manufactured "right") to "marry" then all other minority groups that have NATURAL rights based on something that they actually are by birth, will be denied these rights is a bogus argument at best.
This is, however the mentality will all liberal issues and agendas.
What ever happened to NAMBLA, or the North American Man-Boy Love Ass-oh-ciation?
I'm sure that if the court overturns the will of the majority of voters yet again, systematically undermining the political process, basically making it worthless, we'll see all sorts of other groups DEMAND the same "treatment" based on the courts striking down of Prop. 8. And since it's all relative any argument used to hold the line will be tossed out, to the point where basically ANYTHING will be accepted behavior.
Basically what we have is a situation where the liberals have become the power base for defining all that people are and all that they do. (this is the fault of CONSERVATIVES for not being engaged in the political process enough, basically leaving the field and GIVING the control to liberals/socialists)
Marriage is what LIBERALS say it is...and since according to the 1960's paradigm of everything is "relative" then marriage IS what EVER anyone SAYS it is....basically it becomes "undefined".
Not with out risk this is a very dangerous president should the courts rule in favor of the liberals.
Imagine if crime is what ever anyone says it is, or free speech, or freedom of assembly.....etc
The notion that if homosexuals loose the (manufactured "right") to "marry" then all other minority groups that have NATURAL rights based on something that they actually are by birth, will be denied these rights is a bogus argument at best.
This is, however the mentality will all liberal issues and agendas.
I can't help but think you would have also been against interracial marriage, giving women the right to vote, and freeing the slaves.
It's so frustrating that people still won't abandon this line of argument. The will of the people is wholly irrelevant to the courts. The Judiciary was not founded as an extension of the people's political clout, but as a weight to balance out the power of a majority and ensure that they(Or the Legislative or Executive branches themselves, for that matter) do not enact unconstitutional statutes and legislation.
It's because most people don't understand how our government works.
Instead of reading the newspaper, they're more interested in watching "Dancing With The Stars" or "American Idol".
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.
