Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[Danno 1,228]

snag!

so it is in the water!

I just Knew it!

[HAL 9000 96]

Bigotry does tend to come in patterned groups does it not?

I hear ya,.. Barack Obama simply invites Nice guy Rick Warren to pray at his inaugural next month and the Gays will not stand for it, Why? because they don't agree with him on every issue.

When will the **-crowd lighten up and end this Hitler like, domination in the Democrat party?

Where is the open mindedness?

Even Ole Sen. Barney Fwank is busting obamas Chops about it.

Speaking of Barney Fwank, here is his latest song about his Banking scam.

Yeah I think some of these gay folks should learn to not feel persecuted so much. After all, its only their sexuality that's being attacked by bigots.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

[Danno 1,228]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

SInce Obama says he wants to bring together all parts of the American family for the National celebration in January... who would you have suggested he asked for this prayer?

[HAL 9000 96]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

Well sure. But there was a lot of reaction to the Prop 8 vote - to describe it as "highly charged" would not be an exaggeration.

[HAL 9000 96]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

Well sure. But there was a lot of reaction to the Prop 8 vote - to describe it as "highly charged" would not be an exaggeration.

Yeah, that it was.

[Danno 1,228]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

Well sure. But there was a lot of reaction to the Prop 8 vote - to describe it as "highly charged" would not be an exaggeration.

Yeah, that it was.

Yeah, I never saw such big group of sore losers!

It's like ; GET OVER THE ELECTION ALREADY.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

Well sure. But there was a lot of reaction to the Prop 8 vote - to describe it as "highly charged" would not be an exaggeration.

Yeah, that it was.

Yeah, I never saw such big group of sore losers!

It's like ; GET OVER THE ELECTION ALREADY.

Once again you miss the point.

To go back to the OP article - retroactively annulling the marriages is going to cause worse problems, I think. And its unfair - it opens up a dubious precedent. If we can change the laws, and then punish people for obeying the laws in the past when they were legal - that's bad news, even if you are against gay marraige.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Heracles 417]

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity and freedom. Prop 8 is shameful proof that it's not.

Yep. It's time for the Suprene Court to step in and rule such legislation as unconstitutional.

I thought this country is about we the people. That is, the will of the people.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

America is supposed to be the land of opportunity and freedom. Prop 8 is shameful proof that it's not.

Yep. It's time for the Suprene Court to step in and rule such legislation as unconstitutional.

I thought this country is about we the people. That is, the will of the people.

We're a Republic, not a Democracy.

That said, I don't see how banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Of course, I'm no lawyer.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Retroactively punishing people because of a change in the law would seem rather unconstitutional.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sure, but telling gay people they can't get married (going forward)? I don't see how that's unconstitutional. I am relatively certain the constitution doesn't address the issue at all.