CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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.

Thank you for your input, but I'd prefer it if you addressed my arguments, instead of personal attacks.

You have no arguments, as I stated. That is exactly your problem. What you present are rationalizations of your bigotry. You can't give a single rational reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry. You are a bigot. If that offends you stop being one. I can't change the fact that you are a bigot any more than I can change the fact the sky is blue. I didn't attack you, I just stated what you are. Any negative interpretation you place on that is your own. I have to assume you just don't like bigots, regardless of the fact you are one. Naturally, however, like all bigots, you can't see who you are so your schizophrenia is normal as with all bigots. And I feel it is a perfect exchange. In your world homosexuals won't be allowed to have the highest form of sacred monogamous relationship, and in my world you will be relieved of your balls. If you can see what an asshole I am, welcome to a vision of yourself.

Dude, seriously, the one who sounds bigoted is you. Relax.

Why should I? I like the idea of afflicting the comfortable as much as comforting the afflicted. Your bigotry multiplied by millions results in the mental anguish and suffering of millions more. Why should you get a free ride? If you want to express bigotry and I'm around you will have to pay the price. You don't see that what you think matters, that bigotry is killing our world.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
To me, there are reasons the state should not allow gay marriage, which have no moral component. My argument about procreation still stands, in that propogation of society is a compelling state interest.

I also think it unwise, given the conventional wisdom that a child is typically brought up by a mother and a father, that we encourage a social policy that denies children these developmental necessities.

I don't expect you to agree with them, but there are non-moral arguments on the anti-gay-marriage side.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. If you don't allow gays to marry, do you expect they will all say, "Oh, well that's not allowed, guess I'll marry someone of the opposite sex and procreate with them"? Of course not. They just won't get married. But they'll keep having gay sex, so they still aren't helping with procreation, which makes it a completely meaningless argument.

 

[piasabird]

I guess in California they can just throw out the voice of their people. This means the law means nothing in California.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regardless where you stand on this issue, CA has effectively shown that ballot initiatives are a sham. Just do away with the things already. Their fine as long as they are "right thinking" depending on who's defining what's right.

Time for them to go.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird

I guess in California they can just throw out the voice of their people. This means the law means nothing in California.

Guess again. The "voice of their people" is not unequivocal. As in Federal court, one of the responsibilities of the courts is to prevent a tyranny by the majority against a minority. If it were YOUR freedom to do something that was of no harm consequence to anyone else, you'd be pissing and moaning up a storm about how YOUR rights were being trampled.

I live in California. If you don't, please stay where you are.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regardless where you stand on this issue, CA has effectively shown that ballot initiatives are a sham. Just do away with the things already. Their fine as long as they are "right thinking" depending on who's defining what's right.

Time for them to go.

Yes ballot initiatives that perpetuate the majority "owning" the minority are indeed a sham.

Thanks for your input and I am sorry that you don't think "equality" is "right"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regardless where you stand on this issue, CA has effectively shown that ballot initiatives are a sham. Just do away with the things already. Their fine as long as they are "right thinking" depending on who's defining what's right.

Time for them to go.

Yes ballot initiatives that perpetuate the majority "owning" the minority are indeed a sham.

Thanks for your input and I am sorry that you don't think "equality" is "right"

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Holy sweet jesus I didn't prove his point. His post obviously pointed to other government institutions overturning the will of the people as being a bad thing. Unless you consider racial discrimination in housing to be a positive force for society, I was showing how sometimes the people pass retarded laws that are unconstitutional due to fear and bigotry. That's why we have a Bill of Rights... that's the whole point.

 

[fskimospy]

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).

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.....

Marriage being a fundamental right is not a contested issue, nor it is a recent one. It is established Supreme Court precedent that has been in place for more than four decades.

As for mob rule, it would appear most likely that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. You might think anti-gay discrimination is a small issue, but I think lots and lots of people would disagree with you. Even if it were a small issue though, it doesn't matter. If it's unconstitutional, but about a small issue, does that make it okay? Of course not.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regardless where you stand on this issue, CA has effectively shown that ballot initiatives are a sham. Just do away with the things already. Their fine as long as they are "right thinking" depending on who's defining what's right.

Time for them to go.

Yes ballot initiatives that perpetuate the majority "owning" the minority are indeed a sham.

Thanks for your input and I am sorry that you don't think "equality" is "right"

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

morality aside because I was actually basing my point on what the Law/Constitution says; The people should have the expectation that they can vote over anything and everything they want. But if it flies in the face of basic and fundamental rights and protections it will get shot down.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regardless where you stand on this issue, CA has effectively shown that ballot initiatives are a sham. Just do away with the things already. Their fine as long as they are "right thinking" depending on who's defining what's right.

Time for them to go.

Yes ballot initiatives that perpetuate the majority "owning" the minority are indeed a sham.

Thanks for your input and I am sorry that you don't think "equality" is "right"

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

morality aside because I was actually basing my point on what the Law/Constitution says; The people should have the expectation that they can vote over anything and everything they want. But if it flies in the face of basic and fundamental rights and protections it will get shot down.

I mostly agree, however there is a corresponding responsibility of a legislature not to allow something then balk at it when the outcome goes against them in the sense that it was political pressure and nothing more that struck fear in them. That being the case, not all states have initiatives. If the legislature cannot accept the results of a particular ballot then the ballots need to end. "Hey, we got caught and we need to undo what we let the people decide" is hardly the best governing policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I think these are exceptions trying to dictate the rules. Fertility is not easy to measure. Many people who are infertile or sterile don't know it, and it would take an enormous amount of resources for the state to test every single marriage candidate. The state gives the benefit of the doubt to straight couples that, in most cases, they will bear children. Gay marriages are different in that biology dictates the impossibility of procreation within the marriage. The state can rely on this fact.

Divorce is a social necessity because it also is sometimes done in the best interest of the children. Forcing a couple to stay together against their will is destructive to their offspring.

You are making the same argument that that guy in the stupid MIT article made, and it's still every bit as backwards. As the US Supreme Court has stated, marriage is not a privilege granted by the government, it is a right that the government must justify limiting.

If you say that government has a compelling interest for people to have children, then you must show how preventing gay people from being married will cause more children to be born and effectively raised. Not only that, but since it is the restriction of a fundamental right on a suspect, protected class, you have to show why only limiting marriage between gays is non-discriminatory, as it is assumed to be so. Saying "it's too HARD to find out if straights want to have kids or not" isn't going to cut it. You would be laughed out of court. Finally, you would have to show why this solution is narrowly tailored to negatively affect the smallest number of people possible while achieving the goal of more kids being born/raised. Considering how many lesbian couples have children and how many gay couples adopt, your argument that disallowing unions that are currently producing and raising children furthers the government interest in producing and raising children is mind boggling.

You came about this the wrong way, you already had your decision and now you're searching for ways to justify it. You have admitted in the past that a lot of your problem with gay marriage is a personal disgust with homosexuality. Since you are aware of this, you also need to be aware that you have an extra burden to examine your opinions and make sure that they are logical, and not stemming from this personal distaste (which has no place here). You haven't done that.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regardless where you stand on this issue, CA has effectively shown that ballot initiatives are a sham. Just do away with the things already. Their fine as long as they are "right thinking" depending on who's defining what's right.

Time for them to go.

Yes ballot initiatives that perpetuate the majority "owning" the minority are indeed a sham.

Thanks for your input and I am sorry that you don't think "equality" is "right"

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

morality aside because I was actually basing my point on what the Law/Constitution says; The people should have the expectation that they can vote over anything and everything they want. But if it flies in the face of basic and fundamental rights and protections it will get shot down.

I mostly agree, however there is a corresponding responsibility of a legislature not to allow something then balk at it when the outcome goes against them in the sense that it was political pressure and nothing more that struck fear in them. That being the case, not all states have initiatives. If the legislature cannot accept the results of a particular ballot then the ballots need to end. "Hey, we got caught and we need to undo what we let the people decide" is hardly the best governing policy.

I can see your argument working against something like AG Brown's office, who has openly argued against Prop 8, even though he is bound by law now to enforce it.

I see your point.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

Sorry man, but you can't pass unconstitutional propositions just because 52% of the state voted for it.

As for why the legislature didn't act before, what were they supposed to do? It was a ballot initiative where signatures were collected by private citizens, that's how it got on the ballot. The legislature doesn't have the power to change the proposition rules, the only way they could do that is through a constitutional amendment that has to pass... you got it... a statewide referendum. How likely is that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

Sorry man, but you can't pass unconstitutional propositions just because 52% of the state voted for it.

As for why the legislature didn't act before, what were they supposed to do? It was a ballot initiative where signatures were collected by private citizens, that's how it got on the ballot. The legislature doesn't have the power to change the proposition rules, the only way they could do that is through a constitutional amendment that has to pass... you got it... a statewide referendum. How likely is that?

Well in your opinion the proposition is unconstitutional. Eventually we'll see if it is. You are still missing the point. The system as it stands now allows people to in effect vote the law. Either the system changes or it's invalid on the face of it. The only people who are qualified to determine if a law is Constitutional is the judiciary. Precisely when was this categorically struck down by the courts? I'm not endorsing the proposition BTW. I think it's stupid. I just think that the ridiculousness of the whole prop system hasn't struck people- yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

Sorry man, but you can't pass unconstitutional propositions just because 52% of the state voted for it.

As for why the legislature didn't act before, what were they supposed to do? It was a ballot initiative where signatures were collected by private citizens, that's how it got on the ballot. The legislature doesn't have the power to change the proposition rules, the only way they could do that is through a constitutional amendment that has to pass... you got it... a statewide referendum. How likely is that?

Well in your opinion the proposition is unconstitutional. Eventually we'll see if it is. You are still missing the point. The system as it stands now allows people to in effect vote the law. Either the system changes or it's invalid on the face of it. The only people who are qualified to determine if a law is Constitutional is the judiciary. Precisely when was this categorically struck down by the courts? I'm not endorsing the proposition BTW. I think it's stupid. I just think that the ridiculousness of the whole prop system hasn't struck people- yet.

Most people in California know how dumb the proposition system is. What did you want the courts to do? With -very- few exceptions, the courts cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law that isn't on the books yet. Neither the legislature, nor the courts had the power to prevent this proposition from being created and voted on.

The question here isn't if the citizens of California can vote to change their constitution, as they most certainly can. The reason prop 8 was (likely) unconstitutional was that they went about it the wrong way. So it's not categorically unconstitutional, it's just unconstitutional in its method of employment.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

Sorry man, but you can't pass unconstitutional propositions just because 52% of the state voted for it.

As for why the legislature didn't act before, what were they supposed to do? It was a ballot initiative where signatures were collected by private citizens, that's how it got on the ballot. The legislature doesn't have the power to change the proposition rules, the only way they could do that is through a constitutional amendment that has to pass... you got it... a statewide referendum. How likely is that?

Well in your opinion the proposition is unconstitutional. Eventually we'll see if it is. You are still missing the point. The system as it stands now allows people to in effect vote the law. Either the system changes or it's invalid on the face of it. The only people who are qualified to determine if a law is Constitutional is the judiciary. Precisely when was this categorically struck down by the courts? I'm not endorsing the proposition BTW. I think it's stupid. I just think that the ridiculousness of the whole prop system hasn't struck people- yet.

Most people in California know how dumb the proposition system is. What did you want the courts to do? With -very- few exceptions, the courts cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law that isn't on the books yet. Neither the legislature, nor the courts had the power to prevent this proposition from being created and voted on.

The question here isn't if the citizens of California can vote to change their constitution, as they most certainly can. The reason prop 8 was (likely) unconstitutional was that they went about it the wrong way. So it's not categorically unconstitutional, it's just unconstitutional in its method of employment.

That's going to have to be handled by the courts. Again, I'm not defending it, but you yourself understand that something is seriously wrong with this process, and it needs to be addressed. Whether it will or not remains to be seen, but I still don't think (as a matter of principle) that a system ought to exist that amounts to chaos. That isn't Democracy, it's anarchy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Actually you are projecting. You believe your morality is superior. That's fine with me because that wasn't really the point of my post. What IS is that people vote with the expectation that whatever the outcome, the results stand. If something is so egregious the legislature could amend the rules for ballot initiatives. No, that didn't happen. Instead after they got clubbed they decided that they would act. That's a sham.

Now if you believe the initiative is the majority "owning" the minority, then so be it. You should support the elimination of them then, otherwise the minority gets owned by the virtue of a loss regardless of the proposition. At least let people know they haven't the power they think they do. That's a more honest approach.

Sorry man, but you can't pass unconstitutional propositions just because 52% of the state voted for it.

As for why the legislature didn't act before, what were they supposed to do? It was a ballot initiative where signatures were collected by private citizens, that's how it got on the ballot. The legislature doesn't have the power to change the proposition rules, the only way they could do that is through a constitutional amendment that has to pass... you got it... a statewide referendum. How likely is that?

Well in your opinion the proposition is unconstitutional. Eventually we'll see if it is. You are still missing the point. The system as it stands now allows people to in effect vote the law. Either the system changes or it's invalid on the face of it. The only people who are qualified to determine if a law is Constitutional is the judiciary. Precisely when was this categorically struck down by the courts? I'm not endorsing the proposition BTW. I think it's stupid. I just think that the ridiculousness of the whole prop system hasn't struck people- yet.

Most people in California know how dumb the proposition system is. What did you want the courts to do? With -very- few exceptions, the courts cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law that isn't on the books yet. Neither the legislature, nor the courts had the power to prevent this proposition from being created and voted on.

The question here isn't if the citizens of California can vote to change their constitution, as they most certainly can. The reason prop 8 was (likely) unconstitutional was that they went about it the wrong way. So it's not categorically unconstitutional, it's just unconstitutional in its method of employment.

That's going to have to be handled by the courts. Again, I'm not defending it, but you yourself understand that something is seriously wrong with this process, and it needs to be addressed. Whether it will or not remains to be seen, but I still don't think (as a matter of principle) that a system ought to exist that amounts to chaos. That isn't Democracy, it's anarchy.

How is a referendum very different from a legislature spending months and hundreds of thousands of dollars putting together a law which upon a legal challenge is tossed by the courts? Is it anarchy and chaos, or simply process? If the legislature cannot create an unconstitutional law even though they follow correct procedures, why should the people be able to?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

That's going to have to be handled by the courts. Again, I'm not defending it, but you yourself understand that something is seriously wrong with this process, and it needs to be addressed. Whether it will or not remains to be seen, but I still don't think (as a matter of principle) that a system ought to exist that amounts to chaos. That isn't Democracy, it's anarchy.

The proposition system is awful from top to bottom. It merely replaces the judgment of the corrupt few with the retarded many. It's not really chaos in any way, shape, or form though. So someone put a ballot initiative that turned out to have been written incorrectly? The only real result of that will be that gay people will have about a 9 month period where they should have been able to get married when they couldn't, and the anti-gay marriage people will have a several month period where gays can get married again before they can put a correctly written initiative on a ballot. (of course if they have to make it a revision it will lose, but I'm pretty happy about that)

The proposition system should be removed in its entirety, but not because of this.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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!

there was no democracy in this vote!
You have no clue what you are talking about!
This was a proposition...which is totaslly different from an amendment..etc

This was not about same sex marriage.
This was 100% about taking away the rights of others.
The long term implication being if there were a lot of people named double troubel and a certain group of prople did not like your name then theoretically they could adopt a proposition outlawing people named Double Trouble.

The stakes are trmendous when a group of people no matter if they are a majority or not decide they wish to take away another group of people rights!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I was just going to say, with that kind of thinking we can bring back anti-sodomy laws.

S&M

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: bozack
just another example of govt stepping in and overturning the will of the people....say what you want about right or wrong but the fact is the people voted and now their will is being ignored, then again MA did it how many times so all I can say is no big surprise.

So true, so true. Its just masked by the issue.

 

[bobcpg]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: bozack
just another example of govt stepping in and overturning the will of the people....say what you want about right or wrong but the fact is the people voted and now their will is being ignored, then again MA did it how many times so all I can say is no big surprise.

What are you going to do if 'the people' are down with Sharia law - you down for that? Sorry, while we are a nation of democracy, but with certain inalienable rights and freedoms our constitution and those who cherish it give us. This has equal protection written all over it.

Perhaps, but then that is for the courts to decide not the legislative branch.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: 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.

Thank you for your input, but I'd prefer it if you addressed my arguments, instead of personal attacks.

You have no arguments, as I stated. That is exactly your problem. What you present are rationalizations of your bigotry. You can't give a single rational reason why gays shouldn't be able to marry. You are a bigot. If that offends you stop being one. I can't change the fact that you are a bigot any more than I can change the fact the sky is blue. I didn't attack you, I just stated what you are. Any negative interpretation you place on that is your own. I have to assume you just don't like bigots, regardless of the fact you are one. Naturally, however, like all bigots, you can't see who you are so your schizophrenia is normal as with all bigots. And I feel it is a perfect exchange. In your world homosexuals won't be allowed to have the highest form of sacred monogamous relationship, and in my world you will be relieved of your balls. If you can see what an asshole I am, welcome to a vision of yourself.

Dude, seriously, the one who sounds bigoted is you. Relax.

Why should I? I like the idea of afflicting the comfortable as much as comforting the afflicted. Your bigotry multiplied by millions results in the mental anguish and suffering of millions more. Why should you get a free ride? If you want to express bigotry and I'm around you will have to pay the price. You don't see that what you think matters, that bigotry is killing our world.

Then you are among the killers. You are no less bigoted than anyone you so righteously accuse of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bobcpg

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: bozack
just another example of govt stepping in and overturning the will of the people....say what you want about right or wrong but the fact is the people voted and now their will is being ignored, then again MA did it how many times so all I can say is no big surprise.

What are you going to do if 'the people' are down with Sharia law - you down for that? Sorry, while we are a nation of democracy, but with certain inalienable rights and freedoms our constitution and those who cherish it give us. This has equal protection written all over it.

Perhaps, but then that is for the courts to decide not the legislative branch.

And the legislative branch hasn't done anything to overturn this proposition other than voice it's opposition to it... which has zero force of law.