California State Measure Results

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Paul Daniels... you asked "why" people would vote to stop gay marriage.

I provided not my opinion but actual vids of the youngest of school children being indoctrinated by the state.

No comment?

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Didn't watch the videos (at work) - so no comment, no.

Is there a need to? You know what it's all about.

Guaranteed there's not an argument in there we haven't heard before, or haven't heard recently, at that.

Well I won't comment specifically on something I haven't seen - but I do think its rather dubious to point to something thats happening in schools and use that as a justification to squash the rights of others.

I don't bother being politically correct. I simply don't waste time messing with religious people on these issues. I will gladly eat crow if it's an argument I've never heard before. The religious premise behind the gay marriage issue doesn't change.

If they want to hang onto their philosophy, that's fine, but they're not going to hold society back with them, and these votes are proof of that, as we climb closer and closer to allowing gays their rights. The 2000 vote was something like 61-63%. This was 52%. Seeing the trend?

Rather than waste time messing with these fundamentalist religious people, we need to simply move on without them. Let them be stuck behind on their little moral crusade against social progress.

Well I suspect the courts will overrule the measure once again. That'll give the talk radio nutters something to shriek about.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I kinda think, Danno, that being taught the truth that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is far better than indoctrinating public schools with religious ideologies about how wrong it is to be normal, just because you don't agree with their sexuality. If this sort of intolerance is what you want for your children, may I suggest private school or homeschool. Feel free to brainwash them there. In public school, religion stays out of curriculum, and so does bigotry.

It's gonna be pretty funny as more gays end up getting married how fearful and desperate these religious nuts get. Maybe they'll turn into Al-Quieda.

Your Obsession about religion dominates so many of your posts ... when it's not been part of the conversation.

Seek help, it's clearly eating you up.

Who do you think was behind Prop 8 in the first place?

[HAL 9000 96]

Well at least it will be nice to graph on excel or something like it until the people of California can live under equal conditions for commonplace things like marriage.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

The government has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation.

P.E. Trudeau

[jundp 191]

I just received an email from my brother who told me the Ca. Sec of State just declared that all gay marriages which took place between the original ruling making gay marriage legal, and November 3rd are now null and void.

[IAMX 3,055]

I kinda think, Danno, that being taught the truth that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality is far better than indoctrinating public schools with religious ideologies about how wrong it is to be normal, just because you don't agree with their sexuality. If this sort of intolerance is what you want for your children, may I suggest private school or homeschool. Feel free to brainwash them there. In public school, religion stays out of curriculum, and so does bigotry.

It's gonna be pretty funny as more gays end up getting married how fearful and desperate these religious nuts get. Maybe they'll turn into Al-Quieda.

Your Obsession about religion dominates so many of your posts ... when it's not been part of the conversation.

Seek help, it's clearly eating you up.

Who do you think was behind Prop 8 in the first place?

Liek, science.

I just received an email from my brother who told me the Ca. Sec of State just declared that all gay marriages which took place between the original ruling making gay marriage legal, and November 3rd are now null and void.

If this is true, it's gonna get reeeeaal ugly.

[almaty 19]

sad..california is turning into the mississippi of the west

[IAMX 3,055]

sad..california is turning into the mississippi of the west

This has happened before, brother almaty, let the justice system do it's work.

Edit: Keep in mind this state Congress also passed gay marriage rights, it was a Republican Governor who vetoed it. All it takes is a change of parties in the next guv election and it swings right back. There's more than a few ways gays are going to end up winning marriage rights.

Edited November 6, 2008 by SRVT

[jundp 191]

Or Arkansas. Apparently Arkansas's adoption rule is retroactive as well.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Or Arkansas. Apparently Arkansas's adoption rule is retroactive as well.

That svcks even more. Really.

[almaty 19]

Or Arkansas. Apparently Arkansas's adoption rule is retroactive as well.

That svcks even more. Really.

yikes, i forgot..that passed?

[IAMX 3,055]

I just received an email from my brother who told me the Ca. Sec of State just declared that all gay marriages which took place between the original ruling making gay marriage legal, and November 3rd are now null and void.

Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr..._(2008)#Results

Another pending issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change, or whether they would be preserved. The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that existing same-sex marriages were unaffected.

Need a news source here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just received an email from my brother who told me the Ca. Sec of State just declared that all gay marriages which took place between the original ruling making gay marriage legal, and November 3rd are now null and void.

Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr..._(2008)#Results

Another pending issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change, or whether they would be preserved. The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that existing same-sex marriages were unaffected.

Need a news source here.

I don't have a link for it - but there was a story about it on NPR this morning where they were saying that existing gay marriages would be preserved.

[LoriLawless 1]

I just received an email from my brother who told me the Ca. Sec of State just declared that all gay marriages which took place between the original ruling making gay marriage legal, and November 3rd are now null and void.

Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr..._(2008)#Results

Another pending issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change, or whether they would be preserved. The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that existing same-sex marriages were unaffected.

Need a news source here.

I don't have a link for it - but there was a story about it on NPR this morning where they were saying that existing gay marriages would be preserved.

I hope so.

[akdiver 3]

For one you kind of have to assume that everyone who would sign up to this kind of arbitrary marriage contract is in their own right mind at the time and their inalienable rights (such as human rights are defined by the constitution and bill of rights) wouldn't be infringed by an unscrupulous partner or an incompetent lawyer.

That's true for any contract.

If you were able to sign your rights away at the outset of marriage...

..and so naturally, you assume that people would be signing over all their rights....

What you're suggesting....

Is allowing people to decide for themselves how their marriage should work, and maximizing liberty.

You don't need to throw the rule book out of the window simply because one group of minorities is seeking a slight rule change to protect their interests.

So you should only protect against discrimination, if it is convenient to do so.

Would you want to pay for all that red tape?

I pay for "red tape" every day.