Proposition 8

In reply to Quoting Scripture, Libra_Rising wrote:

"Your bigotry and hate are what is sinful and condemned!"

It's baseless racism to criticize Mexico, but not to criticize little old Bulgaria (who won almost as many Gold Medals as the US in the International Math Olympiad)

blackexilenow3/2/2010 3:39:16 PM
Would it be correct to say that nobody who supports Proposition 8, which happens to be a majority of Californians, is welcome on this forum? Is this reply all that's required to get censored? If you're so sure of your position, why can't you treat those who disagree with you with a LITTLE bit of respect?

"Can't speak for the others, but I'm more than happy to hear any respectful comments you or anyone else might want to make. You can't be a Militant Moderate without being willing to fight for anyone's right to their respectful, thoroughly considered opinion."

I've been a subscriber to the San Francisco Chronicle for more than 45 years now. Now that it's apparent that a radical extremist minority group which doesn't represent my views at all on this issue, and apparently censors anyone who answers the question that you ask "respectively", it's past time for me to CANCEL. But before I go, what has been posted on this forum does not in any way represent the opinions of the MAJORITY of us who support Proposition 8.

If you think you can win by censoring anyone with an opposing opinion, your loss is HUGE.

blackexilenow3/3/2010 9:20:55 AM

Almost two thirds of the voters of California voted for Proposition 22 to ban gay marriages. 83% of the voters of Mississippi did the same. 68% of the voters in Hawaii and 69% of the voters in Alaska did the same. 70% of the voters in Nebraska and 76% of the voters in Kansas did the same. As of December last year, 35 states had banned gay marriages and only 5 had laws which allowed them, but then the New York senate reversed it, and now only four states do. You figure your own odds of success. These are not opinions, these are verifiable facts.

Of course I fully expect to see demands for my castration for daring to utter these facts, as this is hard, cold evidence that you hate to see.

blackexilenow3/3/2010 9:52:56 AM
Update: as of right now, only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have laws which allow gay marriages. The courts in several other states which had legalized them were over-ruled by voter initiatives. Any court ruling to the contrary in Washington, DC, will also be over-ruled by voters.

These are facts, not opinions. Yes, you can question my motivation for presenting these facts, but you cannot deny they are facts.

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
blackexilenow3/3/2010 9:20:55 AM
Almost two thirds of the voters of California voted for Proposition 22 to ban gay marriages. 83% of the voters of Mississippi did the same. 68% of the voters in Hawaii and 69% of the voters in Alaska did the same. 70% of the voters in Nebraska and 76% of the voters in Kansas did the same. As of December last year, 35 states had banned gay marriages and only 5 had laws which allowed them, but then the New York senate reversed it, and now only four states do. You figure your own odds of success. These are not opinions, these are verifiable facts.

Of course I fully expect to see demands for my castration for daring to utter these facts, as this is hard, cold evidence that you hate to see.

Recommend: (1)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
kleptobitten3/3/2010 8:56:27 AM

kleptobitten: We (society) reject murder because it infringes on the right to life of others. We don't reject it because it is immoral.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BATB1C8B5M.DTL&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:41e6acd7-c13f-49e9-9f2b-cff303a83caf#CommentKey:41e6acd7-c13f-49e9-9f2b-cff303a83caf#ixzz0h8KiJkQ9

uh....

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

You're just stating the reason we deem it immoral. What are laws but a code of conduct?

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
gopmeetreality3/2/2010 11:03:54 PM
Courts allow D.C. same-sex marriage

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35678088#35678088


Recommend: (2)(1)[Report Abuse]Permalink
gopmeetreality3/2/2010 9:35:35 PM
Read it and weep prop H8'ers!

Supreme Court Refuses To Block Gay Marriage In D.C.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/dc-gay-marriage-samesex-m_n_483101.html

Recommend: (2)(1)[Report Abuse]Permalink

 

 

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 5:58:57 AM

So what has happened in South Africa in the two years since gay marriage was legalized? While the AIDS death rate in many part of the world DROPPED, it instead INCREASED there:

"July 27 (Bloomberg) -- South Africa’s population growth rate slowed for a second consecutive year over the past 12 months as the number of people dying of AIDS-related diseases increased.

"The population rose 1.07 percent to 49.3 million in June 2009 from a year ago, the Pretoria-based Statistics South Africa said in a report on its Web site today. The growth rate eased from 1.1 percent over the previous 12 months and 1.38 percent in 2001-02. "

"AIDS will probably kill 263,900 people in South Africa this year, accounting for 43 percent of all estimated deaths, the statistics office said. Almost 11 percent of the population, or 5.2 million people ..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aT_trwPYOUv8

Legalizing gay marriage does not reduce AIDS.

It's not nice to mess with God.


Recommend:    (0)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 5:35:45 AM

"ssm IS God's will in CA 18,888 time over. Even though evil tried to stop us all from Marriage Equality, and stain God's words with animus..."

The court never had any such authority.

It instead flaunted the will of we the people as represented by almost two thirds of California voters. What the court did is the exact opposite of what WE voted for in a legitimate democratic public mandate.

In spite of claims made on this forum that Christianity has ever condoned or recognized or permitted gay marriage, if it HAD, there would have been no need for Proposition 22 or Proposition 8. This by itself is PROOF that Christianity never did such a thing.

Furthermore, the day Mr. Jefferson wrote "free exercise of religion", the penalty for such things was widely accepted, widely understood, publicly acknowledged, not at all a secret, was reaffirmed for 2,000 years before straight back to the Lips of Jesus Himself, who repeated what Moses himself wrote about it.

No way, Jose.


Recommend:    (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 5:21:13 AM

"Oh, and Japan is expected to consider Marriage equality this year too, in case you don't like paying attention. (They can't castrate us anymore either so their Shinto belief says whoever wins the battle, will be seen as correct and annointed...And both you and I know where the battle over Flop 8 will...flop. And when. And WHY!"

Yup, Japan will "consider" gay marriage, just like they SAID they would "consider" affirmative action in 1986 and INSTANTLY abandoned that failed concept, just as Proposition 209 in California did for the US.

Having grown up in Japan, I can assure you that they have never put gay marriage on their 5,500 year old calendar and never will no matter how much they pretend to mimmick us and our many STUPID mistakes.


Recommend:    (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 5:15:52 AM

Is AIDS REALLY the only scoring point you've got left here? And an Ancient history that lauds Godlessness and slavery?

(OH wow...I bet it is, after all this new discussion, post Flop 8...And that AIDS stuff isn't coming up in the discussion because ALL red herrings have begun to stink of fishiness.

Need some new tricks if you expect anyone to stop ridiculing your particular angle here...

Just saying.


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 5:10:58 AM

ssm IS God's will in CA 18,888 time over. Even though evil tried to stop us all from Marriage Equality, and stain God's words with animus...

We're married ANYWAY.

(Such is the manner in which *Mysterious ways* often play out in Californians. Remember Prop 187 and that untenable English Only requirement?

*Poof*

CA style. And where CA goes, The US follows, (see Iowa)


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 5:02:09 AM

"Bwahahahaha...so that mean's it's a country right? According to you! There we have it folks, this guy thinks Washington D.C. is a country. Does that mean Mexico is a state then?"

There's some "good" news for you (from your perspective): North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming FINALLY reported their fist AIDS cases:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0179.pdf

13 in Wyoming, 8 in North Dakota, 6 in Verrmont, and a whopping 15 in South Dakota.

Isn't that GREAT news?! Now we can no longer claim that the AIDS rate in DC is *infinitely* higher than in those states, we are restricted to saying that the AIDS rate in DC is "only" 109 times higher than North Dakota and "only" 145 times higher than Vermont!

See, things ARE going your way!! With all those gay marriage licenses now being issued in DC, the AIDS death rate will overtake the murder rate in no time flat!

How long do YOU think it will take?


Recommend:    (0)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 5:00:22 AM

SO!

NOW do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8, blackexilenow?

(IF NOT NOW, SOONER, THAN LATER)


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:56:25 AM

Oh, and Japan is expected to consider Marriage equality this year too, in case you don't like paying attention. (They can't castrate us anymore either so their Shinto belief says whoever wins the battle, will be seen as correct and annointed...And both you and I know where the battle over Flop 8 will...flop. And when. And WHY!

Oh, and here's a note: I don't think Bulgaria's opinion on anything holds much weight in the "Country of DC" where the Constitution proudly resides. Do you? I mean REALLY?

(YOU'RE AN ABSOLUTE COURT-JESTER-STYLED *HOOT*, AREN'T YOU, SWEETIE-PIE!)


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:49:24 AM

hey blackexilenow: "you know, once it gets to the Supreme court, the Constitution they will be required to rely on, contains no justifications for unequal treatment under the law. It's nowhere to be found.

Equality an Justice for all is inevitable, Flop 8ers!

*like it or not*


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:45:15 AM

Hysterical blackexilenow...

when it comes to gun violence, Japan reports 65 incidents of one citizen freaking out and killing a fellow citizen in gun violence. Canada, about 39 per year. Mexico is a little higher at 1030. The US, however reports over 11,000 such murders yearly and the number is growing as the US is topped only by Russia, another proudly homophobic state.

But this is not about people dying. It's about love and marriage as God TRULY intends, despite 5000 years of Animus inpsired errors.

2010. make a note of that date.


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:40:08 AM

Hey blackexilenow...

Where'd you plum run off ta..? That other post with all the made-up figures and dubious commentary aren't really that fun.

Where's the sport in lying with data no one will read?

Give us some more verbage to dissect and ridicule the Pro Flop 8ers with!

Otherwise, I'll take my toys and play somewhere where the Bully is worth the effort...

"pining over those lost 5000 years"

(even though it's 2010)

*rolled eyes*

Your side's gonna HAVE TO do better that THAT.

ESPECIALLY SINCE GOD CLEARLY PREFERS THAT MY HUSBAND AND I BE MARRIED AFTER SO MANY WONDERFUL YEARS.

That LOVING helping Hand is EVERYWHERE! (and likely behind you making all your gaffs too...

And if you went away for now, because you have no reasonable answers of note...

I'd bet THAT would be God too! (Gpd doesn't like bloody streets as much as you might think...or so God tells us in our legally recognized Marital bliss...)


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 4:32:50 AM

One of the countries with the absolute lowest AIDS rate is Japan, who never legalized gay marriage and has only 0.094 AIDS cases per 1,000 people.

The country which has been cited on this forum as having legalized gay marriage, South Africa, also has an AIDS rate of 115.623 per 1,000 people, which is 1,230 TIMES greater than Japan's:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hiv_aid_peo_liv_wit_hiv_aid_percap-aids-people-living-per-capita

We, who have accepted gay marriage in certain parts of society, already have an AIDS rate of 3.267 per 1,000 people, which is 35 TIMES higher than Japan's.

Swaziland, who has never really accepted the concept of marriage and has no law against any kind of sex (but "thanks" to us has LOTS of condoms) has an even higher AIDS rate than South Africa, 199 per 1,000 people, which is 2,117 TIMES greater than Japan's.

Bulgaria has an even lower AIDS rate than Japan, 0.044 per 1,000 people and can't even grasp the concept of gay marriage.


Recommend:    (0)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:28:52 AM

See that? I ran out of space; responding to your posts would be like shooting fish in a barrel if I were the type to shoot fish in barrels...

You're RICH.


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:26:53 AM

"Criminals will never receive equal treatment, not even the "udges who went against the will of we the people, and against the Will of God?"

HA!: God's always active in helping my life with my partner be wonderfully rewarding; He saw to it that he & I were able to marry after helping us ward off the bile of strangers such as yourself!

Yes, indeed; we had Gods' help against difficult & bigoted odds, so OBVIOUSLY, God is behind those significant cracks that keep appearing in Flop 8's intent [duh]

As for 5000 years of belief systems? Well, believing in slavery/caste systems TOO only meant Mankind was more Godless 5000 yrs ago.

2010: we're learning not to be so Godless

against 2 1/2 centuries of case law to the contrary, by issuing 12,000 marriage licenses to gays (plus another 6,000 which no state can recognize...EXCEPT THE SIX OTHER STATES AND YOUR "COUNTRY" OF WASHINGTON D.C....still don't think YOU even knew what that what supposed to mean. But again, good for a lau


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 4:11:26 AM



"If it gets to the Supreme court, the Constitution they are required to rely on, contains no justifications for unequal treatment under the law. It's nowhere."

Being a criminal is illegal in a democratic republic. Being Gay is not...

AGAIN, YOU TRIP OVER YOUR OWN "REASONING" ONLY TO HIGHLIGHT THE VERACITY OF YOUR OPPONENT VERSUS YOUR ABSENCE THEREOF!

Thanks for that.

Now let me see what ELSE You've just addded tonight! Give me a second. (sometimes its hard to stop the giggles when I read you...All the opportunities to reveal the truth that you unwittingly facilitate---

Go ahead and add something and I'll catch up to see what you've come up!
Once Flop 8 folds under the scrutiny, even miscreants that want to stop the rest of us from pursuing our personal


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 4:00:24 AM

"If it gets to the Supreme court, the Constitution they are required to rely on, contains no justifications for unequal treatment under the law. It's nowhere."

For more than five thousand years now, billions of people have received "unequal treatment", mainly because society views them as criminals. Murderers certainly will never receive equal treatment because their crime is not accepted by most societies (even though it now is accepted in South Africa, along with gay marrriage).

The reality right now on the ground in juries across America, is that gays like Ken Teague (who got a life sentence PLUS 108 years) are punished even MORE severely than murderers, who serve only about 8-10 years.

Criminals will never receive equal treatment, not even the "judges" who went against the will of we the people, and against the Will of God, against 2 1/2 centuries of case law to the contrary, by issuing 12,000 marriage licenses to gays (plus another 6,000 which no state can recognize).


Recommend:    (0)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/8/2010 3:45:09 AM

"So you're saying heterosexual sex can't spread AIDS? lol! I'm sure this fact is very valid, like all your other ones! Including your fact that Washington D.C. is a country. "

No, and no.

http://www2c.cdc.gov/podcasts/media/pdf/HIV_01_051707.pdf

"Our most recent information, compiled from 2005 data from the 33 areas with confidential name-based reporting, indicates that, in the United States, MSM account for 72% of all estimated HIV infections among male adults and adolescents"

"MSM" includes gays, non-gays who have sex with men, bi-sexuals, and we know from MYBRS that 4% of American boys are in that category, and:

1. 37% who had gay sex identified as gay (1.85% of the total)

2. 63% who had gay sex did NOT identify as gay (3.15% of the total).

3. 53% who "identified" as gay had never had gay sex.

4. 47% who "identified" as gay DID have gay sex (0.87% of the total)

YES, non-gays DO get AIDS.

They get AIDS from gays.

Mostly against their will.


Recommend:    (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/8/2010 3:44:50 AM


NOW do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8, blackexilenow?

Clearly, it will be the legally fallible Flop 8 as responsible for the rest of its ultimate failure, and when that time comes, and the Constitution is restored -once again fairly represents ALL (not just sexual elitists) as ORIGINALLY PENNED...Everyone (except you, of course, dear precious blackexilenow) will see instantly why Flop 8 will be legally aborted and put out of its misery.

If it gets to the Supreme court, the Constitution they are required to rely on, contains no justifications for unequal treatment under the law. It's nowhere. That's why some states had chosen to edite the notion temporarily into their state constitutions. Because otherwise, the notion is no where to be found, and impossible to justify in a Federal court.

Flop 8...You've enlightened us ALL, haven't you, you sly Benedict Arnold!

You TOO blackexilenow, you loveable nut!


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

shadow_man

3/8/2010 1:58:21 AM

[html markup was removed from this comment] blackexilenow wrote "Before you claim that this is an assertion that AIDS is not spread by gay sex, permit me to clarify the point."

So you're saying heterosexual sex can't spread AIDS? lol! I'm sure this fact is very valid, like all your other ones! Including your fact that Washington D.C. is a country.

[html markup was removed from this comment]


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

shadow_man

3/8/2010 1:54:04 AM

blackexilenow: "Just like how South Africa has the highest murder rate huh ^^ Oh wait!"

What's your point?

The point is i caught you in a blatant lie, which further proves your trolling. If you were a good troll, you never lie about something that can easily be looked up. Most trolls bury themselves in the dirt by not being careful about things like this =)


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BATB1C8B5M.DTL&o=1#ixzz0hbl3UefJ

 

shadow_man

3/8/2010 12:50:32 AM

blackexile wrote "There are only 50 states and Washington D.C. is not one of them. The demographics of Washington D.C. make it more different from the rest of the country than many foreign countries."

Bwahahahaha...so that mean's it's a country right? According to you! There we have it folks, this guy thinks Washington D.C. is a country. Does that mean Mexico is a state then?

I don't even have to troll-bust you. You're owning yourself pretty well lol.


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 2:31:26 PM

In blackexiles OWN WORDS! (NO ONE CAN MAKE THIS PRO-FLOP 8 FOOT-IN-MOUTH STUFF UP!):

"...If you understood the first thing about Christianity (which clearly you never will) you would know that it contains too many errors of judgment to even be able to correct it..."
///
:D

"TOO MANY ERRORS TO CORRECT?"

Why THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, A PRECISELY WHY FLOP 8 will devour itself, all by itself..with YOUR undying assistance!

KEEP THOSE POSTS COMING MY DEAR. You make coming here fun!


Recommend:    (6)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 2:13:54 PM

As usual, supporters of Flop 8 only end up supporting the side of justice and equality for all.

Thank YOU especially for that, blackexilenow! As usual, you are beingt VERY helpful!

GO ahead, tell your like-minded friends to log on and join the fray, otherwise, poor you will be repeating yourself all day and all night long even though most of it can't hold water when placed under federal scrutiny.

Poor you: all night and all day, and your side can't help but completely falter under even the slightest scrutiny.

Must keep you up nights.

Knowing there's such murderous hate as yours out there, keeps ME up at night too, but *hey*:

The excitement of knowing that Flop 8 will die sooner than later - on a Federal level- keeps me up with joy, too!

(Lucky for me I have a loving husband for such delectably sleepless moments!)


Recommend:    (6)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 1:58:12 PM


It is noted, however, that you dispute a legitimate democratic public mandate, and probably can never live with the inevitable consequences.
////
And YOU don't semm to get that, because of Propaganda 8 expressly, ANYONE who got married when the Constitution applied to ALL Californias (pre-Flop 8) is considered married under CA law.

Remember Spain? Mass.? Connecticut? Belgium? South Africa..etc...

All the marriages that took place while the CA constitution was uneditd, ARE FOREVER LEGAL IN EVERY CORNER OF CALIFORNIA, DESPITE THE SILLY AND UNTENABLE FLOP 8!)

We're already HERE. AND legally married in CA, more than 18,888 times over!

God works in glad and mysterious ways! The failure of Flop 8 is just more tangiblke proof, as the anti equality people flouder and speak of "blood running through the streets". As if that's what Jesus would be doing.

Talk about not undertstanding God and his Word!

*sheesh*

(tragic if you didn't make for such silly reading, too!)


Recommend:    (7)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 1:48:08 PM


Now do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8; it will be the legally fallible prop itself, and everyone (except you, of course) will see instantly why it will be aborted and put out of its misery.

(How you'll cope, of course, is up to you, but regarding your morbid opinion that Heather and her parents should have their blood running down the street?

Dude, there is NO Bible on the Earth and NO true democracy on this planet that says "sure; great idea"...

Although the origins of your clear preoccupation with murder rates becomes more vivid with each one of your spouting. Good luck with that: you try to slay little Heather and her parents?

YOU WILL BE STOPPED AND PUT IN PRISON. (Or put back in prison)

and the next time someone asks Heather about her legally recognized family, she will have more of a right than ever, to explain it to them.

If that destroys you and your cult's wicked beliefs in murder & injustice...

*GREAT!*


Recommend:    (5)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 1:47:25 PM


Now do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8; it will be the legally fallible prop itself, and everyone (except you, of course) will see instantly why it will be aborted and put out of its misery.

(How you'll cope, of course, is up to you, but regarding your morbid opinion that Heather and her parents should have their blood running down the street?

Dude, there is NO Bible on the Earth and NO true democracy on this planet that says "sure; great idea"...

Although the origins of your clear preoccupation with murder rates becomes more vivid with each one of your spouting. Good luck with that: you try to slay little Heather and her parents?

YOU WILL BE STOPPED AND PUT IN PRISON. (Or put back in prison)

and the next time someone asks Heather about her legally recognized family, she will have more of a right than ever, to explain it to them.

If that destroys you and your cult's wicked beliefs in murder & injustice...

*GREAT!*


Recommend:    (5)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/7/2010 1:23:59 PM

"Now do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8; it will be the legally fallible prop itself, and everyone (except you, of course) will see instantly why it will be aborted and put out of its misery."

Since you asked that question twice, you obviously want a response? But there is no need for anyone to respond.

If you understood the first thing about Christianity (which clearly you never will) you would know that it contains too many errors of judgment to even be able to correct it.

However, at least 61% of Californians, and at least 78% of Texans, and at least 86% of Mississippians, and at least the majority of voters in 96% of the states, all understand why your question has zero bearing on Proposition 8.

It is noted, however, that you dispute a legitimate democratic public mandate, and probably can never live with the inevitable consequences.

That doesn't change the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, nor OUR not your First Amendment right.


Recommend:    (0)(3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 1:21:45 PM


If legalizing gay marriage in Washington D.C. DOES somehow reduce it's rate, say 10% from 101 to 91, that's still infinitely higher than states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana which reported ZERO AIDS cases, and have zero gay marriages.

///YOU'RE SO GOOD AT UNDOING YOUR OWN "REASONINGS" BLACKEXILENOW!

Places that blatantly dscriminate against Gay people will of COURSE under report anything to do with us. (that's the idea right? To maintain that there are "no Gay people" here or there.

Thanks to all these good discussions inspired by the eventual demise of Propaganda 8, everyone now knows that data in bigoted areas will invariably be "massaged" in order to justify such a unholy and otherwise untenable approach to The Constitution and the rights inherent therein.

Now that its the 21st century your kind can no longer marginalize or frighten innocent people anymore!

(Perhaps you'll take up quilting as you mourn the death of your feeble justifications)


Recommend:    (4)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 1:11:24 PM


GEE, blackexilenow!

By YOUR VERY OWN REASONING and your stats regarding AIDS and its spread, you just proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that the inevitable death of Prop 8, and a community that supports legally recongnized households will indeed REDUCE the spread of AIDS and benefit the health of both spouses, both Str8 and Gay!

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different answer. Ban gays from this. Ban gays from that. heck, it's tough for commited Gay couples to live peaceably as they ward off the bile and bullying, some of it coming from appalling origins; playgrounds, "churches"; all the people who'll gladly stain the words of God for fun and profit.

Watch what happens as we *Unban* equality for once (or better yet "once & for ALL"):more legal couples reduce wear on the healthcare system, guaranteeing each other a commited caretaker & early detection!

THANKS FOR REMINDING US ALL OF THE MANY SILVER LININGS OF *ALL*MARRIAGES


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 1:08:08 PM


YOU ARE A *RIOT*, blackexilenow!

In previous a post, I was all: "We don't approve of baseless racism in our household"

He was all: "So now it's "baseless racism" to criticize Mexico?"; and then he was all: "Whatever happened to "Remember the Alamo"? (I'm all laughing, thinking "huh"?! LOL)

HERE'S THE FUNNY PART:

When he was all:"Is it also "baseless racism" in your "household" to insult the White Christian men who are the "posterity" referred to in the Preamble"

...He probably didn't understand that my partner of 28 years, and lawfully married husband of one year, happens to be one of those "white male Christians" of yours. You know; a member of our collective "posterity" according to you, blackexilenow?

Now do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8; it will be the legally fallible prop itself, and everyone (except you, of course) will see instantly why it will be aborted and put out of its misery.

(How you'll cope is up to you)


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/7/2010 11:07:26 AM

"You base this on two faulty presumptions, one that AIDS is spread by indiscriminate gay sex, and two that gay marriage will reduce indiscriminate sex, neither of which have been proven."

Before you claim that this is an assertion that AIDS is not spread by gay sex, permit me to clarify the point.

You seem to accept the CDC and MYRBS assertion that gays are 68 times more likely to die of AIDS than others, but believe that gay marriage will reduce indiscriminate gay sex and thus reduce AIDS deaths?

The gross reality is that all the studies show that gays have far more sex partners than single "str8s", and are less likely to have only one partner. But on top of that, even if it did reduce AIDS deaths for gays, even by as much as 50% (a mathematical improbability), this would still leave gay communities with AIDS death rates hundreds of times higher than "str8s".

i.e., South Africa, now ruled by Blacks, just legalized gay marriage = world's undisputed highest AIDS deaths at 370,000.


Recommend:    (0)(3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/7/2010 10:28:05 AM

"Just like how South Africa has the highest murder rate huh ^^ Oh wait!"

What's your point?

That THAT year Colombia actually had a higher murder rate than South Africa (62 vs. 50)? Did you know that the year before that, South Africa WAS even higher?

Did you know that over the last four decades, FOUR American cities have had murder rates 60% higher than them, higher than EIGHTY (80), making them the Murder Capitol of the WORLD?

Do you know why? Do you know that they also have the world's highest AIDS death rates? Can you name these cities? Can you tell us which one has a population density HALF that of but a murder RATE 400 TIMES higher than Singapore?


Recommend:    (0)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/7/2010 9:53:41 AM

"Gays 'get it' at a very young age: No one has permanent inalienable rights, until we all do!"

It would seem that we as a society have spent in excess of $160 billion over the last two decades just to TREAT AIDS:

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/sep00/0900RA19.htm

I submit to you that getting back to the Word of God and treating marriage with respect and confining it only to a man and a woman is a much better solution for EVERYBODY, even gays, than spending another $320 billion over the next two decades just to TREAT AIDS.

And that doesn't even take into account the reduced risk to as many as 3% of the boys in this country who do not "identify" as gay who according to the MYRBS study HAVE had gay sex, many of them obviously against their will.


Recommend:    (0)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/7/2010 9:39:04 AM

"By YOUR VERY OWN REASONING and your stats regarding AIDS and its spread, you just proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that the inevitable death of Prop 8, and a community that supports legally recongnized households will indeed REDUCE the spread of AIDS and benefit the health of both spouses, both Str8 and Gay!"

You base this on two faulty presumptions, one that AIDS is spread by indiscriminate gay sex, and two that gay marriage will reduce indiscriminate sex, neither of which have been proven. In every instance where a community has accepted gay marriage, the AIDS rate has skyrocketed, and in every instance where a community has rejected gay marriage, there IS no AIDS.

If legalizing gay marriage in Washington D.C. DOES somehow reduce it's rate, say 10% from 101 to 91, that's still infinitely higher than states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana which reported ZERO AIDS cases, and have zero gay marriages.

Why should we deny them their First Amendment right?


Recommend:    (0)(3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/7/2010 9:25:03 AM

"thark: Hehe. Did you see the part where he called Washington D.C. a country? If you are trolling him, more power to ya!"

There are only 50 states and Washington D.C. is not one of them. The demographics of Washington D.C. make it more different from the rest of the country than many foreign countries. For one thing, no matter what Congress did to "fix" problems there, it still has one of the world's highest murder rates, having been 400 TIMES higher than countries like Ireland and Saudi Arabia, cities like Singapore, and states like North Dakota.

BEFORE it legalized gay marriage it already had one the world's HIGHEST AIDS rate, AND one of the highest concentration of gays. 101 AIDS deaths per 100k made you 4 TIMES more likely to die of AIDS there than in New Jersey or Florida, TEN TIMES more likely than in Hawaii or Virginia (which outlawed gay marriage), TWENTY times more likely than Vermont and Minn., and INFINITELY more likely than 4 states with no AIDS (or gays).


Recommend:    (0)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

shadow_man

3/7/2010 5:26:36 AM

thark: Hehe. Did you see the part where he called Washington D.C. a country? If you are trolling him, more power to ya! The only sad part though is i came back and looked at the post dates, and he was posting his friday and saturday nights away :( I kinda felt sorry for the guy.


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 4:53:15 AM


YOU ARE A *RIOT*, blackexilenow!

In previous a post, I was all: "We don't approve of baseless racism in our household"

He was all: "So now it's "baseless racism" to criticize Mexico?"; and then he was all: "Whatever happened to "Remember the Alamo"? (I'm all laughing, thinking "huh"?! LOL)

HERE'S THE FUNNY PART:

When he was all:"Is it also "baseless racism" in your "household" to insult the White Christian men who are the "posterity" referred to in the Preamble"

...He probably didn't understand that my partner of 28 years, and lawfully married husband of one year, happens to be one of those "white male Christians" of yours. You know; a member of our collective "posterity" according to you, blackexilenow?

Now do you see how it won't be any Judges behind the necessary demise of Prop 8; it will be the legally fallible prop itself, and everyone (except you, of course) will see instantly why it will be aborted and put out of its misery.

(How you'll cope is up to you)


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 4:33:33 AM


GEE, blackexilenow!

By YOUR VERY OWN REASONING and your stats regarding AIDS and its spread, you just proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that the inevitable death of Prop 8, and a community that supports legally recongnized households will indeed REDUCE the spread of AIDS and benefit the health of both spouses, both Str8 and Gay!

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different answer. Ban gays from this. Ban gays from that. heck, it's tough for commited Gay couples to live peaceably as they ward off the bile and bullying, some of it coming from appalling origins; playgrounds, "churches"; all the people who'll gladly stain the words of God for fun and profit.

Watch what happens as we *Unban* equality for once (or better yet "once & for ALL"):more legal couples reduce wear on the healthcare system, guaranteeing each other a commited caretaker & early detection!

YOU REVEALED ONE OF THE MANY SILVER LININGS OF SSM ALL BY YOURSELF!


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 4:12:54 AM

Poor blackexilenow. he/she/it states below:

There will be blood in the streets before you ever gain any "right" to teach our sons "heather has two mommies".
///
SO in other words, this dangerous anti-christian looks forward to slaughter in the street in the of chance that someone might ask about a father or mother figure in a househouse, and there doesn't happen to be one. Heather as 2 Mommies?

Is "Heather's" blood to flow in the streets too, just because someone offers a calm, rational explanation for the lack and/or surplus of penises on some strangers' honeymoon night? That IS your point, right?

Pitiful, blackexilenow. Absolutely and woefully, trollfully pitiful.

Once prop 8 fails, and equality becomes the law of the land, true American, one and all, will celebrate, and if the news destroys your life/marriage/cult, that too, will likely be celebrated.

Might as well pick out a party hat, blackexilenow; wicked & crazy as you are, we STILL have to share the U.S.A!


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

thark

3/7/2010 4:00:14 AM

Hey shadow! YEP I troll back because I KNOW there's some disenfranchised adolescent gay child out there with no support system & that kid might come on these very sorts of sites to see what people are saying.

There's NO WAY I'm going to let that poor hypothetical gay kid fall alseep wondering if America, "his" country, will keep whipping up pious/apathetic strangers to quash every single chance they might have of finding a decent life full of love, happiness & security with that perfectly suited soulmate.

That hypothical gay kid may have only these sites as way to follow his issues & I can't stand the idea that such vunerable souls might haphazardly stumble upon these crazed trollings, shamelessly aimed at who they are! NOT without also seeing for themselves that there are people out here in non-looney world who intend to challenge the bigotry & bile until the world is rid of it.

Gays 'get it' at a very young age: No one has permanent inalienable rights, until we all do!


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BATB1C8B5M.DTL&o=2#ixzz0hbm0s6ot

 

 

 

 

 

blackexilenow

3/3/2010 1:41:01 PM

"I don't give a rat's a*s what the majority says! Civil rights of minorities shouyld NEVER NEVER be put up for a popular vote ... EVER! That is why we have a consitution. All (and, I mean EVERY LAST ONE!) of those 18,000 SSMs ARE valid and recognized in California, as the CASC has ALREADY determined".

Obviously you don't.

You also don't seem to realize that you've painted yourself into a corner.

When the voters in as many as 96% of the states have issued a public mandate like this, court rulings, particularly those which violate the spirit and intent of the US Constitution, and the right to free exercise of religion of the vast majority of us (Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists included) are less than meaningless.

That's not simply an opinion. That's not based simply on polls (most of which of course do in fact support these facts). That's based on facts established by real live voters who are numerous enough to pull of a constitutional convention.


Recommend:    (0)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/3/2010 1:29:49 PM

THERE IS NO PROPOSITION 22! It was thrown out by the CASC LONG ago!!


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/3/2010 1:28:05 PM

" blackexilenow3/3/2010 1:12:31 PM

"WRONG!!! ALL those marriages are STILL valid and recognized in California. In addition, persons married in other states that allowed SSM prior to Nov. 5, 2008 and moved to the state are also considered married by the state of California. So, the number is likely to be OVER 18,000."

Don't you think you're putting way too much weight on what a few activist judges said, while ignoring the public mandate represented by Proposition 22? If the public mandate is valid, aren't none of those 18,000 valid?

It can't be both ways, particularly when at least 90% of the states and perhaps as much as 96% of the states have said "no!""
.
///////
.
I don't give a rat's a*s what the majority says! Civil rights of minorities shouyld NEVER NEVER be put up for a popular vote ... EVER! That is why we have a consitution. All (and, I mean EVERY LAST ONE!) of those 18,000 SSMs ARE valid and recognized in California, as the CASC has ALREADY determined


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

ryukage99

3/3/2010 1:27:48 PM

blackexilenow,So by your logic Prop 14 should remain law becuase Majority of people think land owners had a right to choose which people they want to rent their property to.


Recommend:    (1)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

blackexilenow

3/3/2010 1:12:31 PM

"WRONG!!! ALL those marriages are STILL valid and recognized in California. In addition, persons married in other states that allowed SSM prior to Nov. 5, 2008 and moved to the state are also considered married by the state of California. So, the number is likely to be OVER 18,000."

Don't you think you're putting way too much weight on what a few activist judges said, while ignoring the public mandate represented by Proposition 22? If the public mandate is valid, aren't none of those 18,000 valid?

It can't be both ways, particularly when at least 90% of the states and perhaps as much as 96% of the states have said "no!"


Recommend:    (0)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/3/2010 11:38:58 AM

We'll be happy to take Washington DC. In addition, we can add the neighboring state of Maryland as well since the AG there has declared that that state MUST recognize SSMs from other jurisdictions.


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/3/2010 11:03:47 AM


ryukage993/3/2010 10:46:25 AM

wossamotta_u, DC Human Rights Act

General. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin. sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation of any individual.

That was reason why the proposition to repeal gay marriage ordnance can't go forward

################################

Uhhhhh...... you can HAVE Washington DC if you want. And as cities go, you can have Cleveland, Detroit, Gary, Watts, and any of those "cousin-loving" regions too.


Recommend:    (0)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/3/2010 11:01:56 AM

" wossamotta_u3/3/2010 10:58:42 AM

libra_rising3/3/2010 10:50:29 AM

Update: There are now SIX jurisdictions in the USA which allow SSM ... Massachusettes, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Washington DC. There are STILL 18,000 SSMs in California. And, New York and Maryland both recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

####################

18,000 couples in California? NOPE

Monogender marriage records note that about 1/3 of all monogender weddings performed in California were to out-of-state residents. So that means, 12,000 California couples. "
.
///////////
.
WRONG!!! ALL those marriages are STILL valid and recognized in California. In addition, persons married in other states that allowed SSM prior to Nov. 5, 2008 and moved to the state are also considered married by the state of California. So, the number is likely to be OVER 18,000.


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/3/2010 10:59:20 AM

" blackexilenow3/3/2010 10:55:24 AM

Actually, the Arizona amendment, Proposition 107, is so confusing that nobody could know what it actually means. It didn't affect that statue which is already on the books in Arizona which already defines marriage as "union between a man and a woman". So as of this moment, only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, recognize gay marriages."
.
/////////////
.
WRONG!!! You left out Vermont, Iowa, AND New Hampshire. And, also, as of today, there is marriage equality in Washington DC as well.


Recommend:    (2)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/3/2010 10:58:42 AM


libra_rising3/3/2010 10:50:29 AM

Update: There are now SIX jurisdictions in the USA which allow SSM ... Massachusettes, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Washington DC. There are STILL 18,000 SSMs in California. And, New York and Maryland both recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

####################

18,000 couples in California? NOPE

Monogender marriage records note that about 1/3 of all monogender weddings performed in California were to out-of-state residents. So that means, 12,000 California couples.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BATB1C8B5M.DTL&o=1#ixzz0h9WwhJbG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field Poll gets it wrong, AGAIN, when they reported on Sept. 18, 2008 that most people OPPOSED Proposition 8 to band gay "marriges"!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1472824/Field-Poll-results-on-Prop-8

When the actual vote was taken, Proposition 8 passed by what would be a landslide victory in regular election terms, with only 47.8% opposed.

This, after massive campaign funding by those who want to "legalize" gay "marriages" which is exceeded only by spending for presidential elections, support by "teachers" and the governator, and even police.

And NOW, Hearst Newspapers censor anyone who DARES to post Scripture:























Sort Comments by: Oldest | Newest | Recommended

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:36:21 PM


ryukage992/28/2010 11:50:47 PM

So question for you,wossamotta_u why not make all marriage in matter secular law a Civil Union and leave Marriage in the church. But You still call your civil union a "marriage" but in legal terms it's a civil union. Anti- Gay Marriage People act like the spoiled who won''t share a ball with another kid becuase the other one would loose it,when the child that won't share had allreadly lost one. So the other has to get an adult involve, and you what an adult would do the child won't share do you?

####################

Nice concept, except that would completely vindicate "Preservation of Marriage" ideal -- that the monogender marriage seeks to invalidate traditional marriage -- exactly what the homosexual political machine claims will NOT happen.


Recommend:    (0)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:31:20 PM


ryukage992/28/2010 11:43:07 PM

wossamotta_u, As Far you coment about gays being hateful, Does Tit for Tat mean anything to you?

#####################

Then, you too -- are equal to (or worse) than those whom you are actively critical of.

Sad...for you too


Recommend:    (0)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:29:39 PM


mucker22/28/2010 11:27:12 PM

"love the sinner, hate the sin"

I hate religious bigotry, but I love religious bigots.

Not.

#####################

Then, does that not make you equal (or worse) than those whose "attitude" you actively criticize?

Sad


Recommend:    (0)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:25:33 PM


dsgonzale62/28/2010 11:28:16 PM

wossamotta, I'm pretty sure the plaintiffs have legal standing, inasmuch as they are people who want to marry each other but are prevented from doing so by the law.

###############

Of course the plantiff has "standing" In our nation, anyone can sue for anything.

I fail to understand where/why that question came to be.


Recommend:    (0)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

dsgonzale6

3/1/2010 2:58:07 PM

militantmoderate, I disagree that obnoxiousness is necessary to win the day. Moderates don't need to be noticed to effect change, they just need to "lean," to use your word.


Recommend:    (3)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

dsgonzale6

3/1/2010 2:55:30 PM

Oh, yes, that awful Judge Walker, appointed by Reagan and Bush I.


Recommend:    (3)(2)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

MilitantModerat

3/1/2010 2:48:14 PM

dsgonzale6: There's a reason moderates don't stand out of the crowd. You have to be loud and obnoxious to get noticed. It makes people think you have to be an extremest to care enough to get involved.

In the end, it's not how many arch conservates and bleeding heart liberals you can stuff in a ballot box which carries the day; it's how many moderates you can get to lean just a little to the right, or a little to the left...


Recommend:    (1)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

shinsou

3/1/2010 2:38:59 PM

All this before a judge who should have disclosed his sexual orientation at the outset, and whose rulings have been bereft of any legal basis, but replete with prejudice.


Recommend:    (2)(3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

sillyvalley

3/1/2010 2:15:44 PM

"President Reagan had a gay son Ronnie the ballerina.

His vice president George Bush had a gay son, Georgie the cheerleader.

President Georgie Bush (swallower of pretzles and gay hooker Jeff Gannan -- google it) had a vice president with a gay daughter.

We need to stop CONSERVATIVE heterosexual marriages because it cause kids to go gay."

You forgot to mention Cheney...


Recommend:    (3)(1)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/1/2010 2:13:21 PM

dsg, the Bible has been translated again and again (erroneously) to handle the "odd" sensibilities and the prejudices of the conservative fundies. And, the Southern Baptists are up to it again because they do not think that our current versions are conservative and bigoted enough. sheeeeeesh



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BATB1C8B5M.DTL&o=4#ixzz0h44DIuIo


ryukage99

3/1/2010 8:10:20 PM

wossamotta_u,Did legalizing Gay Marriage prevented straight form getting married? Absolutely Not


Recommend:    (4)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

ryukage99

3/1/2010 8:05:43 PM

wossamotta_u< Come Back when you have an original argument instead repeat the same old "I don't want gays to marry because I don't like it or I feel less of myself when they do"


Recommend:    (5)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/1/2010 6:33:28 PM

For example, the SCOTUS overturned Virginia marriage laws that denied marriage rights to inter-racial couples in Loving vs. Virginia.


Recommend:    (4)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/1/2010 6:23:29 PM

Yes, marriage is a state issue. However, the state STILL MUST abide by the rules indicated in the US Constitution, especially with regard to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment along with the Due Process Clause.


Recommend:    (7)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 6:11:00 PM


libra_rising3/1/2010 6:04:37 PM

The CASC ONLY ruled that prop h8 was legitimately put on the ballot as an amendment and voted on. They did NOT rule on the federal constitutionality of prop h8 because none of the parties invoked the federal constitution in that case.

######################

The CASC ruled that the amendment was not in voilation of the California State Constitution -- yes.

But does not the "state" have the right to define marriage?

For instance, in Mississippi, a 14 year old may marry. Yet, if a 14 year old California resident got married in Mississippi, then comes back, the State of California does not recognize that marriage.

Is (this) wrong?


Recommend:    (0)(3)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

libra_rising

3/1/2010 6:04:37 PM

The CASC ONLY ruled that prop h8 was legitimately put on the ballot as an amendment and voted on. They did NOT rule on the federal constitutionality of prop h8 because none of the parties invoked the federal constitution in that case.


Recommend:    (4)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:48:01 PM


bwb6df3/1/2010 5:42:03 PM

wossamotta_u, what do you think Prop 8 is protecting (or even "preserving") marriage from? The defense in this case attempted to prove that gay marriage would lead to the deinstitutionalization of marriage itself, but were unable to offer any credible evidence to that effect. In fact, their own expert on the topic admitted in open court that gay marriage would strengthen, rather than weak, the institution.

#################

Please read the note that my comment was specific to.

A comment that advocated the wholesale change in the definition of marriage.

I am still though, seeking how the amendment to the CA State Constitution is in violation of the US Constitution. The CA Supreme Court said in a 6-1 decision, that it is constitutional.

And so we shall see....


Recommend:    (0)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:44:29 PM


poliphilo3/1/2010 1:09:17 PM

What a bunch of morons.

###############

Thanks for adding to the learned discourse.

How you speak so well for the liberal homosexual community....


Recommend:    (0)(4)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

bwb6df

3/1/2010 5:42:03 PM

wossamotta_u, what do you think Prop 8 is protecting (or even "preserving") marriage from? The defense in this case attempted to prove that gay marriage would lead to the deinstitutionalization of marriage itself, but were unable to offer any credible evidence to that effect. In fact, their own expert on the topic admitted in open court that gay marriage would strengthen, rather than weak, the institution.

So, do you dispute that the evidence presented in trial regarding the protection/preservation claim was accurate when it said that claim was baseless, or are you referring to some alleged danger presented by gay marriage that was not brought up at trial?


Recommend:    (3)(0)[Report Abuse] Permalink Permalink

wossamotta_u

3/1/2010 5:38:11 PM


dsgonzale63/1/2010 2:55:30 PM

Oh, yes, that awful Judge Walker, appointed by Reagan and Bush I.

#################

Is this to say then that Reagan/Bush had the right idea(s) across the board?



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/BATB1C8B5M.DTL&o=3#ixzz0h44ThjQs





blackexilenow3/2/2010 3:39:16 PM
Would it be correct to say that nobody who supports Proposition 8, which happens to be a majority of Californians, is welcome on this forum? Is this reply all that's required to get censored? If you're so sure of your position, why can't you treat those who disagree with you with a LITTLE bit of respect?

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 3:16:56 PM

MilitantModerat3/1/2010 10:46:46 PM

Even if they don't, though, California will still have the right to repeal Prop 8 in 2012. Nothing short of a federal constitutional version of Prop 8 can stop that.

##################

Hear "rumor" of this.

So, in amending the amendment, how will the mono-gender community "define" marriage.

Please provide specific and binding wording that would be imported into the CA Constitution and presented in on the ballot.

Recommend: (1)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 2:10:56 PM

libra_rising3/1/2010 6:33:28 PM

For example, the SCOTUS overturned Virginia marriage laws that denied marriage rights to inter-racial couples in Loving vs. Virginia.

######################

Again....... not a parallel set of circumstances with mono-gender marriage.

Interracial marriage was about dismissing the notion that non-whites were inferior to whites.

No one is claiming that homosexuals (as individuals) are inferior.


Recommend: (3)(1)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 1:29:00 PM

You may call it M=

We call it a wholesale redefinition of marriage.

Inter-racial marriage was (not) a wholesale redefinition of marriage -- instead, it was recognition that the label of "inferiority" that had been placed on non-whites was not correct.

A very, very different premise and circumstance.

Recommend: (3)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
MilitantModerat3/2/2010 1:19:38 PM
shadow_man: Excellent point. In 1967, only Southern states still had anti-miscegenation laws. That tells me that most of the nation wasn't radically opposed to the idea. Also, the SCOTUS in 1967 decided unanimously in Loving. Today, at least 40 states have some law banning M= (That's from the Wikipedia map; it may be inaccurate). That tells me M= would be a harder sell. If it did fly, the court decision certainly wouldn't be unanimous.

More importantly, it takes 38 states to amend the constitution. 30 states have already done so to their state constitutions. A very unpopular court decision would provoke a backlash. I doubt a constitutional amendment opposing M= would pass, but I think it would be a close thing.

Loving v. Virginia came on the heels of 20 years of states, one after another, shooting down their own anti-miscegenation laws. If the M= movement takes its time and picks off enough states, if it builds its momentum, M= will eventually be the law of the whole nation.

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 1:03:09 PM
....apologies

The correct case is Romer v Evans -- not Romer v Colorado

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 1:00:40 PM

libra_rising3/2/2010 10:09:33 AM

Militant: DOMA and DADT lawsuits have not worked their way up to the SCOTUS yet. However, Lawrence vs Texas and Romer vs Colorado have. And, guess what? Both cases were decided in favor of gays. I'd be careful about trying to guess what the SCOTUS will do, if I were you. No one really knows at this point (with regard to this case, or even if it will reach the SCOTUS).

#################

Lawrence v Texas -- that case removed consensual sex between adults as classified sodomy. Sodomy is STILL illegal in Texas.

Romer v Colorado states that the STATE cannot demand that counties or cities keep from providing benefits or status to homosexuals within their assigned jurisdictions.

Yet, in the city of Cincinnati the city law defining benefits and status within their jurisdiction WAS upheld by the United States Supreme Courts – fully in keeping with the ruling Romer v Colorado.


Recommend: (3)(1)[Report Abuse]Permalink
ryukage993/2/2010 12:56:37 PM
wossamotta_u, Try Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans

Recommend: (0)(0)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 12:53:50 PM

libra_rising3/2/2010 10:11:42 AM

Actually, having the name of marriage IS considered a right by the CASC (see re: Marriages).

###############

That is not true, unless you are basing that on the interim time when the definition of marriage in the CA constitution was still in "limbo" --


Recommend: (3)(3)[Report Abuse]Permalink
wossamotta_u3/2/2010 12:51:07 PM

ryukage993/1/2010 8:05:43 PM

wossamotta_u< Come Back when you have an original argument instead repeat the same old "I don't want gays to marry because I don't like it or I feel less of myself when they do"

###################3

I would refer you to many many posts I have shared that are not as you wish to port






Jokiex2/27/2010 11:14:26 PM
OK, so one side is telling stories and one side has presented valid arguments? So, which side did what?! C'mon, tell us-- we want to know! :-{D}

Recommend: (71)(14)[Report Abuse]Permalink
marcoluxe2/28/2010 1:21:01 AM
Of the original six witnesses scheduled by the defendants-intervenors, only two crappy ones took the stand. One even conceded that marriage equality is a good thing. Can you imagine what a deep hole the other four no-shows would have dug?
I bet the intervenors will bring up the missing media-shy 4 on appeal, but to no avail, as SCOTUS barred televising, so there was no excuse for them [other than their lack of admissible testimony] for not appearing.

Recommend: (161)(24)[Report Abuse]Permalink
mistressmax2/28/2010 6:26:48 AM
So what if we have access to other democrat institutions to obtain equality that we don't need or have access to the judiciary?
Wack jobs.

Recommend: (15)(4)[Report Abuse]Permalink
ryukage992/28/2010 6:36:56 AM
marcoluxe,That make me wonder why some of these sad insecure f***s would care if other people are happy unless they're miserable inside and can't with it.

Recommend: (22)(3)[Report Abuse]Permalink
BBarnes2/28/2010 6:46:10 AM
When you have nothing substantial... bring up your best 'slipery-slope' argument.
But as we know, even traditional marriage without a bisexual in the equation can produce a polygamy marriage.

Exhibit A. bring in the Mormons.

Recommend: (116)(25)[Report Abuse]Permalink
melbaker2/28/2010 6:55:22 AM
"marriage is universally defined by "maleness and femaleness" and that one of its central purposes is "the encouragement of procreation under specific conditions"

That's the best they have in their final argument?

Let's see, male and femaleness, does that mean who does the household chores?

But the one on procreation is mindblowing.

That's a rocky slope for them to try and build their argument on. If procreation is required, then no infertile couples should ever be allowed to marry. No older women need apply. So to get a marriage license you would then have to prove you are fertile and sign a declaration that you intend to get pregnant at the earliest opportunity. If you breach that contract, say you don't have children within a set span of time, then I guess the state nulifies your marriage contract. Oh, wait I guess you could allow marriage, but only if the woman is pregnant before marriage to prove that she and her spouse are capable of having children.


Recommend: (38)(6)[Report Abuse]Permalink
ryukage992/28/2010 7:02:05 AM
melbaker,Exactly but I kind think people who oppose gay marriage are upset that can't legally despise someone enough to discrimate them public out of the open. Think about how many of those people who said "no" to Prop 8 when they really mean to say "yes" because they don't want to labeled a bigot. It's another Bradley-like effect. I kinda wonder why some of them can't be brave enough to have to ideals to stand up criticism.

Recommend: (24)(3)[Report Abuse]Permalink
GenericUserName2/28/2010 7:12:17 AM
Judge Walker has his homework cut out for him.

I don't see that sponsors proved what they wanted to prove, though.

Recommend: (20)(3)[Report Abuse]Permalink
deaddittoheads2/28/2010 7:15:34 AM
With such hyperbolic arguments as "SSM will destroy 'traditional' marriage!" and "SSM will be forced to be taught in school," one would think that the Yes on 8 mafia would have had a parade of witnesses with volumes of evidence to back up such outrageous claims and that their "expert" witnesses would believe that "saving traditional marriage" from destruction was worth the "risk" of testifying in court to uphold the amendment. Obviously not.

The sound you hear is the flimsy arguments of the Yes on 8 mafia crashing down all around them.

Recommend: (41)(4)[Report Abuse]Permalink
darkblue_b2/28/2010 7:26:59 AM
No - not Marriage.
Supreme Court - here we go