I think there should be a federal law. One issue protests only. If the issue is gay marriage, then fine. Only pro-gay marriage folks. No Nazis, no anti-church/state people, no nut's, gee, it just becomes one big cluster fuck for stupidness.

Photos too!

Oh boy lets see the freaks!

Loading pretty slow.

Classy Americans!

I am so old, I can remember when no self respecting homosexual would WANT to get married.

That was for squares like me.

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Loading pretty slow.

Get a PC.

Hell, I'm on a T1, and it's still loading pretty slow.

Ringo's been lizard-lanched.

re: #8 Yashmak

Hell, I'm on a T1, and it's still loading pretty slow.

Server is bogging down, overloaded with requests I suspect.

THEY LOST! In votes there are winners and losers. THEY ARE THE LOSERS and are now proving it. ;)

re: #10 Walter L. Newton

Server is bogging down, overloaded with requests I suspect.

Probably for the best. I'm guesing some of the images aren't really work friendly unless you are a Pelosi staffer.

Whirling circle of death.

Have social conservatives taken California?

:( I keep getting "page load error". Guess I will have to wait awhile.

re: #11 ArmyWife

THEY LOST! In votes there are winners and losers. THEY ARE THE LOSERS and are now proving it. ;)

Classy American Losers!

re: #3 conservativeChick

Oh boy lets see the freaks!

Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.

Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.

Pics? No thanks.

Thanks Charles.

re: #17 Ringo the Gringo

Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.

Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.

No whips hanging out of nether-regions?

Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.

Same election.
Same voters.

Cognitive Dissonance.

I think one of my hamsters just had a heart attack.

re: #19 Ringo the Gringo

Thanks Charles.

Good job. I was able to get the page. Nice pictures, well, good pictures, well, crazy pictures, well, ...

Someone needs to inform the Anti-Prop 8 people that no discrimination exists with Prop 8.

There is no differential treatment between protected groups (assuming Sexual Orientation is even a protected class).

re: #21 jcm

Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.

Same election.
Same voters.

Cognitive Dissonance.

Big time.

re: #22 Ringo the Gringo

I think one of my hamsters just had a heart attack.

Tase him!

Democrat 101: If you lose scream, shout, pitch a fit. If that doesn't work, file a lawsuit. Pre-emptive ones work best.

OT
Bye, bye. Well, I'm off to get ready for Christmas f'n cheer at the theatre tonight. IT'S TOO DAMN EARLY FOR A CHRISTMAS SHOW. I haven't even shot the turkey yet.

re: #22 Ringo the Gringo

I think one of my hamsters just had a heart attack.

No kidding - I get a complete failure to load.
Will try later.

Sloooooooooooooow Loooooaaaaaddddd...oh look first two pics just come up. Ahh the rainbow flag...which no longer includes Mormons and gays who support prop 8.

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

No its slow for me too.

re: #29 Walter L. Newton

OT
Bye, bye. Well, I'm off to get ready for Christmas f'n cheer at the theatre tonight. IT'S TOO DAMN EARLY FOR A CHRISTMAS SHOW. I haven't even shot the turkey yet.

I know! They've been showing Christmas specials here since Holloween!

I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.

I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.

The site will open in a few minutes. Try again in a little while.

It just chokes up when everyone hits it all at the same time.

OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.

So, this is all about those 2 words.

First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.

re: #34 vxbush

I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.

I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.

You'll feel much better after re-education.
//

re: #17 Ringo the Gringo

Or any Christains or Jews.

Well until Ringo replaces his hamster, I am out of here for a while.

/sweet, sweet overtime tonight. . . . .

re: #17 Ringo the Gringo

Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.

Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.

The protests at the churches thing has to stop, if they have any moral high ground they lose it when they do that.

I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)

And yeah, I see what they mean. Ordinary people living ordinary lives getting along as best they can.

But these folks kinda sully the cause, in my opinion. And if they were straight and acting like that, it'd be detrimental to heterosexual marriage, too.

Gotta run....

See ya' all on the FNDT, save me a seat at the bar.

Someone is that protest is suffering from the same Mercedes=Peace symbol dyslexia we've seen before in some of Zombie's photos.

re: #11 ArmyWife

THEY LOST! In votes there are winners and losers. THEY ARE THE LOSERS and are now proving it. ;)

You don't prove you're a loser for continuing to fight for what you believe in. You prove you're a loser if you don't.

re: #34 vxbush

I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.

I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.

conservatives tend to accept the results of the process, and would not have created havoc. However, the ridicule and skewering would probably have taken place, anyhow.

re: #36 rawmuse

OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.

So, this is all about those 2 words.

First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.

sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."

re: #44 Yashmak

You don't prove you're a loser for continuing to fight for what you believe in. You prove you're a loser if you don't.

It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.

re: #20 Hard Right

No whips hanging out of nether-regions?

Thanfully no....But if there had been, I would have photgraphed it for you.

re: #35 Ringo the Gringo

The site will open in a few minutes. Try again in a little while.

It just chokes up when everyone hits it all at the same time.

Okay...but I'm not going to see ugly, scrawny old guys with inflated scrotums am I?

i don't think gov't should be in anybody marriage one way or the other

why should a single worker pay a different tax rate than a married person. and marriage is a religious issue as well different religions have different views on marriage why pick one esp now that america isn't only a christian country even christians don't agree on how or if you can end a marriage.

re: #48 Ringo the Gringo

Thanfully no....But if there had been, I would have photgraphed it for you.

Don't go to any trouble on my part. Ick.

re: #41 razorbacker

I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)

No joke man, I can't keep my girlfriend off of those shows. I'm getting ready to buy a home, and she's already got a whole binder full of samples, sketches, and plans. . . .none of which we have money for. It's going to lead to some pretty upsetting arguments down the road a bit, I imagine.

re: #49 Quilly Mammoth

Okay...but I'm not going to see ugly, scrawny old guys with inflated scrotums am I?

Darn it! I had forgotten that until now. Where's my brain bleach?

re: #52 Yashmak

Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]

re: #45 reine.de.tout

conservatives tend to accept the results of the process, and would not have created havoc. However, the ridicule and skewering would probably have taken place, anyhow.

True, on both counts. How very unfortunate it is that we have to play by the rules, but everyone else is allowed to break them. And yet, that is why we're conservatives. No post-modern interpretation of rule playing is acceptable to us.

This Prop. 8 protest deal is annoying but I can't get worked up about it.
The confirmation that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State has taken all of the wind out of my sails.

re: #46 nyc redneck

sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."

Hey, reine.de.tout and I are playing Scrabble online, and I have been led to believe that you may want to join us....

re: #47 Hard Right

It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.

The photos cover a demonstration 13000 strong at Civic Center, LA, the only ugly in this demo are the "god hates gay" crew that showed up, and the inevitable WCW goons who show up at every demo, rain or shine.

re: #36 rawmuse

OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.

So, this is all about those 2 words.

So it's a separate institution but it's an equal institution. I think we've heard that before.

maybe we should pick the jewish idea of marriage and devorce i.e. with out a religious devoce you are still married even if you get a civil devorice american marriage laws are based on prot. christian views. or maybe we should have FLDS view or muslim

OR BETTER YET THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS AT ALL. LET EACH GROUP DECIDE FOR THEMSELEVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T FORCE IT ON OTHER GROUPS

Tim Geithner named as likely next Tres. Sec.

re: #47 Hard Right

It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.

Can't really disagree there. . .but you know protests, they tend to draw out the most emphatic/enthusiastic portion of whatever group is represented. But you're right, just like the Black Panthers didn't really help the cause of the civil rights movement, some of these folks aren't exactly making their cause look attractive.

re: #54 jaunte

Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]

Wow. Do you have to go outside to change your mind?

re: #50 yochanan

That really only works if you remove the benefit system associated with getting married.

But really either way without Government involvement the entire thing gets screwy.

For example: If you leave marriage up to the Religions, then that leaves non religious people out of the ability to get married. Ok, so now you allow those without Religion to marry. But by what constraints? You can't enforce your religious constraints on them, nor can you have universal constraints as that is Government involvement. So now you have everyone have their own constraints...which really means NO constraints. Fine. In this scenario, men can marry men, women can marry women, a man can marry two women, a woman can marry a man and an woman, a man can marry 100 different people, you can marry a dog, couch, the stars, etc. (I think you get the idea). Ok so at this point marriage is nothing more than a contract between parties....(which might be ok to some) but if it is nothing more than a contract then it is meaningless & no longer marriage.

re: #50 yochanan

i don't think gov't should be in anybody marriage one way or the other

why should a single worker pay a different tax rate than a married person. and marriage is a religious issue as well different religions have different views on marriage why pick one esp now that america isn't only a christian country even christians don't agree on how or if you can end a marriage.

Short of keeping census records (useful for genealogy research) I agree. Take the entitlement out of it and nobody cares. Then private concerns can call it what they want without infringing on others.

re: #63 rawmuse

Yes, I think I'd need at least a half-dozen in a row, plus a barn, to make that work.

re: #60 yochanan

maybe we should pick the jewish idea of marriage and devorce i.e. with out a religious devoce you are still married even if you get a civil devorice american marriage laws are based on prot. christian views. or maybe we should have FLDS view or muslim

OR BETTER YET THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS AT ALL. LET EACH GROUP DECIDE FOR THEMSELEVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T FORCE IT ON OTHER GROUPS

But it used to be that governments cared to do what was best for society, and most people accepted that marriage was best for the health of the society. No one makes these arguments anymore, and when I raise it in conversation people look at me as if I'm completely wacko. Which I may be, but I don't think this is the reason why.

Now AllahPundit posted this over to Ace of Spades' house. I don't know why I find it so damn funny, so apropo, so delicious.

But I do.

This bad boy here fits so many different things in so many different ways.

I'm going to be absent for a while. Would one of you more studious types please take notes?

re: #40 Thanos

The protests at the churches thing has to stop, if they have any moral high ground they lose it when they do that.

Yes - I'd like to know how disrupting a service in Lansing, MI or a Mormon Church in NYC had anything to do with a vote in CA or AZ?

re: #59 zelnaga

If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.

re: #58 Thanos

The photos cover a demonstration 13000 strong at Civic Center, LA, the only ugly in this demo are the "god hates gay" crew that showed up, and the inevitable WCW goons who show up at every demo, rain or shine.

My reference is to the other "demonstrations" and incidents. I haven't looked at this one as I'm at work.

re: #46 nyc redneck

sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."

We'll have a gay old time!

re: #36 rawmuse

I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.

Yeah....and 'fag' used to mean cigarette!

re: #60 yochanan

Not possible.

The state has a legitimate interest in marriage, and regulating it. It was actually a huge victory just to get the concept of civil marriage and divorce accepted.

We do not want the state to completely withdraw from marriage.

re: #62 Yashmak

Can't really disagree there. . .but you know protests, they tend to draw out the most emphatic/enthusiastic portion of whatever group is represented. But you're right, just like the Black Panthers didn't really help the cause of the civil rights movement, some of these folks aren't exactly making their cause look attractive.

True. Such people are a minority that hurt the efforts of the majority.

re: #69 buzzsawmonkey

True, but if you crack almost any modern dictionary the number one slot is now reserved for "homosexual". That is a fairly recent change.

re: #57 vxbush

{vxbush} thank you so much for thinking of me but,
i'm so bad at cards, board games, puzzles etc. and i run from the room when charades starts up. i was always the kid who sat in the corner, coloring.
i've never played scrabble. i'll pass for now, and let someone, skilled, have my seat.

My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.

I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.

Ex-President Bill Clinton's speeches to be vetted in concession for Hillary Clinton nomination

[Link: www.nydailynews.com...]

Yeah, this will last. I see a titanic explosion coming soon to a foreign policy near you!

How did f-a-g come to mean a gay man?

re: #61 rawmuse

Tim Geithner named as likely next Tres. Sec.

The Stock Market seemed to have liked the pick, which is interesting. Were they afraid that O would pick a loon?

Yeah, the pictures are only 1/10 loaded so far, but I get the uh *ahem* jist of it.

Ok I've been looking through the pictures and I have a couple comments.

1st, Ringo, thanks for taking them.

2nd, not allowing ANYONE to marry someone of the same sex is NOT discrimination!

3rd, Homosexual marriage (aka the right to do whatever the heck you want just because you want to) is NOT a Civil RIGHT!

4th, those who believe that marriage should remain between a man & a woman (as it has been since the beginning of time) DO NOT hate homosexuals.

5th, Believing that marriage is between a man & a woman is not equal to thinking that Gays should be beaten up or discriminated against.

6th, not being able to marry someone of your own sex is NOT the same as being forced to sit in the back of a bus, not being allowed to use certain bathrooms, being lynched, being beat up for walking down the street, not being able to vote, not being able to get a job, not being able to attend University.....

Let's get a grip here people!

re: #70 vapig

Yes - I'd like to know how disrupting a service in Lansing, MI or a Mormon Church in NYC had anything to do with a vote in CA or AZ?

Well you know us Mormons - probably thought they could get to us through our hive mind.

/I wish I didn't have to use this.

re: #44 Yashmak

But they past a constitutional amendment. Game is over. Are we still fighting for McCain to win? No. Why? He lost. We are fighting for our party but not through law suits and violence, but through fundamental changes to the plat form to win in another election.

Gay marriage is something the majority of the population doesn't agree with as is proven by this vote. Because the vote didn't go your way does NOT give you the right to scare people in churches, to be violent and belligerent or to force your agenda on a private business (eHarmony). These things tend not to engage people to your cause. Go live with your SO. I don't care. I don't care what you do in your bedroom with a consenting adult. Don't mistake my tolerance for acceptance, however.

(When I say you, its the collective you, for clarification)

re: #71 rawmuse

If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.

Yes - I've heard the same thing here. It's also hypocritically cowardly that these protesters have plenty of hate to spread around to white churches - yet didn't dare to protest, say a black Baptist Church or a Hispanic Catholic Church.

Not that I'd want them to - just pointing out the inconsistency.

MORE:

This is NOT an issue of "Separate but equal" as everyone regardless of sexual orientation or any other presumed protected class (assuming sexual orientation is a protected class) is forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex.

Its EQUAL but EQUAL!

re: #81 Nevergiveup

Hillary Clinton is essentially a "Reality TV" star. Watching her lie/being lied to during hubby's tenure should have been a brief and meaningless interlude in American politics.
She wasn't even qualified to be a Senator, and now she's the Sec. of State? It boggles the mind.

re: #17 Ringo the Gringo

Oh yeah, or any blacks too. Apparently 70% of the African American population of California voted Yes on 8; and a few days ago any black near Westwood, near UCLA, got heckled with racial slurs. It's OK when gays do it, apparently. Also, apparently African-Americans didn't see it as a civil rights issue.

re: #64 WrathofG-d

I used to be pro-gay marriage. The way that it has unfolded over the last four or five years has changed my mind. I'm sure that for some of the people, they really do want to get married and have a "traditional" marriage with their chosen spouse. I am also sure that that is the minority view. The way it has played out, I think it is more about getting in the face of straights and changing societal norms to be more accommodating to them. In other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices.

Trying to go through the courts has been a big mistake. Three unelected judges telling the whole State (let alone the whole country) that they don't have a right to their views is a recipe for failure. It guarantees a backlash, and that's what just happened in California. The gays have succeeded in changing hearts and minds, it is just that they have gone in exactly the opposite direction from what they wanted.

re: #69 buzzsawmonkey

My respect for your learned authority as a practical wordsmith demands that I accept your correction.

But I don't have to like it. :)

I think the method for getting Prop. 8's point across was not the correct one, but the SCOC left very little wiggle room for the detractors of gay marriage. I am all in favor of granting gay couples some sort of "civil union" so they can get similar benefits to married people. But, almost all of the rights they say they do not have, they already have. There is nothing in the law that prevents partnerships, nothing that prevents beneficiaries from being named. The only thing a "gay married couple" might run into is when "family members only" visitation is at stake. Their rights are not being trampled, they are not being "persecuted", they are not victims. They wanted to have the court act as a legislature in a questionable manner.....and this is the response they get back.

I have gay friends, gay relatives and I love them all. But, asking the society to change a natural and age old tradition for their own narrow personal agenda is asking too much. Two consenting adults can do whatever they wish with each other, it's none of my business. But, when a very small group of people wish to force their lifestyle upon me and society in general, that is too much......

re: #21 jcm

Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.
Same election.
Same voters.
Cognitive Dissonance.

How about this:

Use logic to win if possible, but if you fail . . .
Use appeals to emotion to win, but if emotion fails . . .
Use the law to win, but if the law fails . . .
Use force.

You don't see street demonstrations protesting Obama's election, you don't see a rash of lawsuits, you don't see the Republicans setting up a "government in exile," and you're not going to see George Bush flying around visiting foreign governments as did Jimmy Carter. Why? Because most Republicans respect our Constitution, while the "moonbat" left simply uses and abuses our Constitution when it's convenient.

-sk

re: #80 JumpLandPackRepeat

My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.

I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.

Actually, I have a friend in California that said she knew many, many people that voted no because they just felt it was inevitible. The were against gay-marriage and had voted twice to ban it - but with the courts over-ruling them each time they had just given up.

if they could get this passed in cal. it wouldn't pass anywere if people got to vote on it freely.

i still feel the way israel does it is best each group gets to decide what they want to do with out forcing their viewpoint on other groups

re: #87 DaddyG

Well you know us Mormons - probably thought they could get to us through our hive mind.

/I wish I didn't have to use this.

LOL! You didn't!

re: #85 WrathofG-d

I'd ding you up twice if I could.

Regardless of which side you are on regarding Prop 8, the militant radicals in the gay movement have demonstrated that they truly are domestic terrorists. They've stomped on crosses carried by their opponents, silencing the opposition by brute force instead of debate; sent hate mail and envelopes with white powder to Mormon temples to scare mormons away from practicing their beliefs.

And now, they are attempting to use the California Supreme Court to overturn a mandate that is written in the constitution to allow people to vote for and install constitutional amendments. The California Supreme Court is walking a thin line. If they overturn Prop 8, they overturn the entire California constitution and over the law of the land installing their own, unique form of government--rule by judicial fiat where the justices create the laws.

re: #99 vapig

LOL! You didn't!

Is that you Bishop! ;-)

re: #54 jaunte

Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]

My first home was 950 square feet. It was almost that small. But I could see a use for such homes.

re: #53 Hard Right

Darn it! I had forgotten that until now. Where's my brain bleach?

You can thank zombie for that indelible image. Someday karma will get zombie for that!

Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.

Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.

re: #56 Lincolntf

This Prop. 8 protest deal is annoying but I can't get worked up about it.
The confirmation that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State has taken all of the wind out of my sails.

I'm just glad the election is over so I don't have to pretend to have any respect for HRC anymore.
Yeah, she was better than the Chicago Marxist. She still had no class.

re: #97 vapig

Actually, I have a friend in California that said she knew many, many people that voted no because they just felt it was inevitible. The were against gay-marriage and had voted twice to ban it - but with the courts over-ruling them each time they had just given up.

I think Obama got a lot of votes based on that logic, too. Folks were told that he was going to win, so they voted for him.

re: #103 vxbush
The closest I ever got to living in a house that size, it was a house boat, 900 sq ft. the kind you see moored in Sausalito, which is where I would have moored it.
Couldn't get a bank loan for it.
That was probably a reasonable outcome.

Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.

re: #101 Jinx

...sent hate mail and envelopes with white powder to Mormon temples to scare mormons away from practicing their beliefs.

The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.

problem i have is mostly that they will try to force others to accept it, such as teachers in religous schools. by using the strong arm of gov't.

and i think the tax issue is discrimatory against single people.

re: #59 zelnaga

So it's a separate institution but it's an equal institution. I think we've heard that before.

Black people ARE identical to white people, however.
Men are not identical (even beyond genitals) to women.
Thus, male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships are not all interchangable.

If Cali. judges overturn Prop. 8 over the will of the people, BHO will have a few more judges to look at for SCOTUS. In BHO's world, justice is not blind. Twist the law to fit your liberal/socialist ideaology.

re: #93 Iron Fist

I used to be pro-gay marriage. The way that it has unfolded over the last four or five years has changed my mind. I'm sure that for some of the people, they really do want to get married and have a "traditional" marriage with their chosen spouse. I am also sure that that is the minority view. The way it has played out, I think it is more about getting in the face of straights and changing societal norms to be more accommodating to them. In other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices.

Trying to go through the courts has been a big mistake. Three unelected judges telling the whole State (let alone the whole country) that they don't have a right to their views is a recipe for failure. It guarantees a backlash, and that's what just happened in California. The gays have succeeded in changing hearts and minds, it is just that they have gone in exactly the opposite direction from what they wanted.

I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to gays. No more - their thuggery has absolutely disgusted me. From hate crimes legislation to teaching 5 year olds about their lifestyle. Enough!

Civil Unions are legal in almost all 50 states. The marriage issue is also a states rights issue. If gays want to marry there are at least two states at this point in time that allow it. Let them vote with their feet.

re: #105 Thanos

Society, not just social conservatives. There were a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama and voted "yes" on Prop.8. No one, I mean no one of any significance in either Party was for gay marriage. You don't have to like that. But that is the fact of where we stand today.

Marriage pre-dates the United States, pre-dates the Constitution, even pre-dates organized Religion. It exists solely as a social construct. I lived in MA when Margaret Marshall issued her "landmark" ruling that homosexuals should be given all of the rights and protections that married couples have. I don't consider gay couples "married", and that's all that really matters to me.

re: #109 Thanos

Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.

Where'd you buy that bumper sticker?

jewish law says the issue is more complex than just one male and one female. some types of jews were not allowed to marry others in some subsets of jews.

but then we don't want to force our beliefs on gentiles and we don't want gentiles to force there beliefs on us. and this issue could just do that.

re: #112 nikis-knight

Black people ARE identical to white people, however.
Men are not identical (even beyond genitals) to women.
Thus, male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships are not all interchangable.

Thanks G-D!

re: #109 Thanos

Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.

I didn't understand this comment. Everyone is for liberty, and everyone wants rules.

re: #8 Yashmak

Hell, I'm on 3 T-1s, and it's still slow. Must be the pipe on that end.

re: #115 Iron Fist

Society, not just social conservatives. There were a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama and voted "yes" on Prop.8. No one, I mean no one of any significance in either Party was for gay marriage. You don't have to like that. But that is the fact of where we stand today.

They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?

re: #105 Thanos

Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.

Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.

It's been said here before, but when a gay couple can produce a child without a third party we'll talk.

re: #105 Thanos

Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.

Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.

Should gay marriage be taught in school as a natural and normal behavior? Should it be presented as exactly the same as marriage between and man and woman? I do not think I would like a school to basically tell my 2nd grader that it's perfectly natural and normal for two women or two men to get married, just as it is for a man and a woman. Marriage between a man and a woman is a the foundation of our society. Please show me how it is not.

Society is slowly accepting the fact that there are gay people. If certain members of the gay community continue this method of protest, they are hurting their cause way more than they are helping it.

re: #105 Thanos

Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.

Social conservatives (and clearly many liberals, after all this is California) are not for "two parent families", they are for families with both a mother and a father (or at least maintaining that as the ideal).

That's the gist of it.

re: #114 vapig

I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to gays. No more - their thuggery has absolutely disgusted me. From hate crimes legislation to teaching 5 year olds about their lifestyle. Enough!

Civil Unions are legal in almost all 50 states. The marriage issue is also a states rights issue. If gays want to marry there are at least two states at this point in time that allow it. Let them vote with their feet.

What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?

All I know is that the people voted, the vote should stand. Same deal if 8 hadn't passed. If 8 is overturned, the precedent can come back to haunt everyone, including these protesters. Unfotunately, I get the feeling that most of these protesters only care about democracy as long as it's not their vote that is overruled.

re: #80 JumpLandPackRepeat

My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.

I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.

That would be turn, I'm fed up with liberal judges reversing the will of the people. Otherwise I don't really care one way or another. BTW my favorite uncle was gay. I can still remember the night the family was sitting around the dinner table when my father broke the news to my brother and I, hell I had to be about 9 or 10 at the time. The conversation turned to my uncle (mom's younger brother) and then mom and dad began cryptically arguing over whether dad should tell my brother and I something. After a few shots of ten high my dad just came out and said "Lee is gay, he likes other men." Oh I realized what he meant right away but I had no idea up until that point what gay meant. Long story short, Uncle Lee remained my favorite uncle and my parents seemed to be very relieved. Oh and at my dad's funeral I found out that uncle had been sleeping with my cousin Bret for years!

re: #109 Thanos

Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.

That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there pilgrim. I happen to think that the government shouldn't define marriage and should get out of the entitlement business. Then let the various factions be guided by the dictates of their own conscience.

Any government that can forbid something can also require it.

Of course I have a very libertarian streak. I believe that a population must practice private morality - something that just cannot be legislated.

The difficult part is balancing individual rights with community standards with the common good. I fear anyone who professes to have an easy answer to that question.

It's to to see the protesters were fairly well behaved. I've heard a lot of the protests are getting a bit rowdy.

re: #103 vxbush

Mine was 1200 sq feet. I am sending this link to my husband. He took me to lunch today (SAP WARNING: called out of the blue, said "Baby, meet me at Chipotle cause I miss you") and we were talking about building a house behind my house and tearing the house I live in down. Its old, its big, its drafty. I said I wanted small, new, small and new. This is perfect. Not for the environment, for CLEANING.

re: #93 Iron Fist

From my perspective - Give them a finger and they want a fist.

re: #122 Thanos

They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?

I wish......
/

re: #92 davinvalkri

Oh yeah, or any blacks too. Apparently 70% of the African American population of California voted Yes on 8; and a few days ago any black near Westwood, near UCLA, got heckled with racial slurs. It's OK when gays do it, apparently. Also, apparently African-Americans didn't see it as a civil rights issue.

To be precise, it isn't. I don't hate gays, but I do dislike some of their political views.

re: #123 vapig

It's been said here before, but when a gay couple can produce a child without a third party we'll talk.

But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?

re: #122 Thanos

I think you deliberately obfuscate the point. Nobody wants to punish gay people, but marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society, so Society makes it rewarding for a man and woman to marry. If you want to simply ban marriage in all forms because it somehow discriminates against single people, then you'd have a point.

re: #124 Desert Dog

I am glad you wrote about that, because that is precisely what this movement is all about.
It is not so much about marriage as it is about being accepted as normal, and to be taught in schools and churches as such.

re: #135 Thanos

They do not have children - naturally.

re: #127 Salem

Prop 8 should go through the system. Not everything decided by popular vote is constitutional.

re: #122 Thanos

They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?

There is a huge difference between taking away an existing right vs. inventing a new right. Using your logic, society would be infringing on the right of a bigamist if we disallowed multiple weddings from the same person, or if we disallowed drug users from using drugs. Society has to have rules.

re: #127 Salem

All I know is that the people voted, the vote should stand. Same deal if 8 hadn't passed. If 8 is overturned, the precedent can come back to haunt everyone, including these protesters. Unfotunately, I get the feeling that most of these protesters only care about democracy as long as it's not their vote that is overruled.

Well said, I agree completely. The courts are trying to usurp the voter's power.

re: #138 Cap'n DOC

They do not have children - naturally.

But they do have children, who can't have two parents.

I am off for a walk. Today is too nice to squander. Later, folks.

re: #131 ArmyWife

Mine was 1200 sq feet. I am sending this link to my husband. He took me to lunch today (SAP WARNING: called out of the blue, said "Baby, meet me at Chipotle cause I miss you") and we were talking about building a house behind my house and tearing the house I live in down. Its old, its big, its drafty. I said I wanted small, new, small and new. This is perfect. Not for the environment, for CLEANING.

There you go! Why spend hours cleaning? I bet you could clean that entire structure in under 1 hour flat!

re: #109 Thanos

Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.

Yeah, I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave because most people don't think that gay "marriage" is equivalent to traditional marriage.

re: #118 yochanan

jewish law says the issue is more complex than just one male and one female. some types of jews were not allowed to marry others in some subsets of jews.

but then we don't want to force our beliefs on gentiles and we don't want gentiles to force there beliefs on us. and this issue could just do that.

Probably without meaning to you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this whole kurfluffle is a gambit to force churches - traditionally against the gay lifestyle - to perform gay marriages. It's an attempt to destroy the churches. Period.

If prop 8 had not passed, I, as a Mormon, can guarantee you that I would not have sent white powder to a homosexual's house as someone did to two of our temples (and a Catholic fraternity).
I don't see how the no on 8 crowd can expect to make any progress with the kind of behavior being displayed. Their "progress" has been measured by overturning election results through Mayor directives and an indifference by their Supreme Court towards the law and now by these "protests" that would make MLK turn in his grave.
On the other hand, in the states where gay marriage has passed the results of the elections have been respected. Even when the CA leadership began to issue gay marriage licenses in defiance of their own vote the movement for prop 8 conducted itself legally and with no 'white powder' techniques in the form of the ballot initiative.
Whose behavior appears to be that of the bigot?
[keep in mind, I am not referring to everyone who opposed prop 8 - I know there are many people, friends and acquaintances of mine alike, who were opposed to prop 8 for reasons other than the perennial 'religion is full of bigots' reasons]

re: #54 jaunte

Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]

I got claustrophibic just watching that video!

Ok, let's say all of this is reversed and gay marriage becomes the law again. And, let's say other states grant it as well. Where does this end?

I can see some dude showing up at city hall in a few years and proclaiming that he is deeply in love and wishes to marry: Barbara AND Tim. You see, he is bisexual and is love with both of them, and they are in love with him too. So, it's trampling on that poor guys rights to not accept his marriage to a man and a woman.......So, let's add that...

What's after that Man and animal?

Gay people.....I love you....you are human beings, just like everyone else....I do not judge you, and please, do not judge me.....I am not asking you to change your entire culture, but you are asking me to change mine.....sorry.

re: #140 DeafDog

Strawman, we are talking about gay marriage, not bigamy laws. Stay with the subject.

re: #135 Thanos

But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?

Just curious. What does 2 gay parents have to do with marriage? 2 gay parents can bring up child with out being "married"?

re: #109 Thanos

Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.

I think a lot of them are against polygamy, incestual things, old guys going after little kids.

re: #124 Desert Dog

Should gay marriage sexuality be taught in school as a natural and normal behavior?

Isn't this what we're really talking about when it comes to "marriage" education in schools?

Really - I'd rather teach it at home. (...and please don't advocate the state take over parenting duties for the ignoramuses who won't instruct their own children about the facts of life).

re: #122 Thanos

They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?

I thin it was five. Anyway. Take religion out of it, societies through out the ages have given special consideration to marriage because it provides the next generation of that society. Your argument ignores the fact that societies make rules for the continuance of that society and the prosperity of it's members. When that stops happening societies fail.

We've seen the effect broken homes across America, and, in fact, the World.

Ignoring the need for a functioning society is the only way that L. Neil Smith can make their uber-individualistic philosophy work.

re: #93 Iron Fist

I too was very Pro-Gay marriage until Gavin Newsom (sp?) decided to thumb his nose at the entire state. The way that the Homosexuals have labeled me, attacked religion, and otherwise responded to this issue has pushed me even further against Gay Marriage. Their confusing being pro Traditional Definition of Marriage, and being Anti-Homosexual has pretty much ensured that they will never have me back.

Like most emotional, immature, leftists, they have confused the actual issue, and overplayed their hand with me.

You are correct when you state that: "in other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices." This is EXACTLY what it is about for the actual Homosexuals. You will notice however from the photos that they are not alone. Their issue has been wiillingly co-opted by those who take every step possible to attack the core of the United States. (ex: World Can't Wait)

Their co-opting of the actual Civil Rights Movement adds to my disgust with their cause. Their inability to get everything they want (but are denied to everyone equally) is NOT the same as the disgusting treatment of African Americans, or even Women throughout history.

Their comparing their cause to that of the Civil Rights Movement just further evidences how sick, and selfish their movement really is! That they cannot see the difference should offend everyone.

re: #150 Desert Dog

Strawman.

re: #36 rawmuse

The interesting thing about the word gay is that it has been redefined in colloquial use. It mutated away from the meaning of happy to homosexual. But it has also, subsequently evolved to be a pejorative as in, That was gay!

But languages are not static and constantly evolve. I think the same occurred with the word terrific, stemming from the word terrible. But then again, I could be wrong.

re: #126 MandyManners

What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?

Defense of Marriage Act.

re: #153 Dave the.....

strawman, we are talking about marriage between two adult humans.

re: #149 JumpLandPackRepeat

I got claustrophibic just watching that video!

But can you imagine if someone with that house died what the will would be? "I will my house to my dog." Because it's just an oversized dog house. But I find it strangely tempting.

re: #136 Lincolntf

marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society,

Aside from procreation (which can and does occur without marriage) , what benefits does society get out of heterosexual marriage? What "benefits" are lost if gays and/or lesbians marry?

re: #122 Thanos

They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?

The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!

Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.

The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).

The state is a scoundrel!

So Wrath and Iron fist, you changed a principled stance because of the 10 percent rule? (10 percent of any population are idiots...) Sounds petulant and unreasoned to me.

re: #150 Desert Dog

Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.

Probably without meaning to you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this whole kurfluffle is a gambit to force churches - traditionally against the gay lifestyle - to perform gay marriages. It's an attempt to destroy the churches. Period.

Correct. Much of this is an attempt to destroy our institutions. Nothing would make the gay-left alliance (meaning, those gays who are also lefty moonbatish) then to put the Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, etc out of business in America. Look at what happened to E-Harmony this week.

Hang on folks! We're forgetting the bisexuals out there. If gays can get married, should bi's be able to have one male and one female marriage too? Are all three married? Is it just one union, or two separate ones?

Until the gays can answer that, they are not seeking any form of rights, just their own agenda.

re: #159 Quilly Mammoth

Defense of Marriage Act.

Would it be wrong for me to foresee a challenge of it before the USSC?

re: #157 Thanos

Easy answer on your part. I think my point if valid. It is a rubber stamp on their lifestyle that they want the most. If this is overturned and accepted and other states grant it, it opens up the flood gates of an agenda that wants to change our society at it's core. I greatly respect your opinion and think you are a very smart guy, but on this issue, it is not as cut and dry as you are stating.

re: #163 Dianna

The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!

Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.

The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).

The state is a scoundrel!

More importantly, Dianna, people like Thanos are saying that because the measured only passed by 3% (or 5%) that it really isn't a valid election. Pretty scary stuff.

Are liberals and gays born 'fascist' too?

re: #165 Killgore Trout

Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.

DD did not equate it with either of those. He used those examples to show how slippery a slope the granting of "rights" can be. Nothing more.

South Africa's Desmond Tutu receives US State Department award

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Past recipients include former US presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Czech leader Vaclav Havel and former South African President Nelson Mandela.

Now that's one hell of a line up!

re: #163 Dianna

The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!

Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.

The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).

The state is a scoundrel!

Including the income of a new spouse when calculating CS? That's whack.

strawman, we are talking about marriage between two adult humans.

But if 4 members of a California court can rule that any laws banning gay marriage to be invalid, why not overturn a law saying a 40 year-old can't marry a 12 year old?

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Prop 8 should go through the system. Not everything decided by popular vote is constitutional.

Maybe, but I imagine you'll start to have second thoughts down the road as the line is redrawn for the thousandth time because a vocal minority doesn't like it.

re: #169 Desert Dog

Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.

re: #151 Thanos

Strawman, we are talking about gay marriage, not bigamy laws. Stay with the subject.

I disagree. You want to bend the existing rules and replace them with something different. You are making universal statements about invented rights being tarnished.

Where does your non-sense end? will it be that if gays can marry than the whole world will be in balance and no one's rights are infringed? I doubt it. More likely it sets a precedent and everyone with a made-up grievence will be free to use your arguments.

Society has rules. Society needs rules.

re: #168 MandyManners

Would it be wrong for me to foresee a challenge of it before the USSC?

I was actually surprised that it hasn't been yet. However, the Court has turned down a handful of appeals to them about it.

re: #71 rawmuse

If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.

What I'm saying is that there are superficial similarities. Isn't that the point of simile and metaphor, anyway? An example given on wikipedia.org's on similes is "his mind is as sharp as a samurai's sword.". The similarities between a mind and a samurai's sword are exceptionally superficial, but then again, that's kind-of the point. Similes, by their very nature, are also quite prone to hyperbole. If you don't exaggerate, the point your trying to make might be lost.

So, anyway, you're completely right - the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are completely different. Indeed, as far as I know, the institutions actually are equal - I just don't see the need for them to have another name. The website protectmarriage.com discussed the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts and I think the points if makes are valid ones. Of course, I don't think the problems in Massachusetts stem from their not defining marriage as being between a man and a women but rather between their non-discrimination stuff.

California could always say "adoption agencies must not distinguish between civil unions and marraige" and that'd, essentially, be the same thing as saying "adoption agencies must not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual marriages". I mean, what's wrong with the adjective? Why do new words have to be invented?

re: #122 Thanos

You deal with it, and go on. I'm really tired of seeing the Social Conservatives bashed because they believe the same way Barrack Obama believes on this issue. This is the culture that we have had for well over a thousand years. You aren't going to change it by judicial fiat.

If they are really so concerned about it, why haven't more gays flocked to Massachusetts where it is Legal and gotten hitched? It's a free country. Nobody is stoping them. Just as nobody is stopping them from signing durable powers of attourney or writing a will naming their partner as benificiary, etc.

Forgive me, but if they aren't taking advantage of what the law does allow, I am skeptical of their motivations in wanting to change the law. And they aren't taking advantage of it. Not in any significant numbers.

It's not about fairness or equal rights. It is about forcing a change in social norms against the will of society.

re: #128 turn

Oh and at my dad's funeral I found out that uncle had been sleeping with my cousin Bret for years

I was with ya until I got to the end, lol!

Oh man, I can feel the karma on this thread ... it's so thick you could cut it with a knife. Ha

re: #175 Dave the.....

But if 4 members of a California court can rule that any laws banning gay marriage to be invalid, why not overturn a law saying a 40 year-old can't marry a 12 year old?

Minors cannot form legal consent.

re: #172 Hard Right

It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope.....
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.

re: #165 Killgore Trout

Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.

The beastiality is a stretch, granted. And, PLEASE, I did not mention pedophiles. However, I can turn the tables of your own argument against you when it comes to three people marrying. I can use the same approach and same reasoning you are right now to justify it. Why would that be wrong? If two guys or two girls is ok, why not a girl and two guys? Or, two girls and one guy? They are consenting adults and want to do it? Why not let them?

re: #179 DeafDog

What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?

re: #180 Quilly Mammoth

I was actually surprised that it hasn't been yet. However, the Court has turned down a handful of appeals to them about it.

A challenge to the FF&C Clause has been turned down?

re: #126 MandyManners

What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?

The only way I can answer that (as I am not a constitutional attorney) is a case here in Virginia. Two gay ladies were residents of Virginia. They married in MA and moved to Vermont because Vermont recognized the union. One of the women had had a child with her husband before they divorced and she became gay.

after a couple of years the gay couple divorced. The mother of the child left Vermont and went back home to Virginia. Vermont mom sued for visitation and Vermont issued some sort of injunction on Virginia mom. Virginia - the state - hit back and said forget it! We don't recognize your marriage or your claim.

In the meantime, gay mom became not gay again and got back together with her ex-husband. This was Virginia trump card. When Vermont tried to push back, Virginia - the state - told Vermont to drop it as they had the biological mom, the biological dad and the child. Case was dropped.

So, that's what I know about that. Not much and I understand your question, but the law is already no where near caught up with this.

re: #178 Thanos

Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.

But why just 2 adults? Seriously, why can't 4 adults get married to each other? Because it's the "rule"? Well let's just change the rule. If enough people want it that seems to be good enough, right?

re: #182 Iron Fist

So like China the state should dictate?

re: #188 Thanos

What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?

What would be the basis for that objection?

Any one see today's USA today? As we all know, the most generous state in America is Utah. They donate both time and money to charitable causes roughly twice the rate of the rest of the country.

re: #135 Thanos

But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?

And what about all the infertile straight couples who can't produce a child?

re: #187 Desert Dog

I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.

re: #178 Thanos

To have children or not have children is moot. What is glaring at you right now, is a justification of a lifestyle. What other lifestyles should be granted equal status? It is a slippery slope, that is the point. It is a floodgate ready to open.

re: #170 Quilly Mammoth

More importantly, Dianna, people like Thanos are saying that because the measured only passed by 3% (or 5%) that it really isn't a valid election. Pretty scary stuff.

I see Thanos' point - not on the percentage by which Prop 8 passed, but his broader one.

My problem with the current behavior has to do with the very serious issue of judicial activism. The people spoke; the people can speak again, if gays make the effort. It is asking for severe trouble to rely on an activist judiciary.

re: #138 Cap'n DOC

They do not have children - naturally.

I've stayed out of this up to this point. Yes, some of them to have children. Usually it is from a previous heterosexual relationship.

I have no problem with their marriage by the state, or civil union, as one may call it. However, I do not think anyone should force such a thing on religious marriages. It should be up to each sect or religion if they choose to have them marry within said sect or religion.

re: #191 bosforus

You are asking the question, why don't you answer it? Why can't four adults get married ala Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or whatever?

OT: Looks like Hillery accepted.

re: #162 sattv4u2

marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society,

Aside from procreation (which can and does occur without marriage) , what benefits does society get out of heterosexual marriage? What "benefits" are lost if gays and/or lesbians marry?

My little sister is gay..She seems happy and does not constitute a threat to western civilization as we know it.. That's my opinion.
I admit..I don't understand homosexuality..I've been around some very very handsome men..And I'm not the least bit attracted to them..So it may be chemical.. I honesty don't know...And while i don't agree with the lifestyle If anyone threatened my sister or called her names they would have to deal with the hoopster and it wouldn't be pretty.

re: #189 MandyManners

A challenge to the FF&C Clause has been turned down?

I can look it up but I think there have been at least five appeals turned away. There was fear that the last one came close to being accepted which is why some people started pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument.

Interracial marriage has never been universally illegal. Moses was married to an African-American (yes, I used that term to be funny).

Several racist societies had many laws, including those dealing with interracial marriage. But one man, one women marriage goes back to English common law in the US.

re: #174 MandyManners

Including the income of a new spouse when calculating CS? That's whack.

Yes, it is. But it is done all the time.

re: #36 rawmuse

OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.

So, this is all about those 2 words.

First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.

Because all these characters have stolen or twisted meanings. "Peoples Democratic Republic" = Communist. Certain crosses mean hate groups. Maltese cross associated with Nazis as was the swastika. A simple rainbow arch, starting off meaning diversity, is twisted as bizarre groups leapt aboard the bandwagon. "Peoples Army" = Communist Army. The list goes on and on. The names and symbols start off innocuous to mislead people. Look at names of communist front groups in the US; United for Peace and Justice. Then there is Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development a front name for Islam terror.

The idea is to come up with emblems, logos, and names that when a person speaks against them, they will be held up to ridicule. Who can be against Relief and Development? Against Peace and Justice?

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.

Well, I have one wife and I do not think I could handle another, good luck to you with that!

Some of this makes NO sense at all. Like the one that said: "I had an affair with Mormon bishop with 6 kids for 2 years." OK, so both he and the (most likely FORMER) Bishop are both perverts. And what does THAT have to do with Prop 8? Oh, nothing, just his lame attempt at Mormon bashing.
-LAME

re: #192 Thanos

So like China the state should dictate?

So now the will of the electorate is the same as the Junta of China? You're off your rocker.

re: #186 Killgore Trout

re: #186 Killgore Trout

It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope.....
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.

I don't think so. Prohibiting Interracial marriage is, clearly, unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution referring to 'sexual orientation.'

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.

I agree, even as a monogomous Latter-day Saint (mainstream Mormon). However I would be hard pressed to accept the "law of the land" telling me I had to provide government benefits to the multiple spouses of polygamists or to any other marital arrangement.

That's why the government should take the entitlements out of any kind of social bond. (of course I'm not voluntarily giving up my deductions as long as it's allowed).

re: #169 Desert Dog

Easy answer on your part. I think my point if valid. It is a rubber stamp on their lifestyle that they want the most. If this is overturned and accepted and other states grant it, it opens up the flood gates of an agenda that wants to change our society at it's core. I greatly respect your opinion and think you are a very smart guy, but on this issue, it is not as cut and dry as you are stating.

I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.

A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.

re: #110 DaddyG

The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.

I'm glad you went. However, it's not the desire that they're shutting down, but the ability to go to Mormon temples that they're attacking. If they send a letter with white powder in it, the people inside must be evacuated safely, HAZMAT must be called, FBI must be called, and the Mormon temple is closed down for an indefinite period of time--thus removing the ability to go to that particular Mormon temple. It's domestic terrorism pure and simple and why the media has not run the story is disingenuous.

re: #139 Killgore Trout

A Constitutional amendment is not subject to judicial review. You amend the Constitution and that is where the matter ends. If the judges were to try and interfer it would be an unprecedented power grab. It would mean that there was some law of the land that was higher than the Constitution. Where that is or where it comes from, I don't know.

I've seen it argued that the Bill of Rights was and is an acknowledgement of Rights that you have where the goveernment cannot tread. No where is the right to homosexual marriage enshrined.

And, again, even the Democrats are against homosexual marriage. It isn't so much a Left-Right thing. It's broader than that.

Mandy, et.al.

Repost from previous thread:

re: #526 quercus albus

Correction: This is true for THAT ONE mortgage company. Not a Freddie/Fanny policy. I was told by the loan officer that since it was a company policy, it wouldn't be on the net. I apologize. That was not the way it was described. I guess she didn't want us looking at other companies.

re: #197 Desert Dog

No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?

I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.

But would you sue to force an employer to provide benifits to all of your spouses? Would you sue E-Harmony because they don't have a polygamist page? Would you sue the Boy Scouts, Salvation Army and attack the Catholic church because they don't share your views on this?

re: #135 Thanos

A 2 parent household doesn't mean simply having 2 people parenting. Its 2 people with the mother role and father role. For simplification, the mother role is to be warm and nurturing. The father role is the rule enforcer, the protector. It works. Healthy children are raised. Can healthy children be raised in a same sex household? Yes, I am sure they are, just as some unhealthy children are produced from a 2 parent mother/father household. A single parent can raise a happy child, too, but it takes a hell of a lot of work to integrate male or female role models as the case may be. There are few that pull that off - kudos, BIG BIG kudos to the single parents that do.

re: #190 vapig

The only way I can answer that (as I am not a constitutional attorney) is a case here in Virginia. Two gay ladies were residents of Virginia. They married in MA and moved to Vermont because Vermont recognized the union. One of the women had had a child with her husband before they divorced and she became gay.

after a couple of years the gay couple divorced. The mother of the child left Vermont and went back home to Virginia. Vermont mom sued for visitation and Vermont issued some sort of injunction on Virginia mom. Virginia - the state - hit back and said forget it! We don't recognize your marriage or your claim.

In the meantime, gay mom became not gay again and got back together with her ex-husband. This was Virginia trump card. When Vermont tried to push back, Virginia - the state - told Vermont to drop it as they had the biological mom, the biological dad and the child. Case was dropped.

So, that's what I know about that. Not much and I understand your question, but the law is already no where near caught up with this.

I wondered what had happened to that case. Thanks!

re: #185 MandyManners

Minors cannot form legal consent.

Thanks Mandy..let's keep apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

re: #1 Walter L. Newton

Do you think we could have them hold another demonstration this weekend....most of these folks probably wouldn't notice the 8 ft chainlink and concertina wire fence construction around them for a day or two....

Keep freaks off the streets! That's a demonstration I could support.

re: #142 Thanos

Sooner or later the child, however s/he has come to be, realizes that either one or the other of its parents is not all that it purports to be. Myself, I could care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, but they cannot (in the circumstances as described) conceive a child in any natural manner. Therefore, the couple cannot be 'parents' of said child. What these individuals are looking for is recognition and justification for their 'unnatural' behavior. If they are granted legal recognition, then we all become responsible for the potential results of any other 'unnatural' behavior as a result of their 'act'. Why I should pay (public defender ring any bells?) for something of which society sees no benefit is beyond me.

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.

What about polyandry?

re: #216 Thanos

No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?

See #212

re: #178 Thanos

Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.

If we were arguing out of fear, that statement might be valid. The problem is, when the courts intervene over the will of the people, that slippery slope becomes a greased ramp.

There's a great deal about this issue that's difficult; it won't be improved by tearing at each other. This needs to be thrashed out by the great, mushy middle. Not the activists on either side.

re: #150 Desert Dog

Ok, let's say all of this is reversed and gay marriage becomes the law again. And, let's say other states grant it as well. Where does this end?

I can see some dude showing up at city hall in a few years and proclaiming that he is deeply in love and wishes to marry: Barbara AND Tim. You see, he is bisexual and is love with both of them, and they are in love with him too. So, it's trampling on that poor guys rights to not accept his marriage to a man and a woman.......So, let's add that...

What's after that Man and animal?

Gay people.....I love you....you are human beings, just like everyone else....I do not judge you, and please, do not judge me.....I am not asking you to change your entire culture, but you are asking me to change mine.....sorry.

Guy already tried that in MA. Showed up with two sisters and said it was his alternative lifestyle.

Look, society makes laws all the time in what they will except and what they will not. Someone please explain how this is any different that the country wide ban on polygamy? Polygamy is not only not permitted it is criminal. People go to jail for it. Why is this determination any different?

These people have equal rights, they have equal protection. They are just being denied one thing - the term marriage. I'd say they have it a lot better than the polygamists.

re: #203 Quilly Mammoth

I can look it up but I think there have been at least five appeals turned away. There was fear that the last one came close to being accepted which is why some people started pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

This is one issue I just cannot get all worked up about either way.

re: #191 bosforus

But why just 2 adults? Seriously, why can't 4 adults get married to each other? Because it's the "rule"? Well let's just change the rule. If enough people want it that seems to be good enough, right?

But enough people DIDN'T want it. that's the point. Prop 8 passed and the PEOPLE said No.

re: #205 Dianna

Yes, it is. But it is done all the time.

It's a disincentive to marriage!

re: #195 JumpLandPackRepeat

But that is a medical condition preventing it. And honestly, I don't care if heterosexual couples decide not to have children, either. Doesn't make me ok with gay marriage.

re: #188 Thanos

What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?

Once again.

I wish.

/

re: #200 Thanos

You are asking the question, why don't you answer it? Why can't four adults get married ala Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or whatever?

Not sure what that refers to but the answer to my questions is obviously hypocrisy, and bigotry. I have yet to hear any argument for gay marriage that can't also be applied to polygamy other than the number of people involved which I fail to see as being relevant. And since you apparently had no answer, I'm still waiting to hear the arguments.

re: #205 Dianna

Yes, it is. But it is done all the time.

It's also enriching someone at the expense of another who has no legal ties to that person.

re: #216 Thanos

No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?

Why should gay people be given special rights and privileges by society when those special rights and privileges are Societal Carrots to propagate and expand that society? The number of gay people who marry to raise a family is pretty small.

re: #196 Killgore Trout

I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.

Upding for your consistency!

One of the interesting topics this elevates is, where does it end?

One of my brother's friends wants to marry his left hand. Why not? He's very affectionate of his left hand and is in a very intimate relationship with it. So, because he truly loves his left hand he should be able to marry his left hand and then gain all the benefits of marrying his left hand. On his taxes he could now claim his left hand as a dependent--his hand cannot survive without him. But, after he marries his left hand, he also wants to marry his right hand. Why should a polygamous marriage be excluded? He may favor the left, but his right he still loves. And then there's his pet pygmy goat....

re: #212 midwestgak

I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.

A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.

Now, THAT is one point at which I'll fight like hell.

re: #212 midwestgak

I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.

A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.

IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.

re: #228 father_of_10

But enough people DIDN'T want it. that's the point. Prop 8 passed and the PEOPLE said No.

Don't fret, I ask the polygamy question rhetorically. :)

re: #222 Cap'n DOC

I disagree. I raised three children to adulthood, I was not their biological father.

re: #208 father_of_10

Some of this makes NO sense at all. Like the one that said: "I had an affair with Mormon bishop with 6 kids for 2 years." OK, so both he and the (most likely FORMER) Bishop are both perverts. And what does THAT have to do with Prop 8? Oh, nothing, just his lame attempt at Mormon bashing.
-LAME

I've known other Mormons in my own congregations who "discovered" they were gay late into a marriage with multiple kids. Left the family over it... the aftermath was not pretty in either case.

I was more upset with their abandonment of the family they had covenanted to care for than whatever subsequent lifestyle they chose to live.

The bragging about it is exactly that - A smug self-righteous kind of superiority knowing that they are now enlightened and not subject to the ignorance of their former beliefs. I've heard it many times.

Funny when I left my former belief system to become a Mormon I didn't feel the need to destroy or prove wrong what I had left. I also didn't have to abandon my dependents to do so.

re: #215 quercus albus

Mandy, et.al.

Repost from previous thread:

Correction: This is true for THAT ONE mortgage company. Not a Freddie/Fanny policy. I was told by the loan officer that since it was a company policy, it wouldn't be on the net. I apologize. That was not the way it was described. I guess she didn't want us looking at other companies.

That's what I suspected. Boot her butt to the curb. She's unethical.

A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.

/

Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.

50 years ago, they weren't considered all that different. Some day the pedophiles will say "hey, remember when gay marriage was illegal?"

I'm not equating these things. I'm equating the arguements used to support them. And 4 judges in California can rule.

re: #192 Thanos

What you are proposing is the State dictating. What you are upset about isn't the fact that the State is, in your words, dictating. You are upset that the State isn't enforcing your values on the rest of society.

which goes back to my original point. Gay marriage isn't about equal rights. It is about forcing societal norms to change through an Imperial Judiciary. That one's a loser if you allow a vote.

re: #239 MandyManners

Now, THAT is one point at which I'll fight like hell.

It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.

re: #235 Quilly Mammoth

Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.

re: #188 Thanos

What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?

I'm trying to imagine the scenario, but I struggle because of 3000 years of societal history.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the rules regarding marriage are based on Common Law and have been codified in various state laws, which derive their authority - ultimately - from the US constitution. The US constitution does not grant any special rights based on sexual orientation. So, it is totally within the authority of the states to define the legal parameters.

In this particular case, I do not see tyranical behavior. Folks should be free in their bedroom to do whatever. I do not see anything that is hamstringing a gay couple from continuing to live happy and productive lives.

re: #186 Killgore Trout

It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope.....
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.

I think you are reading things into the post that aren't there. Until DD says or suggests they are the same, I will takes his words at face value.

OT - Wow the dow looks like it is going to close up 500!

See ya all later, got to finish up here before I leave to go walk the black lab along the American.

Have a great weekend!

A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.

You give the sarcasm slash, but what you say is true. Gays have the same rights as straights. No law says that a straight person can marry the same sex.

re: #220 HoosierHoops

Thanks Mandy..let's keep apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

It grates when people throw up the minor angle.

re: #249 Thanos

Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.

Any reference for that? I never heard that. I am not questioning your veracity, just a reference if possible?

My real problem with this has less to do with the legality/illegality of homosexual marriage than it does with mob rule. The protestors are angry that the proposition passed. OK, I can see not being happy with it. I'm unhappy Dick Durbin was not unseated in the Senate (yes, I voted for his opponet). I'm unhappy Barack Obama being President-elect instead of John McCain. However, I did not feel the need to take to the street and try to impose my will on others. If these folks are so unhappy with the passage of Proposition 8, they get off their asses and make a new Proposition to counteract Proposition 8. If they care enough about the issue, they should make their case, present it to the people in the next election, and get their own proposition passed. If they do not, then they are full of crap because it is less about the issue than them having a temper tantrum in public.

re: #88 ArmyWife

But they past a constitutional amendment. Game is over.

Obviously, the game is NOT over, as the passage of Prop 8 was immediately legally challenged, and those challenges are pending in California courts at this time.

Here is the fact of the matter as I see it: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. And yet, California has just passed a constitutional ammendment treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples under the law. We're singling out a group and telling them they can't enjoy a privelege that everyone else in the USA enjoys. That seems very much like discrimination to me. . . no matter WHAT I might personally think about gay marriage. But hey, at least we had the wisdom as a state to grant LIVESTOCK additional rights on the same ballot.

As Thanos so aptly put it:
"Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?"

re: #247 Iron Fist

My value is liberty, and individual rights. I don't mind speaking up for that. What's your real objection to gay marriage?

Can't get it to load, and yes I have a P.C.! Probably for the best anyway. But I, for one, would be OK with overturning Prop. 8, and making same-sex marriage legal everywhere in exchange for overturning the presidential election.

re: #238 ploome hineni

what aboUt it?

Is he for it?

re: #240 funky chicken

IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.

I have no problem with the church building itself as well as its' associated functionary buildings being tax exempt. My heartburn kicks in when a particular church buys other properties around the town or city and they in turn are afforded tax exempt status, thus removing the properties from the tax rolls. I see this happening in Savannah with not only churches, but most noted of all SCAD (Savannah College of Art and Design). Many properties through out the city have been removed from the tax rolls because tax exempt organizations purchase them and in many cases profit from the purchase.

Zombie will need to relocate.. ;)

re: #245 vxbush

A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.

/

Exactly. Where are we wrong? We are advocating that anyone can marry. Just as long as it is boy-girl. No discrimination there.

Just when did a sexual act preference become a protected class?