CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[OrByte]

"Homosexuality is an emotional pathology," said Grundmann, who described himself as head of a group called the American Warrior Ministry. "It's a spiritual DNA, not a physical DNA . There's not such thing as gay. It's a marketing term. They're bringing an offense to marriage and they need to be stopped."

sacbee article

woah...that is a first for me.

"Spiritual DNA" yikes...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11844588

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.

OWNAGE! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, how about we wait until they actually rule to see as opposed to trying to read the tea leaves of oral arguments. Then again, you're Winnar, so you doing stupid things like this is pretty normal isn't it?

Saved for later so I can bump this thread.

The idiocy is you claiming that the questions during oral argument = ownage, not whatever they ultimately rule. But you're an intelligent person so you knew that.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Oral arguments ended about 20 minutes ago. From watching the oral arguments, my feeling is that the Justices are going to have an opinion where neither side will be fully satisfied.

Like what? They're either going to let Prop 8 stand, or not.

I think that they're going to let Proposition 8 stand, but not allow Proposition 8 invalidate existing marriages.

The court was unusually vocal in the oral arguments, almost to the point where several Justices seemed to reveal which way they were going to vote.

By the way, the representative for the CA Attorney General's office was the worst lawyer that I've ever seen in my entire life. The guy was a disgrace.

 

[Chaotic42]

I still fail to see how people who claim to want minimal government intereference in their lives can approve a ban on gay marriage. It stuns me.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
By the way, the representative for the CA Attorney General's office was the worst lawyer that I've ever seen in my entire life. The guy was a disgrace.

10 Begin Hijack

20 Print "What about the defense attorney from 'My Cousin Vinnie'?"

30 End Hijack

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Oral arguments ended about 20 minutes ago. From watching the oral arguments, my feeling is that the Justices are going to have an opinion where neither side will be fully satisfied.

Like what? They're either going to let Prop 8 stand, or not.

I think that they're going to let Proposition 8 stand, but not allow Proposition 8 invalidate existing marriages.

I think that's more in the 'pro 8 wins, anti 8 loses and gets one small victory' than the 'split down the middle' column, but thanks for the clarification.

The court was unusually vocal in the oral arguments, almost to the point where several Justices seemed to reveal which way they were going to vote.

By the way, the representative for the CA Attorney General's office was the worst lawyer that I've ever seen in my entire life. The guy was a disgrace.

It's nice you were able to be there. I'm wishing I'd gone, but dunno if I could have gotten in. What did the AG guy do?

I think it's disgusting if prop 8 is allowed to stand, and look forward to hearing the court's reasoning if that happens.

Did you get an idea why they think that an amendment, which is not support to conflict with a constitutional right, should be allowed to remove a rightt they had recognized?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_11844588

The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.

During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.




OWNAGE! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Funny how that wasn`t my take on the proceedings! hmmmmm
But given the fact that it`s Lossar111...opps...winnar111 we can and should believe just the opposite of his take on things.
On a side note something I took away from this was that just because earlier California Supreme Courts ruled based on their predessesors rulings this court is reluctant to do likewise!



I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Oral arguments ended about 20 minutes ago. From watching the oral arguments, my feeling is that the Justices are going to have an opinion where neither side will be fully satisfied.

yeah, that`s a very astute observation....I tend to concur!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Oral arguments ended about 20 minutes ago. From watching the oral arguments, my feeling is that the Justices are going to have an opinion where neither side will be fully satisfied.

yeah, that`s a very astute observation....I tend to concur!

Did you see the oral arguments?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think that's more in the 'pro 8 wins, anti 8 loses and gets one small victory' than the 'split down the middle' column, but thanks for the clarification.

Well I never said that it was a split down the middle...

It's nice you were able to be there. I'm wishing I'd gone, but dunno if I could have gotten in. What did the AG guy do?

I think it's disgusting if prop 8 is allowed to stand, and look forward to hearing the court's reasoning if that happens.

Did you get an idea why they think that an amendment, which is not support to conflict with a constitutional right, should be allowed to remove a rightt they had recognized?

The Attorney General's representative was just sad. He kept stumbling, seemed confused, and he couldn't even identify what an 'inalienable right'...he was a horrible orator. It was so bad that the SF City & County lawyer just put her head down at times.

The Justices seemed to be reluctant to remove a right that has already been granted. They basically felt that it would be in violation of other Constitutional rights that immediately attached when the marriages were legally like due process.

Sorry, I don't have time right now to give a full reporting of what happened and what other scholars think, but I can get back to you later today or tomorrow if you want.

 

[sportage]

The justices are looking at this the wrong way, and its a stunning mistake, in allowing direct voter tweaking of the states constitution. One of the justices mentioned the term willy nilly. Well, giving the voters the right by ballot to willy nilly change the states constitution would create far more damage down the road.
Any change in a states constitution should be a "process", as it is with the US constitution.
Can you imagine voters changing the states constitution to become their own country?
Re instate slavery?
Take voting rights away from women and minorities?
Or the women getting together and taking away the voting rights of men...?
(hmm?something to think about)
How about granting the right to have your own personal collection of weapons of mass destruction?
Hey... in the bible it also says the parent has the right to stone a child to death when they are disrespectful. Texted just next to the famous passage ?man should not get it on with man?. Can the voters change the state constitution on that one?
"Hey Jimmy... eat your sprouts or its brick party in the backyard."
I can see it now. Tons of signature collectors in all the store parking lots, collecting signatures to make all CA walmarts clothing optional nudist camps.
After all? its California, you know.
Looks like the justices are about to open a can of worms.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

 

[sportage]

PS. This whole premise was derailed from the start.
Controlling civil rights by basically following the old testament in the bible,
where it also states to eat shrimp is as bad as being a homo (so to speak)
is nutz.
Creating law and withholding civil rights by following one old testament
phrase, while ignoring others just to suit your needs, is totally insane
government.
Who knows... with the economy falling apart, the justices probably
now believe this is all happening because the U.S. allowed 18000 gays top marry.
So the justices better put a stop to this NOW. Or God will get you, California... :roll:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

He's one of "them", you know the kind, the holier than thou kind who are instructed by their pastors to hate certain people, arrogant imbecils who think they were elected by god.

In reality, he's no better than the Talibans, in fact, he's advocating the same thing only less severe for now.

He and his kind will get worse before they realise that the change is inevitable.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think that's more in the 'pro 8 wins, anti 8 loses and gets one small victory' than the 'split down the middle' column, but thanks for the clarification.

Well I never said that it was a split down the middle...

It's nice you were able to be there. I'm wishing I'd gone, but dunno if I could have gotten in. What did the AG guy do?

I think it's disgusting if prop 8 is allowed to stand, and look forward to hearing the court's reasoning if that happens.

Did you get an idea why they think that an amendment, which is not support to conflict with a constitutional right, should be allowed to remove a rightt they had recognized?

The Attorney General's representative was just sad. He kept stumbling, seemed confused, and he couldn't even identify what an 'inalienable right'...he was a horrible orator. It was so bad that the SF City & County lawyer just put her head down at times.

The Justices seemed to be reluctant to remove a right that has already been granted. They basically felt that it would be in violation of other Constitutional rights that immediately attached when the marriages were legally like due process.

Sorry, I don't have time right now to give a full reporting of what happened and what other scholars think, but I can get back to you later today or tomorrow if you want.

YES!! I couldn't believe that guy was supposed to represent the AG office.

The AG office sent in someone that was clearly out of his element...it was a true disgrace.

I don't know if it was the 3rd or 4th lawyer that got in front of the Judges but HE was the one that had the most pursuasive argument....or at least the ability to argue. He was an older gentleman and he kept referencing how he was in front of the Judges just last year discussing this issue and the probability that they would be faced with the legal issues that there were indeed faced with today.

He did great in front of the judges. The AG guy needs to "review the tape."

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: sportage
The justices are looking at this the wrong way, and its a stunning mistake, in allowing direct voter tweaking of the states constitution. One of the justices mentioned the term willy nilly. Well, giving the voters the right by ballot to willy nilly change the states constitution would create far more damage down the road.
Any change in a states constitution should be a "process", as it is with the US constitution.
Can you imagine voters changing the states constitution to become their own country?
Re instate slavery?
Take voting rights away from women and minorities?
Or the women getting together and taking away the voting rights of men...?
(hmm?something to think about)
How about granting the right to have your own personal collection of weapons of mass destruction?
Hey... in the bible it also says the parent has the right to stone a child to death when they are disrespectful. Texted just next to the famous passage ?man should not get it on with man?. Can the voters change the state constitution on that one?
"Hey Jimmy... eat your sprouts or its brick party in the backyard."
I can see it now. Tons of signature collectors in all the store parking lots, collecting signatures to make all CA walmarts clothing optional nudist camps.
After all? its California, you know.
Looks like the justices are about to open a can of worms.

You are on the right track. Unfortunately that is how California law works. The voting populace does have that power....

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

There are times when I realize that drugs are better off illegal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

There are times when I realize that drugs are better off illegal.

As a first class bigot you will naturally prove to be chock-full of stupid and meaningless opinions.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

There are times when I realize that drugs are better off illegal.

Looking in the mirror again huh??

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: sportage
The justices are looking at this the wrong way, and its a stunning mistake, in allowing direct voter tweaking of the states constitution. One of the justices mentioned the term willy nilly. Well, giving the voters the right by ballot to willy nilly change the states constitution would create far more damage down the road.
Any change in a states constitution should be a "process", as it is with the US constitution.
Can you imagine voters changing the states constitution to become their own country?
Re instate slavery?
Take voting rights away from women and minorities?
Or the women getting together and taking away the voting rights of men...?
(hmm?something to think about)
How about granting the right to have your own personal collection of weapons of mass destruction?
Hey... in the bible it also says the parent has the right to stone a child to death when they are disrespectful. Texted just next to the famous passage ?man should not get it on with man?. Can the voters change the state constitution on that one?
"Hey Jimmy... eat your sprouts or its brick party in the backyard."
I can see it now. Tons of signature collectors in all the store parking lots, collecting signatures to make all CA walmarts clothing optional nudist camps.
After all? its California, you know.
Looks like the justices are about to open a can of worms.

really, you're gonna go with the slippery slope argument? If you're gonna use that the pro 8 people will just use the same and bring up polygamy, incest and marrying goats and other farm animals, [insert something equally ridiculous, with hint of morality]

I don't care who marries whom. seeing as how to pay for the budget deficit in every city and county. local governments can use the money from marriage license fees.

The can of worms you speak of that the justices might open was already opened by them they they ruled on gay marriage. they should've avoided it like the black plague and let the legislature deal with it rather than themselves.

Given how easy it is to get ballot measures up the California, just get another one up the next election to change what prop 8 did. i figured that would be the first move when prop 8 passed. I'm sure the anti-gays will do the same if prop 8 gets wiped. And the cycle will repeat.

the thing we should look at is make putting shit on the ballot a lot harder. San Jose people should know this, how many times in the row did they try to get the bart tax measure until it finally passed? I guess we want to promote the idea to try harder and repeatedly until you get what you want.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Your are dumb and ignorant. People voted on an a ILLEGAL PROPOSITION that shouldn't of even been put on the ballot in the first place.

It is up to the government to decide on minority group rights. Take slavery for example...guess who would might be slaves still if the government didn't step in?

Ahh yes, so because we disagree I am dumb and ignorant...

Care to point out how the prop was "illegal" and if so why isn't action being taken against the govt for placing it on the ballot in the first place? Seems that this is a pretty grey issue with even the web pundits arguing over whether or not it truly was "illegal" as you claim it to be....but the fact is it went to the people and they voted in favor...

Yet again we have a situation where the govt steps through the legislature and imposes its will over that of the voters. Having seen this happen twice in MA I am not surprised (well three times if one considers casino gambling...but MA twice shot down the will of the ppl to vote on gay marriage)

And nice trying to tie this to slavery...lol

LOL, without the government, the "will of the people" would have been to keep slavery... good DODGE!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

There are times when I realize that drugs are better off illegal.

Atreus21, you need to go look up the word "intolerant." Because without understanding intolerance, you cannot understand bigotry. You, like a lot of other bigots in this world, object to the label that suits them so perfectly, because you don't understand it.

Arguing against someone with bigoted views, or labeling them properly as a bigot, does not make someone a bigot.

Get it f'ing straight.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

There are times when I realize that drugs are better off illegal.

Atreus21, you need to go look up the word "intolerant." Because without understanding intolerance, you cannot understand bigotry. You, like a lot of other bigots in this world, object to the label that suits them so perfectly, because you don't understand it.

Arguing against someone with bigoted views, or labeling them properly as a bigot, does not make someone a bigot.

Get it f'ing straight.

Deal, I've always thought you an informed poster.

It doesn't take much to see the following:

A bigot, being someone who pathologically hates dissent, would be someone you'd expect to quickly resort to personal attacks. Who, between Moonbeam and I, has resorted to this the most? Where do you find any of my posts explicitly filled with insults and ad hominem attacks?

Simply being intolerant of something isn't evil, or even necessarily wrong, such as being intolerant of racial slurs. Everyone is intolerant. It means nothing without a qualifier. You're intolerant of me, yet my intolerance is reprehensible. It's a blatant contradiction to say you're intolerant of intolerance. The truth is, you don't like what I believe in, and that's the real reason I am attacked. If I were intolerant in your favor, suddenly the cries against intolerance would cease.

Nothing I've said, not one thing, has any ring of real bigotry by its real definition. I don't irrationaly deride my opponents. I engage them in debate, and I leave open the possibility that I may be wrong. But I'm confident that I'm right, just as I'm sure you are.

On the other hand, I am attacked and insulted by people like Moonbeam and JohnofSheffield, on the basis that I am bigoted, stupid, immoral, and intolerant, which apart from its outright hypocricy, is demonstrably false if one cares to look over my posts in this thread. But they cannot be bothered.

Liberals are supposed to be about freedom of speech, thought, and open-mindedness. This type of behavior does not become you.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Its implied that tolerance == irrational intolerance.

Come on now.

S&M

 

[OrByte]

What is funny is that even Ken Starr, while speaking in front of the SC, made comments on more than one occasion that California voters approved an "unwise" Proposition but it is the will of the voters and it must stand.