CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[Atreus21]

Gotta go now.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

So are the elderly...or certain people who have undergone certain surgeries that make procreation impossible.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Then along the same lines, it also statistically helps other STDs proliferate among a heterosexual population.

The governmental response needs to be very narrow.

If the state wishes to undergo all the difficulty in determining to 100% accuracy that a person cannot procreate with one of the opposite sex, then I would have no argument against them if they denied marriage to that person, on that basis.

FWIW, surgery is no guarantee. Women have gotten pregnant after having their tubes tied.

My point with that argument is that the state need make no investigation to determine the possibility of procreation when considering a gay couple.

What narrow response would you advocate?

At first I thought you were posting valid arguments...but now this is just trolling status.

Denying marriage to a straight couple because they cannot reproduce? You are really willing to go that far to deny the rights of gay couples to marry? Good thing I don't live in a country that follows Atreus21's moral/political views.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

You don't get how rights work, if someone can do it and others are restricted from it, then the rights of thos who can't are de facto diminished, get it?

Got it. So then why can straight and gay couples marry, and polygamists not marry? Isn't it a right?

Because it's not the same issue, both straight and gay men can marry one partner.

Polygamism will have to be examined as it CAN be a problem to society.

This has to be examined first but it's out of the scope of this conversation.

Then the only difference between the polygamy argument and the gay argument is that one minority currently is riding a larger wave of popularity. Their arguments are no different. One is simply more vocal.

No it isn't the only difference, you don't get this because Rush told you not to understand it but the truth is that monogamous relationships are PROVEN healthy for the society while Polygamous relationships have been PROVEN unhealthy for society (mainly because men like me would get the wives that people like you lust after, the lot of them)

Perhaps i need a fucking hammer to beat this fact into your skull?

 

[Moonbeam]

Unfortunately, Atreus, you are a bigot and like all bigots you can't see your own bigotry. But the people arguing with you can see it. Like all bigots your real justification for your prejudice is that you are right. You don't know why you are right, you just feel it. It is the nature of irrational prejudice. You have a terrible disease. Try to get over it. Try to understand that in my world you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you are stupid. It is much better for my ideal society that stupid genes don't mingle. It's just the way I see it. For the good of society I would have to cut off your balls.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Wait what.

You are now attempting to argue that the government should ban gay marriage because of AIDS, when gay people getting married would nearly certainly decrease the number of sexual partners they would have, and would thus help prevent the spread of AIDS. The government doesn't like a disease, so they should ban activity that would help limit it!

Gay marriage itself has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS, gay sex does. (unless you're trying to argue that gay men wait until marriage to have sex, as sex outside marriage is a sin and all... hahaha.) The idea you are putting forth would be one to ban sodomy, not ban gay marriage. Good luck with that.

Nope. I'm illustrating that there are arguments society could make that put gay activity in terms of a societal ill.

But the argument would be literally insane and utterly disconnected from rational thought and reality as we understand it. The argument you mentioned suggests banning activity that would limit the spread of a disease, in the interests of controlling that same disease.

That is irrational.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Wait what.

You are now attempting to argue that the government should ban gay marriage because of AIDS, when gay people getting married would nearly certainly decrease the number of sexual partners they would have, and would thus help prevent the spread of AIDS. The government doesn't like a disease, so they should ban activity that would help limit it!

Gay marriage itself has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS, gay sex does. (unless you're trying to argue that gay men wait until marriage to have sex, as sex outside marriage is a sin and all... hahaha.) The idea you are putting forth would be one to ban sodomy, not ban gay marriage. Good luck with that.

Nope. I'm illustrating that there are arguments society could make that put gay activity in terms of a societal ill.

And monogamous gays would increase or decrease this problem herr Seashell?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.

WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.

What do you mean by protected class?

The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.

One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?

2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.

3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?

Indeed, I'm a retarded seashell.

I don't think you are, i just think that you've been spoonfed these arguments and they are daft arguments, whoever told you to believe in them is the retarded seashell, my friend.

You really need to think about these things yourself, because i don't think you are daft, i think you're pretty bright from what i've seen in other posts and you can figure this out on your own, if you do and still insist on banning gay marriage, i'd love to hear and debate the arguments, i'm sure that would be a much better debate.

Jake

FWIW, I'm happy with the current state of affairs regarding gay marriage: It's still up to the states.

What I vehemently oppose is the institution of a Roe v. Wade of gay marriage.

The main reason I'm here is because I think people are too quick to dismiss the anti-gay marriage crowd as religion zealots. I want to indicate that there is a secular argument against it.

Obviously i was wrong, you really are that stupid and don't tell me you're not a religious zealot because we both know you are.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

The whole spreading of AIDS argument is stupid and archaic. Honestly, unless you live in Africa, I bet the majority of you have never met someone that has AIDS. I know I haven't, and I have been to many places and have met a lot of fucking people.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
The whole spreading of AIDS argument is stupid and archaic. Honestly, unless you live in Africa, I bet the majority of you have never met someone that has AIDS. I know I haven't, and I have been to many places and have met a lot of fucking people.

Not to mention, WHO is more likely to spread a VD, someone who is single or someone who is married?

The argument is an argument against itself.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Heheheh... typical. Democracy only as long as we like the outcome of the vote. If we don't, then hell, there must have been something wrong and it must be repealed immediately!

So true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Heheheh... typical. Democracy only as long as we like the outcome of the vote. If we don't, then hell, there must have been something wrong and it must be repealed immediately!

So true.

Civics 101 guys, the Bill of Rights exists for a reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Heheheh... typical. Democracy only as long as we like the outcome of the vote. If we don't, then hell, there must have been something wrong and it must be repealed immediately!

Oh, and also speaking of democracy, you should check out the wonderful history of Proposition 14 in California. Racial discrimination in housing was outlawed, but then Prop 14 was written and passed (by a huge margin) to overturn the ban on racial discrimination so that racists could once again deny housing to blacks. The people spoke then too!

Guess how that turned out.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
The whole spreading of AIDS argument is stupid and archaic. Honestly, unless you live in Africa, I bet the majority of you have never met someone that has AIDS. I know I haven't, and I have been to many places and have met a lot of fucking people.

Not to mention, WHO is more likely to spread a VD, someone who is single or someone who is married?

The argument is an argument against itself.

Going by the number of lonely celibate singles and how many married people cheat, probably more likely with married people.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.

WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.

What do you mean by protected class?

The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.

One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?

2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.

3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?

Indeed, I'm a retarded seashell.

Error: Call to sarcasm(retarded seashell) failed.
Reason: Truth is an invalid parameter for sarcasm function.

To reiterate the above response:

1. How does gay marriage affect gays' "inability" - which isn't an inability anyway - to have children, and you are clearly trying to create a phony 'requirement' for marriage.

2. Having protected groups because there is a history of discrimination makes a lot of sense.

3. Too obvious to repeat. We're not voting to invent AIDS here, we're voting for equal rights for gay people that would likely be justified even if it increased AIDS, but it doesn't.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
If the state wishes to undergo all the difficulty in determining to 100% accuracy that a person cannot procreate with one of the opposite sex, then I would have no argument against them if they denied marriage to that person, on that basis.

FWIW, surgery is no guarantee. Women have gotten pregnant after having their tubes tied.

My point with that argument is that the state need make no investigation to determine the possibility of procreation when considering a gay couple.

What narrow response would you advocate?

What about a couple who is young, healthy and perfectly capable of breeding? Should the state only allow them to get married if they agree to procreate? If they change their minds, do we revoke their marriage? If a marriage is revoked, does it count as a divorce? Would the man have to pay alimony? Or do we skip revoking the marriage and just force them to fuck at gunpoint?

What about a couple who wants to adopt? Should we not allow them to marry since it's not actually their spawn that they are rearing? Or will adoptions no longer be allowed in this country? Hell, why even leave it up to the people to decide? Let's just pair people off as they finish high school, get the men to knock up the women, make the men learn a trade while the women spit out babies, and everything will be hunky dory. We could pair the best and brightest and make a master race! Wouldn't that be just grand?

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I'm torn on this one. Prop 8 was a disgrace, but if people really cared they would have been out voting. Or maybe they were, & it truly is the will of the people.

Then again the will of the people might have been segregated schools back in 1954. I don't think many people today would say the SC made the wrong decision on that one, so maybe this is the right move.

My gut says let the population realize they fucked up and fix it themselves, but maybe government intervention is the right choice. Either way I don't live in California so I can't do anything about it. It will certainly be interesting to watch this play out.

Viper GTS

Yes, the will of the people was against integration, against giving women the right to vote, against giving Indians the right to vote and the right to their own lands, in favor of deporting the Chinese who built our railroads, and interning the Japanese.

Democracy has its weaknesses.

-Robert

You could argue that all of the groups you have mentioned cannot change who they are, where a lot of people see homosexuality as a "choice". Some people would resort to using science to proof that people are born gay or whatever, but then a lot of people reject science in this country.

I'm neutral on this issue. I didn't vote for or against prop 8.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: lupi
They must have solved the budget and unemployment problems already I see if they now tackling this fishinf expedition.

Thank you! I'll be a resident of TX very soon (instead of CA) . Fvcking retarded state legislature should be figuring out how to fix CA than to debate on this kind of bullsh!t.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: lupi
They must have solved the budget and unemployment problems already I see if they now tackling this fishinf expedition.

Thank you! I'll be a resident of TX very soon (instead of CA) . Fvcking retarded state legislature should be figuring out how to fix CA than to debate on this kind of bullsh!t.

Minority rights aren't a big deal?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

So are the elderly...or certain people who have undergone certain surgeries that make procreation impossible.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Then along the same lines, it also statistically helps other STDs proliferate among a heterosexual population.

The governmental response needs to be very narrow.

If the state wishes to undergo all the difficulty in determining to 100% accuracy that a person cannot procreate with one of the opposite sex, then I would have no argument against them if they denied marriage to that person, on that basis.

Well at least you are consistent.

FWIW, surgery is no guarantee. Women have gotten pregnant after having their tubes tied.

I was actually referring more to a person who had major surgery that made procreation completely impossible.

My point with that argument is that the state need make no investigation to determine the possibility of procreation when considering a gay couple.

But there are circumstances with heterosexuals where they cannot physically procreate. Say, for example, someone who had her uterus removed due to cancer. It doesn't require much investigation by the state. Plus, the elderly are another example.

What narrow response would you advocate?

Before you even get to a narrow response, there needs to be an actual governmental interest that can outweigh the personal liberty at stake. I just don't see any reason why the government would need to ban gay marriage to meet any sort of governmental interest. You brought up the AIDS issue, but banning gay marriage doesn't address it at all.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but is there any other reason to ban gay marriage outside of moral reasons - which alone are not sufficient?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I'm torn on this one. Prop 8 was a disgrace, but if people really cared they would have been out voting. Or maybe they were, & it truly is the will of the people.

Then again the will of the people might have been segregated schools back in 1954. I don't think many people today would say the SC made the wrong decision on that one, so maybe this is the right move.

My gut says let the population realize they fucked up and fix it themselves, but maybe government intervention is the right choice. Either way I don't live in California so I can't do anything about it. It will certainly be interesting to watch this play out.

Viper GTS

Yes, the will of the people was against integration, against giving women the right to vote, against giving Indians the right to vote and the right to their own lands, in favor of deporting the Chinese who built our railroads, and interning the Japanese.

Democracy has its weaknesses.

-Robert

You could argue that all of the groups you have mentioned cannot change who they are, where a lot of people see homosexuality as a "choice". Some people would resort to using science to proof that people are born gay or whatever, but then a lot of people reject science in this country.

I'm neutral on this issue. I didn't vote for or against prop 8.

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not has nothing to do with the legalization of gay marriage or any other gay rights. If proof of homosexuality as a natural occurance was found, do you think that would change the minds of bible bashere and bigots? We should not make laws based on which behaviors we approve of, but on justice. Outside of religion and the foolish minds of bigots, there are no downsides to granting people moe rights. If you're neutral on civil rights, something is wrong.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It's unfortunate that you don't care about the rights of your fellow citizens.

That makes it a lot harder for them to protect their rights against determined bigots.

.......

It's concerning how many people don't understand the concept of the super-majority, why it is in place for basic rights.

The 'mob mentality' isn't about the people marching with torches on the capitol, that's what the police are for.

It's about the passions of the public being more easily against minority (in the broad sense, not just race) groups at times, and simple majorities voting on short-sighted views.

Our founding fathers did not let our fedeal constitution be easily modified by simple majorities, while it does let the laws be changed that way, simple majority in Congress.

It is exactly the sort of thing the constitutional super-majority is designed to protect when a passionate group of anti-gay heterosexuals votes 52% to deny rights to minority gays.

Craig,

Unfortunate for you possibly, however why would I care if gays can marry? it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever (which is conincidentally an argument pro gay marriage use in favor of the proposal).

Further I do not see why marriage is a "right"...a convenience yes, but right, no sorry, it was only ruled a right by the MA legislature and the CA SC and I believe Hawaii but didn't they eventually overturn that decison?..edit, according to Eskimo Loving vs VA noticed marriage as a right, however given that this is a contested issue and a newly afforded right I might be more inclined to say it should be officially ruled on simply because it is unconventional.

And as for Mob Rule...again the people voted, it isn't like gays are being segregated on busses, or required to use seperate bathrooms, or cannot vote.....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bozack
Craig,

Unfortunate for you possibly, however why would I care if gays can marry? it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever (which is conincidentally an argument pro gay marriage use in favor of the proposal).

Why shuld you care if mixed-race couples can marry, or if blacks can be forced into slavery, or if your city has an Asian child-sex industry?

None of those thingsd directly impact you.

It's called "morality". If you don't have it from your upbringing and other socialization, I'm hardly going to be able to create it for you now in this post.

You are exhibiting one of the shortcomings of democracy - the 'why should I care' issue.

Democracy isn't too bad at the majority getting some representation for its desires - even if the minority rich can thwart them frequently - but minorities are not so well treated.

Over times, we've done pretty well - out of the 400 years they've been here, for 150 blacks have not been slaves, and for 40 they've had laws against segregation.

Out of the 225 years of our country, for 90 women have had the right to vote, and Obama just signed an equal pay for equal work law (and women are a majority of the people...)

But when it comes to gays - maybe 3% of the population - it's not so easy. 'Screw 'em', 'who cares', 'why should I bother worrying about them'. And far worse.

Further I do not see why marriage is a "right"...a convenience yes, but right, no sorry, it was only ruled a right by the MA legislature and the CA SC and I believe Hawaii but didn't they eventually overturn that decison?..edit, according to Eskimo Loving vs VA noticed marriage as a right, however given that this is a contested issue and a newly afforded right I might be more inclined to say it should be officially ruled on simply because it is unconventional.

And as for Mob Rule...again the people voted, it isn't like gays are being segregated on busses, or required to use seperate bathrooms, or cannot vote.....

Actually, it's just like that - except instead of those, it's that gay couples cannot get married like straight couples. It's the same thing as 'separate bathrooms', but worse.

You are very narrow-minded in your post, among the other flaws, simply using the list of civil rights that have passed instead of recognizing why marriage is a fundamental right.

I suppose if segregation were allwed, you would defend that and list the other things as in 'at least it's not denying them the right to vote'.

In short, there's little I can do but to say you are behaving immorally - not filling your moral responsibility as a citizen to 'treat others as you would like to be treated'.

I may as well go there - why should unaffected Germans be concerned about the holocaust? Don't say 'that's different', answer the question. The reasons are the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I was arguing what I believe to be the fact that the conclusion the ballot measure was unconstitutional because it is a major revision of California Constitutional Law is a legal question that needs to be settled, and that, at this point in time, it has not been so settled as Eeezee seemed to have assumed, that, in fact, legal experts think it may not be a major revision at all, and is, therefore, and will be ruled, perfectly Constitutional.

Can you point me to the legal arguments that are credibly arguing that the Supreme Court's identifying marriage as a core right doesn't settle the issue?

I understand there are bad arguments claiming that; I'd like to see a good one.

I would suggest that the right of marriage can be taken by amendment to the constitution. It does not matter why the change is made.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Heheheh... typical. Democracy only as long as we like the outcome of the vote. If we don't, then hell, there must have been something wrong and it must be repealed immediately!

Oh, and also speaking of democracy, you should check out the wonderful history of Proposition 14 in California. Racial discrimination in housing was outlawed, but then Prop 14 was written and passed (by a huge margin) to overturn the ban on racial discrimination so that racists could once again deny housing to blacks. The people spoke then too!

Guess how that turned out.

I think you just proved his point. If you don't like the outcome, then the "will of the people" is wrong and should be tossed. Why even bother having the people vote on anything then? Much easier (and honest) to just have a group of "enlightened" PC liberals establish the rules and be done with it.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: lupi
They must have solved the budget and unemployment problems already I see if they now tackling this fishinf expedition.

Thank you! I'll be a resident of TX very soon (instead of CA) . Fvcking retarded state legislature should be figuring out how to fix CA than to debate on this kind of bullsh!t.

Minority rights aren't a big deal?

The 42 billion projected deficit isn't a big deal? I don't want to pay fvcking retards to debate some non-issue instead of fixing things that really matter, such as the long term viability of the state.