California State Measure Results

[IAMX 3,055]

Here's a serving to the religious people about "of the people" and "fairness".

When they don't outright admit abortion stances are about religion, they point to adoption.

In one key state gays adopting was just banned.

Looks like they want their cake and to eat it too. And people wonder why courts do not respect these opinions, as well as the educated public? Religion has no place in collusion with government.

No matter the conversation, it always comes back to Religion with you SRVT

-

-I'm beginning to think you are a bit of a religious fanatic.

Q: You know you can tell a fanatic?

A: They can't change their mind... or the subject.

According to you.. only a religious Kook would view Gay marriage as unhealthy for society...

Must be a whole lot of Kooks in the Country as it seems these amendments get passed, every time they are put to voters.

There has been plenty of racists too. Jim Crow laws were allowed, and popular. Bigotry is nothing new in this country.

Nor am I suggesting this sort of shite should have ever come up for a vote. It isn't anyone else's place to decide marriage terms for another. Hence why this is increasingly becoming overturned.

Funny thing is, I used to be religious, one-sided, and homophobic, as well as uneducated about homosexuality -- when I was a kid, of course. Then I got educated, and stopped being "a bit of a religious fanatic", realizing it isn't my place to tell others who they should marry. What's stopping you?

Well you see, that's where we disagree.

I think it *IS* our place to collectively decide all kinds of things, like:

-What are the Purposes of prison (Punishment or rehab)?

-Should the death penalty be used and if yes, what method and in what circumstances?

-What are drinking ages or what is the age of consent?

-Should abortions be legal and if so, are there any limits?

-What is the age limits for marriage, can siblings marry, can same sex or multiple people marry?

- Is prostitution legal or drugs... or gambling.

The list goes on and on.

Take Abortion for example, if The People" really wanted Abortion outlawed, we have the power to pass an amendment to the US constitution, but there not overwhelming numbers for that so it hasn't happened.

Anyway,

These are all things we collectively decide as a community or as a nation, by direct vote or by representation.

One of the wonderful things about the USA is the way Each state has a certain amount of latitude

to govern themselves.

Who was it that said each state is a "laboratory in democracy". Many countries don't have this.

We can look at other states and see what works .. and what doesn't.

But in the end, citizens most certainly DO have the right and responsibility to decide these issues to make or change law... and even Constitutions themselves.

This is still a country "Governed by the consent of the People".

Abortion and prostitution are another issues that hurts nobody else, and is only a moral issue, even better if offered protections by the federal government so as not to cause serious danger to a person or others. No woman is impeding the rights of anyone else by the choice of expelling a fetus from her body. No gay is impeding the rights of anyone else to get married. No prostitute is impeding anyone else's right to choose to have sex with her for money. These are choices people make of themselves, of their own lives. However, you seem to erroneously think that you should have a say so in other people's lives. This will ultimately fail, and I gotta say, just like this rant against socialism and ####### I've seen here, you only are for these pushy moralist and anti-federalist type votes because it's going your way. I'm looking forward to when it's not, and how much you're going to wish for the rights of the minority not to be limited by the tyranny of the majority. The shoe ultimately does fall on the other foot.

If you look at the votes in the last gay marriage issue, over 60% of people voted for banning gay marriage in CA. Now 52%. Inevitably, even the religious dumbfucks aren't going to be able to convince the majority to think their beliefs are greater than the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. I also look forward to this being taken up in court for this very reason. It's gonna be a laugh when gay marriage bans start falling like dominoes.

Edited November 8, 2008 by SRVT

[Ban Hammer 14,037]

Abortion and prostitution are another issues that hurts nobody else, and is only a moral issue, even better if offered protections by the federal government so as not to cause serious danger to a person or others. No woman is impeding the rights of anyone else by the choice of expelling a fetus from her body. No gay is impeding the rights of anyone else to get married. No prostitute is impeding anyone else's right to choose to have sex with her for money. These are choices people make of themselves, of their own lives. However, you seem to erroneously think that you should have a say so in other people's lives. This will ultimately fail, and I gotta say, just like this rant against socialism and ####### I've seen here, you only are for these pushy moralist and anti-federalist type votes because it's going your way. I'm looking forward to when it's not, and how much you're going to wish for the rights of the minority not to be limited by the tyranny of the majority. The shoe ultimately does fall on the other foot.

If you look at the votes in the last gay marriage issue, over 60% of people voted for banning gay marriage in CA. Now 52%. Inevitably, even the religious dumbfucks aren't going to be able to convince the majority to think their beliefs are greater than the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. I also look forward to this being taken up in court for this very reason. It's gonna be a laugh when gay marriage bans start falling like dominoes.

works great when you deny that the fetus has any rights.

[akdiver 3]

works great when you deny that the fetus has any rights.

I know I do!! #### The Fetus!!

[IAMX 3,055]

works great when you deny that the fetus has any rights.

A fetus has no rights. Should I give bacteria or organs in your body a right? How about tumors? They are made up of cells. They are parts of a human. Or we can cut the moralist ####### and if you don't like abortions, don't have one. Simple as that. There are women who don't agree with you on "fetus rights", and they shouldn't be blocked by you and your beliefs, and given pre Roe vs. Wade methods of eliminating a fetus (good ol vices and hangers), it's clear they won't stop at anything if they don't want it in their body, regardless of what you think about their body and what's in it. Hence why abortion is legal.

[Ban Hammer 14,037]

works great when you deny that the fetus has any rights.

I know I do!! #### The Fetus!!

yeah but that's expected from you.

[Danno 1,228]

Q: You know you can tell a fanatic?

A: They can't change their mind... or the subject.

Abortion and prostitution are another issues that hurts nobody else, and is only a moral issue, even better if offered protections by the federal government so as not to cause serious danger to a person or others. No woman is impeding the rights of anyone else by the choice of expelling a fetus from her body. No gay is impeding the rights of anyone else to get married. No prostitute is impeding anyone else's right to choose to have sex with her for money. These are choices people make of themselves, of their own lives.

How does it hurt anyone if my girlfriends and I have sex in the park or my yard?

Why are there laws against it?

-----------------

-As you kick away the foundations on which we stand......be prepared to learn why they were put there-

[Ban Hammer 14,037]

works great when you deny that the fetus has any rights.

A fetus has no rights. Should I give bacteria or organs in your body a right? How about tumors? They are made up of cells. They are parts of a human. Or we can cut the moralist ####### and if you don't like abortions, don't have one. Simple as that. There are women who don't agree with you on "fetus rights", and they shouldn't be blocked by you and your beliefs, and given pre Roe vs. Wade methods of eliminating a fetus (good ol vices and hangers), it's clear they won't stop at anything if they don't want it in their body, regardless of what you think about their body and what's in it. Hence why abortion is legal.

neither did slaves a long time ago. someday this too may change.

[akdiver 3]

How does it hurt anyone if my girlfriends and I have sex in the park or my yard?

It doesn't.

Why are there laws against it?

Bastards who feel morally superior to others and want to impose their supposed morality on others.

I say, #### in you yard if you want to #### in your yard. Just don't be upset if people want to watch or take pictures.

[IAMX 3,055]

works great when you deny that the fetus has any rights.

A fetus has no rights. Should I give bacteria or organs in your body a right? How about tumors? They are made up of cells. They are parts of a human. Or we can cut the moralist ####### and if you don't like abortions, don't have one. Simple as that. There are women who don't agree with you on "fetus rights", and they shouldn't be blocked by you and your beliefs, and given pre Roe vs. Wade methods of eliminating a fetus (good ol vices and hangers), it's clear they won't stop at anything if they don't want it in their body, regardless of what you think about their body and what's in it. Hence why abortion is legal.

neither did slaves a long time ago. someday this too may change.

Well, the slaves weren't exactly entirely dependent upon someone else to live. Apples and oranges.

And perhaps it does change, perhaps it doesn't. It won't stop it from happening either way.

[IAMX 3,055]

How does it hurt anyone if my girlfriends and I have sex in the park or my yard?

Why are there laws against it?

It doesn't hurt anyone.

Who says it's a requisite for you to attend a gay wedding? Who does it hurt for gays to get married? Which rights does it impede on? And which amendment?

-As you kick away the foundations on which we stand......be prepared to learn why they were put there-

Your own founding fathers kicked away the foundations upon which were "standing" before -- remember the good ol' king and his religious persecutions and unruly method of taxation? Be prepared to learn why all of this happened.

Unless your thoughts are just to remember the things you want to remember, or want to follow. Remember, the Constitution isn't the bible.

[Danno 1,228]

How does it hurt anyone if my girlfriends and I have sex in the park or my yard?

Why are there laws against it?

It doesn't hurt anyone.

Who says it's a requisite for you to attend a gay wedding? Who does it hurt for gays to get married? Which rights does it impede on? And which amendment?

-As you kick away the foundations on which we stand......be prepared to learn why they were put there-

Your own founding fathers kicked away the foundations upon which were "standing" before -- remember the good ol' king and his religious persecutions and unruly method of taxation? Be prepared to learn why all of this happened.

Unless your thoughts are just to remember the things you want to remember, or want to follow. Remember, the Constitution isn't the bible.

Again, you are so consumed by your vile toward religion, you can hardly make a post without returning to the topic.

Truly a religious=nut I would say.

It might be helpful if you reviewed laws that were enacted back in the day of our Founding Fathers.

The Founders absolutely rejected any "Church" from having Authority in Government matters but they did not reject a united dependence on God in our Govt.

It's not even debatable.

It was actually the "Pilgrims" who fled England but not to "get away" from religion.

They came to Practice their own brand of Christianity.

Everything they did centered around Faith in God.

Here is the first Official Document, you tell me if it sounds like; people

trying to get away from God... or trying to get God out of Government.

MAYFLOWER COMPACT 1620

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was not for another 156 years, I doubt anyone was fleeing English Religious laws by then, as you suggested.

(But I am guessing on this).

[Danno 1,228]

And as an added Bonus (free of charge)..just to get in your craw.

Here is the preamble of "your" state Constitution.

Another example of Government separating its self from God.

( yeah right)

----------------

PREAMBLE to the California Constitution.

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

[IAMX 3,055]

Wow, you are indeed a religious nutcase.

What I'm clearly seeing here is because a word "God" appears, that means we're instantaneously bound to Christianity? Bzzt. Wrong.

Being in California, I don't see that I have to affirm once, or re-affirm any religious beliefs. To work for the state I don't have to hold my hand on a bible. I don't have to proclaim anything about religion. Religious-promoting activities are specifically barred. Schools are the biggest examples. I guess I'm bound to the preamble, right? Oh wait, no, I'm not. Quite a retarded connection you draw.

So if you want to try to put one past me, bud, try first reading the First Amendment, which has more bearing than the Pilgrims religious declarations, or California's first sentence to include "God", or consistent enforcement of separation of church and state. The founding fathers had NO single religion they were attached to. Some were different Christian denominations, some were non-religious. Clearly the founding fathers' intent was to create a society where people could freely practice their beliefs without the state suggesting we should follow one way or another.

Now, there are no more prominent argument against gay marriage than the fact that people find "one man, one woman" to equal sanctity, which is a euphemism for sanctimonious, based upon biblical account of Sodom and Gamorrah, and that supposedly "God" strikes down gays.

It's very clear what you're doing is using your own interpretation of, well, everything, to suggest gays can't or shouldn't marry, or that other citizens have the right to decide the legal institution of marriage for others. If you can't deny a drivers license to someone because they're gay, you obviously can't deny a marriage license to gays. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. You don't need to agree with it, you don't need to accept it, and clearly you don't. However, I do find your pathetic attempts to make me out to be religious for criticizing the #1 anti-gay marriage proponent is quite laughable. Being an agnostic, I have no side. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a religious person. I am, however, a call-it-how-it-is person, I don't pull punches, and I don't care to play favorites. Your arguments against gay marriage have largely sucked, from people should decide everything to calling me religious. Your problem is something you should take up with both the founding fathers and judges who understand the separation of church and state that is prevalent in this country.

Of course I'll criticize religion all I like. Religious white people were the people most prominently behind enslaving blacks here, religious white men on suppressing women, religious white men for Jim Crow laws, and now religious people of every nature still want to suppress gays. If religious people aren't trying to bully someone around based upon these hypocritical religious doctrines, it wouldn't be America. Evidently you have some logic to push over on these people who want to push their religion into other people's lives.

No one has yet answered which rights of yours gays are taking away by being married. Which is it? The preamble rights?

[Danno 1,228]

Wow, you are indeed a religious nutcase.

What I'm clearly seeing here is because a word "God" appears, that means we're instantaneously bound to Christianity? Bzzt. Wrong.

You could have stopped there, the rest was redundant.

Again, your fixation with religion is quite interesting, there must be a story behind it?

I never said our Govt is "bound to Christianity." Where did you get that?

I only proved your suggestion that Pilgrims "fled religion" was; oh so wrong by posting the Mayflower Compact.

The Mayflower Compact is a Historical document having no bearing on law today (or little).

As I have said before, the term "separation of Church in state" is a general term not even found in the Constitution, even so... it implies exactly that; Separation of CHURCH, not Religion.

Clearly all Documents prove this.

If THE FOUNDERS were so set against separating God From Govt, why did they begin each session of Congress with a Prayer,(which continues today) .. Print up Bibles to be distributed throughout Govt and hire a Chaplin to Serve the House?

Your opinion is interesting but please offer something with a little more weight and you just might sway the opinions of others.

My friend, THE PEOPLE have spoken... get over it.

[Danno 1,228]

Interestingly....

"Whites voted very narrowly against the ban, 51-49 percent. Asian-Americans voted the same. Hispanics voted for it, by 53-47 percent. Blacks voted for it, overwhelmingly, 70-30. Blacks can be said to have put it over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted, we compute a vote of 50-50," according to an analysis by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer.

So, it would seem that of White, Hispanic and Black voters in California - whites are the least bigoted of the bunch.

Or the most easily Duped by emotional based logic.