Prop 8

[Ns1]

Vote yes on prop 13, banning ugly people from marrying each other.

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm sure the KKK would disagree that they are racist too, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you're uncomfortable with being called a bigot, maybe you should revise your position on the issue. But you can't have it both ways, the idea that you can be anti-gay marriage without being anti-gay is a fantasy invented by people who don't have the stones to wear their bigotry proudly.

While I support gay marriage and gay rights, I disagree with your statement. It's his right to believe in whatever he wants, and for you to think you have it all figured out is ignorant. Why can't someone be tolerant of gays, but not think they should allow to be legally married? The fact that you refuse to even somewhat tolerate his thoughts and beliefs also makes you a bigot.

Being "tolerant" and then ELIMINATING ONE OF THEIR RIGHTS is not being tolerant.




I'm disgusted with CA.

uke;

 

[jonks]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...1/prop-8-exit-pol.html

Every ethnic group supported marriage equality, except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them: a staggering 69 - 31 percent African-American margin against marriage equality. That's worse than even I expected. Whites, on the other hand, clearly rejected discrimination: 55 to 45 percent. Latinos were evenly split. But what matters, of course, is the margin of all the votes. It's still an exit poll, and those polls sometimes under-estimate anti-gay sentiment.

Oh, and there was no gender gap. And a massive generation gap: the under-30s voted for marriage equality by 67 to 31 percent. The over 65s voted for discrimination by 57 - 43 percent.

so, 1) blacks as a group are against bigotry unless they are the ones perpetrating it, and 2) looking at the very telling generation gap results here, I have great hope for the future, as I always did, that bigotry wears thin over time as it is exposed for being exactly what it is. Marriage equality will not happen now, but it is coming, as those young voters mature and the bigots of yesterday and today die off.

 

[SlickSnake]

Anyone who would deny anyone else rights equal to their own and then proudly claim to live in a free Democracy is a hypocritical asshole.

It's just that simple.

And you don't use the Bible or any other religious bull shit reason for discriminating against anyone who is not doing anything to hurt or bother you or anyone else that is not harmed by it.

This is no different than the blacks need to sit in the back of the bus or have their own water fountains. It's ironic then that the blacks would be so against this equality measure passing, in these 3 states.

These are the kinds of false non-issues bigoted, rascist, fascist, religious regimes like the Republikrats dream up to disenfranchise people and put people against each other so they will be more likely to ignore or excuse what the dark fascist lords are up to.

An Examination of Bush and Republican Fascism: 14 Points of Fascism: The Warning Signs

Could the last 8 years and Regan's 8 years have been any clearer about what fascism is?

And don't forget, the Kalifornyans elected dipstick Regan as governator first, too.

 

[Xavier434]

Mother fucking Bigots in FL passed it! I love how it is all about being "for the children". Great...what about my child in my heterosexual domestic partnership? Looks like his health insurance policies are now going to be very vulnerable. Other states that have passed such amendments have gone through these kinds of head aches. Supporters of the amendment are claiming that such things won't happen but the language is so vague that I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be afraid.

Here is the word for word language in FL's version of the amendment:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Ya....I can just see how much bullshit can be derived from that crap. The supporters say that the language is clear but you guys can see it for yourselves right there. It is vague as hell.


Source

Although gay marriage is already illegal in Florida, Amendment 2 would enshrine the prohibition in the Florida Constitution, making it nearly impossible for a judge to overturn.

Supporters, primarily conservative and Christian groups, say their goal is straightforward and deserving of constitutional shelter: to ''protect'' marriage by defining it exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. Doing so, they say, would benefit children by promoting a traditional family with a mother and father -- not two moms or two dads.

''Children always fare better when they have a mother and father,'' said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, which is promoting the Yes On 2 campaign. ``We should not, as a matter of law and public policy, create inherently motherless and fatherless homes.''

But opponents say the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment isn't a gay issue, but rather a measure that could negatively affect many heterosexual couples as well.

They point to particular wording in the amendment that they say could lead to unmarried couples -- gay and straight -- losing hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, and domestic partner health benefits provided by employers.

The proof, they say, is what has happened in other states where similar amendments have passed.

Since Michigan voters approved a ''marriage protection'' amendment in 2004, the state Supreme Court has struck down domestic partner benefits, including health insurance and pensions. A battle is also under way in Kentucky to eliminate domestic partner benefits for employees of state universities because of similar legislation.

''This amendment says that because marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else counts,'' said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red & Blue, the bipartisan organization running the SayNo2 campaign to defeat the amendment. ``It could take away existing rights and benefits of Floridians.''

`AN OUTRIGHT LIE'

Davie Mayor Tom Truex, who is rallying for the amendment, said such claims are nothing more than scare tactics. ''It goes beyond misleading,'' he said. ``It's an outright lie.''

At issue is the wording of the amendment, which reads, ``In as much as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.''

Florida Red & Blue and a group of attorneys from around the state have criticized the wording, saying it is ''vague'' and could lead to lawsuits challenging shared health plans. The state's largest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, voices similar concerns in opposing the amendment.

Critics object especially to the words ''or the substantial equivalent thereof'' as a catch-all phrase dangerous to civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York, agrees.

'The proponents put in the language `substantial equivalent thereof' for a reason, and the reason is that they do not think the law should recognize some other relationship that is not exactly marriage,'' he said. ``Insofar as domestic partnerships can be the substantial equivalent of marriage, then they are also covered by this measure.''

But Stemberger, who led the charge to put the amendment on the ballot through a petition drive, said opponents are overreaching.

''This is about the singular subject of marriage,'' he said. ``The language is very clear, and it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Amendment 2 will have no affect on domestic partnerships.''

Joe Little, a constitutional-law professor at the University of Florida, said that because domestic partnership benefits are similar to those offered to married couples, there will be a gray area in the law that could be raised in a courtroom.

''I don't think it's conclusive in any way,'' he said. ``But I do think it's a legitimate question that won't be answered until the amendment is passed and somebody challenges it.''

Another argument made by critics is that the law would have a negative effect on widowed seniors, many of whom choose to be in a domestic partnership rather than remarry and risk losing some of their benefits, like Social Security or pensions.

That is what concerns Helene Milman, who has been in a committed relationship with Wayne Rauen for 25 years.

The heterosexual couple from Sunrise chose not to marry because Milman, 67, would lose the $13,000 a year she receives from Social Security for being a widow.

DOMESTIC PARTNERS

Milman and Rauen, 59, registered as domestic partners in Broward County in 1999, when the county passed an ordinance that extended healthcare and other benefits to the partners of gay and unmarried county employees. In August, Miami-Dade County began to offer similar benefits to its employees.

Milman, a former Broward Sheriff's Office employee and a breast cancer survivor, says the registration allowed Rauen to stay with her in a hospital for nearly five hours as she awaited lumpectomy surgery.

''If he didn't have his card showing that we were domestic partners, I would have laid on a gurney, by myself in the hospital,'' she said. ``I would have been alone. That can't be.''

But proponents say the amendment would not interfere with the benefits of seniors and unmarried couples. That's because, unlike wording in similar amendments passed in states where domestic partnership rights have subsequently been revoked, the language in Florida's proposal does not prevent the government or companies from giving benefits to anyone, they say.

''There's a fear element the opponents are pushing aggressively,'' said Jim Finnegan, 74, a supporter of Amendment 2 who lives in Naples. ``But it will not take those rights away.''

Finnegan, a snowbird who divides his time between Southwest Florida and a Chicago suburb, has been campaigning for the ballot measure. He worries that if it fails, the existing state law prohibiting gay marriage would be overturned by a judge and homosexuals would be allowed to legally wed, as they can in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

'In the long run, the homosexual activists' objective is to change the culture of America,'' Finnegan said.

Similar proposals are on the November ballot in California and Arizona, but Florida is the only state that requires approval by 60 percent of the voters to rewrite the constitution. Voters in 27 other states already have approved similar measures.

Two statewide polls released Thursday show the amendment close to the 60 percent mark.

A Miami Herald poll showed 59 percent of voters in support, 34 percent against it and 7 percent undecided. A Mason-Dixon poll showed 56 percent for the amendment, 37 percent against it and 7 percent undecided.

Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker said he ''would not be surprised'' if the measure passed, thanks to the undecided contingent.

STATEWIDE CAMPAIGNS

With Election Day nearing, both campaigns will continue to rally for votes at events across the state. They are also relying on TV ads, calls from phone banks, yard signs and mailers.

The opposition has come on strong, with Florida Red & Blue raising nearly $3.3 million -- three times more than Florida4Marriage, the group backing the amendment, according to the Florida Division of Elections.

Although the amendment is billed as nonpartisan, politicians are sparring over it.

Supporters include Gov. Charlie Crist, U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez and state Rep. David Rivera of Miami. Against it are U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, former Florida Gov. Bob Graham and Miami Mayor Manny Diaz.

Several local governments, including those of Miami, Miami Beach and West Palm Beach, have passed resolutions against the amendment. Also opposing it are the Broward County School Board, the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP.

Across the state, the issue has also caused a fierce debate among religious leaders. Conservatives from many denominations, including Catholic priests and Baptist ministers, support the ballot measure, saying voters should protect what the leaders consider to be the sanctity of marriage.

''We're here to defend marriage according to what the Lord and Bible described from the beginning,'' Guillermo Maldonado, pastor of Ministerio Internacional El Rey Jesús in West Kendall, said during a recent press conference in Miami.

Others in the faith-based community see it differently.

Florida Clergy for Fairness recently launched an interfaith campaign to defeat Amendment 2 on the grounds that it infringes on religious liberties and revokes people's rights.

''We are always looking to make society just, compassionate and equitable for everyone,'' said Kathy Schmitz, interim minister of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami. ``This amendment moves in a different direction.''

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Hope and Change indeed. Gay marriage looks to be defeated in Florida, Arizona, and California. Guess some liberals are not so liberal eh?

A few. It was reported tonight that the bigots went to minority churches where, ironically, the same people who benefit from civil rights and celebrate Obama, are anti-gay.

We had a mixed night with the historic election of Obsma not only as a non-white President but a Democrat shifting direction for the nation, and the bigotry against gays winning.

Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay. It makes you anti-gay marriage.

No, it makes you a bigot and anti-gay b/c you are against a gay couple from marrying.

I completely disagree. But have fun sulking.

I'm sure the KKK would disagree that they are racist too, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you're uncomfortable with being called a bigot, maybe you should revise your position on the issue. But you can't have it both ways, the idea that you can be anti-gay marriage without being anti-gay is a fantasy invented by people who don't have the stones to wear their bigotry proudly.

wow. such a polite ownage. really i like it.

i find it amazing we can vote in a black president but outlaw 2 guys/girls from getting married.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Mother fucking Bigots in FL passed it! I love how it is all about being "for the children". Great...what about my child in my heterosexual domestic partnership? Looks like his health insurance policies are now going to be very vulnerable. Other states that have passed such amendments have gone through these kinds of head aches. Supporters of the amendment are claiming that such things won't happen but the language is so vague that I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be afraid.

Here is the word for word language in FL's version of the amendment:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Ya....I can just see how much bullshit can be derived from that crap. The supporters say that the language is clear but you guys can see it for yourselves right there. It is vague as hell.


Source

When the fascist Republikrat Bible thumping bigots passed their hate initiative in Texas, the wording OUTLAWED MARRIAGE and made it ILLEGAL. I don't recall them ever addressing the issue, but they are just hoping no one brings this up again, what steerfucking homophobic dumbfucks.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm sure the KKK would disagree that they are racist too, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you're uncomfortable with being called a bigot, maybe you should revise your position on the issue. But you can't have it both ways, the idea that you can be anti-gay marriage without being anti-gay is a fantasy invented by people who don't have the stones to wear their bigotry proudly.

While I support gay marriage and gay rights, I disagree with your statement. It's his right to believe in whatever he wants, and for you to think you have it all figured out is ignorant. Why can't someone be tolerant of gays, but not think they should allow to be legally married? The fact that you refuse to even somewhat tolerate his thoughts and beliefs also makes you a bigot.

Being "tolerant" and then ELIMINATING ONE OF THEIR RIGHTS is not being tolerant.

Well that's where you and I differ. I don't lump every single issue with gays into one big group. I think a person has a right to tolerate one issue but be against another issue. I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. You will never change my mind on that, so whatever I guess.

It's like one person saying they like vegetable soup as long as there are no carrots, then you respond and say that either they like vegetable soup with everything or they don't like it at all, there's no gray area.

I'm really not looking to get into an argument over this, I probably won't respond much longer. I just thought it was silly to judge a person's right to think for themselves when the very issue is about rights.

EDIT: Fixed minor typo.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay. It makes you anti-gay marriage.

"Voting against equal rights for blacks doesn't make you a bigot or anti-black. It makes you anti-equal rights for blacks." :disgust:

Shall we look back at history and dig up all of the bullshit justifications that people were making in order to try and convince themselves and those around them that they were not racist even though those same justifications if used today would label you as a radical racist extremist? Voting against equal rights for gays makes you a bigot just like voting against equal rights based on sex, race, and creed makes you a bigot.

But you keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night you piece of shit. Why the fuck can't these people just stay out of my life? It is not like their lives are going to be changed what so ever because of this amendment. It is a direct assault against liberty with ZERO benefit to anyone beyond a bullshit justification for some that some how magically gives them peace of mind while my child loses his insurance. Thanks a lot you assholes. I hope your peace of mind was worth it..."for the children"....but not my child.

 

[AWVigo]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay.

Yes it does. What does it matter? This effects no one but gays and domestic partnerships. It does not hurt heterosexual couples.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
You should start adding this link to any biography and resume you may have.

EDIT* Sorry to be clear I mean gay marriage does not hurt heterosexual couples. Which is why it's ridiculous people make an issue of it.

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: AWVigo

Originally posted by: Corbett

Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay.

Yes it does. What does it matter? This effects no one but gays and domestic partnerships. It does not hurt a single heterosexual couple.

Except in FL in which case it is even more asinine that people voted for it.

 

[Ns1]

I'm really not looking to get into an argument over this, I probably won't respond much longer. I just thought it was silly to judge a person's right to think for themselves when the very issue is about rights.

You can believe whatever you want, but to enact it into law is discrimination.

Thanks for playing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Hopefully, if it does pass, there will be another court challenge against.

People need to realize that because something that is wrong and they want it; does not confir the status on it of it being right.

 

[DealMonkey]

If folks like Corbett and the other bigoted morons that support prop 8 were truly serious about "preserving traditional marriage" and not just using it as a cover for their bigoted irrational homophobic beliefs, they'd work to pass an initiative that outlawed divorce. Or at the very least, made it really REALLY difficult to get a divorce.

But then again, I think everyone knows they're not serious. And with a 50+% divorce rate in California, it's laughable to be trying to "preserve traditional marriage" by banning gay people from getting married.

In other words, gay people aren't the threat, it's straight people who can't manage to stay in their relationships.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm sure the KKK would disagree that they are racist too, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you're uncomfortable with being called a bigot, maybe you should revise your position on the issue. But you can't have it both ways, the idea that you can be anti-gay marriage without being anti-gay is a fantasy invented by people who don't have the stones to wear their bigotry proudly.

While I support gay marriage and gay rights, I disagree with your statement. It's his right to believe in whatever he wants, and for you to think you have it all figured out is ignorant. Why can't someone be tolerant of gays, but not think they should allow to be legally married? The fact that you refuse to even somewhat tolerate his thoughts and beliefs also makes you a bigot.

Being "tolerant" and then ELIMINATING ONE OF THEIR RIGHTS is not being tolerant.

Well that's where you and I differ. I don't lump every single issue with gays into one big group. I think a person has a right to tolerate one issue but be against another issue. I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. You will never change my mind on that, so whatever I guess.

It's like one person saying they like vegetable soup as long as there are no carrots, then you respond and say that either they like vegetable soup with everything or they don't like it at all, there's no gray area.

I'm really not looking to get into an argument over this, I probably won't respond much longer. I just thought it was silly to judge a person's right to think for themselves when the very issue is about rights.

EDIT: Fixed minor typo.

Havent you driven all of the gays out of Kentucky anyhow?

 

[0roo0roo]

it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

In the voting booth, there is no one to call you out on your bigotry.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

In the voting booth, there is no one to call you out on your bigotry.

They were talking about the internals of the Prop 8 voting on the news. Whites were against it 47-53. Blacks for, 70-30, Hispanics by a similiar ratio.

Makes sense as both of those minorities do tend to be conservative in regards to social issues. Ironic given that those minorities voted for Obama (who was opposed to Prop 8) in large numbers.

Is it still bigotry when minorities do it? Just checking.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

Under-30 voters broke more than 2-1 against Prop 8 (almost exactly the same proportion they broke for Obama), so not sure what part of the exit polls you don't get. Under-30 also only makes up about 15-20% of the electorate, influencial but hardly controlling. So their vote is responsible for the vote having been as close as it was. Again, as that age group matures, it will expand it's influence and in 8 or 16 years you'll see another Proposition # - A proposal to redefine marriage equality. And you'll see it in more states than just california. If the supreme court doesn't get there first, which I don't think it will.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

In the voting booth, there is no one to call you out on your bigotry.

They were talking about the internals of the Prop 8 voting on the news. Whites were against it 47-53. Blacks for, 70-30, Hispanics by a similiar ratio.

Makes sense as both of those minorities do tend to be conservative in regards to social issues. Ironic given that those minorities voted for Obama (who was opposed to Prop 8) in large numbers.

Is it still bigotry when minorities do it? Just checking.

Of course it is.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Hopefully, if it does pass, there will be another court challenge against.

People need to realize that because something that is wrong and they want it; does not confir the status on it of it being right.

I don't see where it can go in court. Prior challenges were upheld on the grounds that the CA Constitution outlawed bans. Now the CA Constitution no longer outlaws bans. On what grounds can a judge overturn a Constitutional Amendment? It can't be unconstitutional, and there is no higher power under the law. The Fed Gov't has no jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court wouldn't touch it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

In the voting booth, there is no one to call you out on your bigotry.

They were talking about the internals of the Prop 8 voting on the news. Whites were against it 47-53. Blacks for, 70-30, Hispanics by a similiar ratio.

Makes sense as both of those minorities do tend to be conservative in regards to social issues. Ironic given that those minorities voted for Obama (who was opposed to Prop 8) in large numbers.

Is it still bigotry when minorities do it? Just checking.

To clarify, Hispanics were nearly 50/50 on the vote, similar to whites & asians, not similar to the lopsided black vote.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b..._for_marriage_equality

Arkansas also banned gay adoption. Um, yay for orphans?

 

[bozack]

Looks like it passed :thumbsup:

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

In the voting booth, there is no one to call you out on your bigotry.

They were talking about the internals of the Prop 8 voting on the news. Whites were against it 47-53. Blacks for, 70-30, Hispanics by a similiar ratio.

Makes sense as both of those minorities do tend to be conservative in regards to social issues. Ironic given that those minorities voted for Obama (who was opposed to Prop 8) in large numbers.

Is it still bigotry when minorities do it? Just checking.

To clarify, Hispanics were nearly 50/50 on the vote, similar to whites & asians, not similar to the lopsided black vote.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b..._for_marriage_equality

Arkansas also banned gay adoption. Um, yay for orphans?

Thanks for the clarification, I must have mis-heard.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it passed.
like it or not who you bang is not a civil rights issue. civil unions is what they should aim for. frankly thats enough.
and exit polls are a load of sh*t. if the youth vote went for obama, then prop 8 should have failed if they were so against prop 8 as well

How about my rights in terms of Domestic Partnership in a heterosexual relationship that are now very vulnerable thanks to this bullshit amendment?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: bozack
Looks like it passed :thumbsup:

Yeah. I voted against it. The gay marriage issue is even more thorny than racism and abortion and I think that unless the courts lean heavily in favor of gay rights, contentiousness concerning the issue of gay marriage is going to be huge for a long time to come.