California Prop 8

[bodecea]

marriage is not NOW a fundamental right. it IS and HAS BEEN a fundamental right.

but feel free to take it up with Justice Warren.

Loving v. Virginia

So you oppose bans on Incestuous Marriages and you support Polygamy?

if the prop 8 ban is ruled constitutional, you could see these bans brought to court and challenged as unconstitutional, because the overall basis for them is their immorality. which currently is much of basis for the ban on gay marriage.

im not saying i agree with incestuous marriage or polygamy personally, but as a legal argument there is a case for them based upon discrimination.

i think the major problem here is that people can not separate their personal or religious views here for the legal views.

I agree with this comment....as long as it involves law-abiding, tax-paying adult citizens....why not?

 

[bodecea]

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

So, you think homosexual marriage is a crime?

I guess he'd better report me then.

 

[bodecea]

Jillian ignoring a question she feels uncomfortable answering. Running away as usual. It is simple, if Gays have a fundamental right to marry why do not Incestuous adults have that right? And why isn't polygamy legal?

what on earth are you babbling about? you didn't respond to me. lol..

come on, you got it wrong. now address the issue appropriately.

your issues are non-issues. i don't feel uncomfortable at all. i think you're absurd for not acknowledging that you got it wrong and addressing the issue from there.

marriage is a fundamental right.

discuss.

In Western culture for the past 3000 years marriage has been solely between a man and a woman. Even the men loving Greeks did not condone gay marriage. Nor did the royals during the feudal reign even though several of them were gay. NONE of the major religions of the West recognizes gay marriage either.

Actually, in the past 3000 years and even today except in the last 200 years of western culture, marriage was/is about property rights, arranged marriages and marrying girls as soon as they hit puberty.


Perhaps this is what you long for?

 

[Common Sense]

I don't think Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so through the entire western worlds History. And its laws.

I do not oppose Civil Unions. And I do not think the Government has any business legislating what sexual conduct is permitted between consenting adults IN THE PRIVACY of their homes or other private places.

I do believe the Government has the right to legislate what is allowed in the public domain however.

I am simply pointing out that almost all laws discriminate against some minority. That the majority of a society have the power and authority to legislate what is and is not legal within the frame work of their agreed upon Government.

I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government.

I am past tired of Liberal judges thwarting the legit desires of the majority for their own personal agenda's.

You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws. Not judges. You want marriage defined as anybody can marry anybody? Either get an amendment to the Constitution to make it enforceable through out the Country or get YOUR State legislature to pass a law making it legal.

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman. there is no such law that actually exists. you keep stating that history is on your side. well history was on the side of not allowing interracial marriage, slavery and womens suffrage. all which have since been struck down in the court of law.

your posts have all been based on your personal opinions and feeling on the matter of homosexual individuals. you cant see the legal argument, which is that they are being legally discriminated against based upon the sole fact that they are gay or lesbian.

"I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government."

your quote right here says volumes about your understanding of the legal system since judges do not legislate laws, they interpret their meanings. this has been their duty since the inception of this country. and case in point here, prop 8 was not legislated by the state of california, but it was brought about by a small group of people. the argument before the appellate court asks this same question for several reasons.

1 - is was a change to the state constitution
2 - the prop stripped the state legislature and governor from reviewing or vetoing the proposition if it became law

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

hence they were not legally able to change the state constitution through a ballot initiative. so that being the case, the proposition, no matter what it actually says, in not a legal document.

"You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws"
if you marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, YOU have the legislature write a law which defines it as such, since to law exists on the books defining it as such. see how that argument works as well.


youre either intolerant of people who are different than you, or ignorant to facts of the case. your simply showing that world that youre a bigot by supporting a law that strips people of their rights.

 

[JenT]

The backlash roared in California as gay activists continued to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are felt the heat while Linda Harvey received threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats."

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

Bruce Curtis reports in The Bay News:


A Los Angeles restaurant was boycotted, threatened and forced to pay bribes to an anti-Prop. 8 mob.


In San Francisco, Castro District thugs chase people out because they simply stood praying on a street corner.


White powder envelopes prompted anti-Prop 8 terror scares at two Mormon temples.


Bay Area kindergartners are taken to a gay wedding with no notification to, or permission from their parents.


At a Saddleback Church, angry hate-8 protestors wave swastikas at parishioners.


Vandals arrange Prop. 8 signs in a swastika at a Riverside Catholic church.


A Massachusetts father was jailed for refusing to allow his first-grader to be introduced to details about gay sex.


A thousand angry hate-8 protestors scream and threaten to break down gates and storm a Mormon temple in Westwood.


A Sacramento Mormon church was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.


In San Francisco, lesbians parked an SUV splashed with "Bigots live here" in front of the home of a Mormon family.


Civil rights were violated of a Sacramento theater director who was forced to resign after giving money to the Prop. 8 campaign.


More than 200 protesters screamed hate chants at a Los Angeles Catholic church.


Riot police had to be called to quell a violent hate8 protest.


As the search for targets continues, my website has growing hits on old articles exposing homosexual indoctrination in public schools. Part of me wants to run for cover, but I don't leave brothers and sisters behind.

So before I respond with my own blasts, let me reiterate: I have no dislike of homosexuals. I have friends, I've had boyfriends, I've had roommates and hiking buddies from the gay community. I have washed their feet, loved them, partied with them and care about them, but I stand diametrically opposed to gay marriage because it equates to indoctrinating our children in public school. Time and again, given an inch, gay activists have taken miles in that endeavor.

How IRONIC that the oh-so-tolerant left can't seem to stop brutalizing the meanies on the right. Just before Prop. 8, a Santa Barbara pastor was threatened with a lawsuit because he refused to perform a gay marriage. TOLERANCE? They can't seem to find one of the many gay-applauding unBiblical pseudo-churches? Of course they can, they're just looking for a fight and to break the will of the people.

Christians by-and-large don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, why would we? But we DO care about our children, about the constant social conditioning forced upon them. We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it. We don't send them to school to learn how to "fist" each other. We should have the RIGHT to protect our children but we're losing it. Legalized gay marriage inevitably leads to lawsuits demanding exposure of our children to homosexual behavior, encouraging them to "discover" their own aptitudes and anyone who speaks against it will be breaking the law.

 

[jillian]

*yawn*

 

[bodecea]

The backlash roared in California as gay activists continued to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are felt the heat while Linda Harvey received threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats."

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

Bruce Curtis reports in The Bay News:


A Los Angeles restaurant was boycotted, threatened and forced to pay bribes to an anti-Prop. 8 mob.


In San Francisco, Castro District thugs chase people out because they simply stood praying on a street corner.


White powder envelopes prompted anti-Prop 8 terror scares at two Mormon temples.


Bay Area kindergartners are taken to a gay wedding with no notification to, or permission from their parents.


At a Saddleback Church, angry hate-8 protestors wave swastikas at parishioners.


Vandals arrange Prop. 8 signs in a swastika at a Riverside Catholic church.


A Massachusetts father was jailed for refusing to allow his first-grader to be introduced to details about gay sex.


A thousand angry hate-8 protestors scream and threaten to break down gates and storm a Mormon temple in Westwood.


A Sacramento Mormon church was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.


In San Francisco, lesbians parked an SUV splashed with "Bigots live here" in front of the home of a Mormon family.


Civil rights were violated of a Sacramento theater director who was forced to resign after giving money to the Prop. 8 campaign.


More than 200 protesters screamed hate chants at a Los Angeles Catholic church.


Riot police had to be called to quell a violent hate8 protest.


As the search for targets continues, my website has growing hits on old articles exposing homosexual indoctrination in public schools. Part of me wants to run for cover, but I don't leave brothers and sisters behind.

So before I respond with my own blasts, let me reiterate: I have no dislike of homosexuals. I have friends, I've had boyfriends, I've had roommates and hiking buddies from the gay community. I have washed their feet, loved them, partied with them and care about them, but I stand diametrically opposed to gay marriage because it equates to indoctrinating our children in public school. Time and again, given an inch, gay activists have taken miles in that endeavor.

How IRONIC that the oh-so-tolerant left can't seem to stop brutalizing the meanies on the right. Just before Prop. 8, a Santa Barbara pastor was threatened with a lawsuit because he refused to perform a gay marriage. TOLERANCE? They can't seem to find one of the many gay-applauding unBiblical pseudo-churches? Of course they can, they're just looking for a fight and to break the will of the people.

Christians by-and-large don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, why would we? But we DO care about our children, about the constant social conditioning forced upon them. We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it. We don't send them to school to learn how to "fist" each other. We should have the RIGHT to protect our children but we're losing it. Legalized gay marriage inevitably leads to lawsuits demanding exposure of our children to homosexual behavior, encouraging them to "discover" their own aptitudes and anyone who speaks against it will be breaking the law.

News links to go with all those accusations, plz

 

[jillian]

We have had slavery since the beginning of time, does that make it right?

So you are going to compare gays with slavery? By the way, we answered that question with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Not a couple gays in robes.

3000 years of history doesn't make it right, I don't think that was hard to understand.
There have also been many amendments put in place that have proven to be unconstitutional.

how many thousands of years of slavery was there before the civil war.

i wonder if he would have thought that was right at the time.

 

[JenT]

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman.

It's an obvious law of nature. Sex between a man and a woman, especially monogamous, is healthy. The sex acts that typically happen between two males is not. Any honest proctologist has to admit it.

We were not created for those acts. How can people think this actually needs to be explained

 

[JenT]

The backlash roared in California as gay activists continued to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are felt the heat while Linda Harvey received threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats."

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

Bruce Curtis reports in The Bay News:


A Los Angeles restaurant was boycotted, threatened and forced to pay bribes to an anti-Prop. 8 mob.


In San Francisco, Castro District thugs chase people out because they simply stood praying on a street corner.


White powder envelopes prompted anti-Prop 8 terror scares at two Mormon temples.


Bay Area kindergartners are taken to a gay wedding with no notification to, or permission from their parents.


At a Saddleback Church, angry hate-8 protestors wave swastikas at parishioners.


Vandals arrange Prop. 8 signs in a swastika at a Riverside Catholic church.


A Massachusetts father was jailed for refusing to allow his first-grader to be introduced to details about gay sex.


A thousand angry hate-8 protestors scream and threaten to break down gates and storm a Mormon temple in Westwood.


A Sacramento Mormon church was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.


In San Francisco, lesbians parked an SUV splashed with "Bigots live here" in front of the home of a Mormon family.


Civil rights were violated of a Sacramento theater director who was forced to resign after giving money to the Prop. 8 campaign.


More than 200 protesters screamed hate chants at a Los Angeles Catholic church.


Riot police had to be called to quell a violent hate8 protest.


As the search for targets continues, my website has growing hits on old articles exposing homosexual indoctrination in public schools. Part of me wants to run for cover, but I don't leave brothers and sisters behind.

So before I respond with my own blasts, let me reiterate: I have no dislike of homosexuals. I have friends, I've had boyfriends, I've had roommates and hiking buddies from the gay community. I have washed their feet, loved them, partied with them and care about them, but I stand diametrically opposed to gay marriage because it equates to indoctrinating our children in public school. Time and again, given an inch, gay activists have taken miles in that endeavor.

How IRONIC that the oh-so-tolerant left can't seem to stop brutalizing the meanies on the right. Just before Prop. 8, a Santa Barbara pastor was threatened with a lawsuit because he refused to perform a gay marriage. TOLERANCE? They can't seem to find one of the many gay-applauding unBiblical pseudo-churches? Of course they can, they're just looking for a fight and to break the will of the people.

Christians by-and-large don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, why would we? But we DO care about our children, about the constant social conditioning forced upon them. We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it. We don't send them to school to learn how to "fist" each other. We should have the RIGHT to protect our children but we're losing it. Legalized gay marriage inevitably leads to lawsuits demanding exposure of our children to homosexual behavior, encouraging them to "discover" their own aptitudes and anyone who speaks against it will be breaking the law.

News links to go with all those accusations, plz

Feeling the hate of Prop 8

and like it says, Bruce Curtis reported it in the Bay News

 

[bodecea]

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman.

It's an obvious law of nature. Sex between a man and a woman, especially monogamous, is healthy. The sex acts that typically happen between two males is not. Any honest proctologist has to admit it.

We were not created for those acts. How can people think this actually needs to be explained

Actually, the obvious law of nature is one man/multiple women due to the gestation period.

 

[jillian]

Feeling the hate of Prop*8

and like it says, Bruce Curtis reported it in the Bay News

cause we don't see enough lying rightwingnut blogs, eh?

 

[Common Sense]

The backlash roared in California as gay activists continued to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are felt the heat while Linda Harvey received threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats."

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

Bruce Curtis reports in The Bay News:


A Los Angeles restaurant was boycotted, threatened and forced to pay bribes to an anti-Prop. 8 mob.


In San Francisco, Castro District thugs chase people out because they simply stood praying on a street corner.


White powder envelopes prompted anti-Prop 8 terror scares at two Mormon temples.


Bay Area kindergartners are taken to a gay wedding with no notification to, or permission from their parents.


At a Saddleback Church, angry hate-8 protestors wave swastikas at parishioners.


Vandals arrange Prop. 8 signs in a swastika at a Riverside Catholic church.


A Massachusetts father was jailed for refusing to allow his first-grader to be introduced to details about gay sex.


A thousand angry hate-8 protestors scream and threaten to break down gates and storm a Mormon temple in Westwood.


A Sacramento Mormon church was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.


In San Francisco, lesbians parked an SUV splashed with "Bigots live here" in front of the home of a Mormon family.


Civil rights were violated of a Sacramento theater director who was forced to resign after giving money to the Prop. 8 campaign.


More than 200 protesters screamed hate chants at a Los Angeles Catholic church.


Riot police had to be called to quell a violent hate8 protest.


As the search for targets continues, my website has growing hits on old articles exposing homosexual indoctrination in public schools. Part of me wants to run for cover, but I don't leave brothers and sisters behind.

So before I respond with my own blasts, let me reiterate: I have no dislike of homosexuals. I have friends, I've had boyfriends, I've had roommates and hiking buddies from the gay community. I have washed their feet, loved them, partied with them and care about them, but I stand diametrically opposed to gay marriage because it equates to indoctrinating our children in public school. Time and again, given an inch, gay activists have taken miles in that endeavor.

How IRONIC that the oh-so-tolerant left can't seem to stop brutalizing the meanies on the right. Just before Prop. 8, a Santa Barbara pastor was threatened with a lawsuit because he refused to perform a gay marriage. TOLERANCE? They can't seem to find one of the many gay-applauding unBiblical pseudo-churches? Of course they can, they're just looking for a fight and to break the will of the people.

Christians by-and-large don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, why would we? But we DO care about our children, about the constant social conditioning forced upon them. We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it. We don't send them to school to learn how to "fist" each other. We should have the RIGHT to protect our children but we're losing it. Legalized gay marriage inevitably leads to lawsuits demanding exposure of our children to homosexual behavior, encouraging them to "discover" their own aptitudes and anyone who speaks against it will be breaking the law.

nice story from 2008. point to something current on this same level.

and why should gay people have to hide in their homes? its called education people, you have to educate your children instead of instill fear in them. social conditioning?

"We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it."

straight people have anal sex all the time, does that mean when they do it we should take away their right to marry as well?

homosexuality is not a choice where someone just decides one day that they are gay. its part of who they are and are born that way.

 

[Common Sense]

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman.

It's an obvious law of nature. Sex between a man and a woman, especially monogamous, is healthy. The sex acts that typically happen between two males is not. Any honest proctologist has to admit it.

We were not created for those acts. How can people think this actually needs to be explained

so when two straight people have anal sex that is a horrific act as well? what about two women that dont engage in anal sex? what about oral sex, we werent created for that either. and then there is masturbation, that serves no purpose as well either. what about sex out of wedlock? what about children out of wedlock? 3 somes? 4 somes? double penetration? orgies? gangbangs? are any of these healthy in your opinion?

so lets outlaw everything except straight monogamous sex. oh wait, that would mean i would be taking away people freedoms. damn cant do that either.

stop being a bigot and judging people whom you dont understand or even try to understand. are you afraid your kids are gonna catch the gay, like its some type of disease? what would happen if one of your children was gay? are going to disown them and kick them out on the street because they deserve to be treated as less of a citizen?

 

[bodecea]

The backlash roared in California as gay activists continued to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are felt the heat while Linda Harvey received threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats."

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

Bruce Curtis reports in The Bay News:


A Los Angeles restaurant was boycotted, threatened and forced to pay bribes to an anti-Prop. 8 mob.


In San Francisco, Castro District thugs chase people out because they simply stood praying on a street corner.


White powder envelopes prompted anti-Prop 8 terror scares at two Mormon temples.


Bay Area kindergartners are taken to a gay wedding with no notification to, or permission from their parents.


At a Saddleback Church, angry hate-8 protestors wave swastikas at parishioners.


Vandals arrange Prop. 8 signs in a swastika at a Riverside Catholic church.


A Massachusetts father was jailed for refusing to allow his first-grader to be introduced to details about gay sex.


A thousand angry hate-8 protestors scream and threaten to break down gates and storm a Mormon temple in Westwood.


A Sacramento Mormon church was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.


In San Francisco, lesbians parked an SUV splashed with "Bigots live here" in front of the home of a Mormon family.


Civil rights were violated of a Sacramento theater director who was forced to resign after giving money to the Prop. 8 campaign.


More than 200 protesters screamed hate chants at a Los Angeles Catholic church.


Riot police had to be called to quell a violent hate8 protest.


As the search for targets continues, my website has growing hits on old articles exposing homosexual indoctrination in public schools. Part of me wants to run for cover, but I don't leave brothers and sisters behind.

So before I respond with my own blasts, let me reiterate: I have no dislike of homosexuals. I have friends, I've had boyfriends, I've had roommates and hiking buddies from the gay community. I have washed their feet, loved them, partied with them and care about them, but I stand diametrically opposed to gay marriage because it equates to indoctrinating our children in public school. Time and again, given an inch, gay activists have taken miles in that endeavor.

How IRONIC that the oh-so-tolerant left can't seem to stop brutalizing the meanies on the right. Just before Prop. 8, a Santa Barbara pastor was threatened with a lawsuit because he refused to perform a gay marriage. TOLERANCE? They can't seem to find one of the many gay-applauding unBiblical pseudo-churches? Of course they can, they're just looking for a fight and to break the will of the people.

Christians by-and-large don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, why would we? But we DO care about our children, about the constant social conditioning forced upon them. We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it. We don't send them to school to learn how to "fist" each other. We should have the RIGHT to protect our children but we're losing it. Legalized gay marriage inevitably leads to lawsuits demanding exposure of our children to homosexual behavior, encouraging them to "discover" their own aptitudes and anyone who speaks against it will be breaking the law.

News links to go with all those accusations, plz

Feeling the hate of Prop*8

and like it says, Bruce Curtis reported it in the Bay News

C'mon....give me a break...this is your BLOG!!!!

Would you like me to start a blog and use it to "prove" whatever I want to "prove"?

 

[bodecea]

The backlash roared in California as gay activists continued to silence opposition while waiting for the Calif. Supreme Court to weigh in on Prop 8. The Mormon Church and Chuck Norris are felt the heat while Linda Harvey received threats. A Houston lawyer "who brazenly identified himself," wrote, "You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats."

An elderly woman is swarmed, her cross ripped out of her hand and stomped on while the news anchor, Kris Long, reports "...There is a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides."

Margie Christoffersen donated a mere $100 to Prop 8, riots broke out at her restaurant, now her life and business is in turmoil. An LA Film Festival director has been drummed out of the business for donating.

Reports stream in. Michelle Malkin writes of a Christian group being surrounded and sexually molested by gay activists for standing on a street corner.

Bruce Curtis reports in The Bay News:


A Los Angeles restaurant was boycotted, threatened and forced to pay bribes to an anti-Prop. 8 mob.


In San Francisco, Castro District thugs chase people out because they simply stood praying on a street corner.


White powder envelopes prompted anti-Prop 8 terror scares at two Mormon temples.


Bay Area kindergartners are taken to a gay wedding with no notification to, or permission from their parents.


At a Saddleback Church, angry hate-8 protestors wave swastikas at parishioners.


Vandals arrange Prop. 8 signs in a swastika at a Riverside Catholic church.


A Massachusetts father was jailed for refusing to allow his first-grader to be introduced to details about gay sex.


A thousand angry hate-8 protestors scream and threaten to break down gates and storm a Mormon temple in Westwood.


A Sacramento Mormon church was spray-painted with "No on 8" messages.


In San Francisco, lesbians parked an SUV splashed with "Bigots live here" in front of the home of a Mormon family.


Civil rights were violated of a Sacramento theater director who was forced to resign after giving money to the Prop. 8 campaign.


More than 200 protesters screamed hate chants at a Los Angeles Catholic church.


Riot police had to be called to quell a violent hate8 protest.


As the search for targets continues, my website has growing hits on old articles exposing homosexual indoctrination in public schools. Part of me wants to run for cover, but I don't leave brothers and sisters behind.

So before I respond with my own blasts, let me reiterate: I have no dislike of homosexuals. I have friends, I've had boyfriends, I've had roommates and hiking buddies from the gay community. I have washed their feet, loved them, partied with them and care about them, but I stand diametrically opposed to gay marriage because it equates to indoctrinating our children in public school. Time and again, given an inch, gay activists have taken miles in that endeavor.

How IRONIC that the oh-so-tolerant left can't seem to stop brutalizing the meanies on the right. Just before Prop. 8, a Santa Barbara pastor was threatened with a lawsuit because he refused to perform a gay marriage. TOLERANCE? They can't seem to find one of the many gay-applauding unBiblical pseudo-churches? Of course they can, they're just looking for a fight and to break the will of the people.

Christians by-and-large don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, why would we? But we DO care about our children, about the constant social conditioning forced upon them. We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it. We don't send them to school to learn how to "fist" each other. We should have the RIGHT to protect our children but we're losing it. Legalized gay marriage inevitably leads to lawsuits demanding exposure of our children to homosexual behavior, encouraging them to "discover" their own aptitudes and anyone who speaks against it will be breaking the law.

nice story from 2008. point to something current on this same level.

and why should gay people have to hide in their homes? its called education people, you have to educate your children instead of instill fear in them. social conditioning?

"We would prefer our children avoid the woes of anal sex and all the documented unhealthy mental and physical consequences that go with it."

straight people have anal sex all the time, does that mean when they do it we should take away their right to marry as well?

homosexuality is not a choice where someone just decides one day that they are gay. its part of who they are and are born that way.

But isn't it curious how they were willing to drag their kids out to streetcorners to hold up big signs for Prop H8....wonder how they explained to their kids what it was all about....

 

[Trajan]

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

Nope. There is no power in the US Constitution that makes this STATE amendment Unconstitutional. It is solely a State matter. And the State ruled it Constitutional.

So, do you agree with people voting to deny a right to a certain class of people?
How exactly is it constitutional to deny someone a fundmental right?

then let congress and the exec. do their jobs. My objection is legislating from the bench most especially when it comes to social issues.

I am still unclear what rights, exactly, gays in cali don't have....?

 

[martybegan]

I don't think Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so through the entire western worlds History. And its laws.

I do not oppose Civil Unions. And I do not think the Government has any business legislating what sexual conduct is permitted between consenting adults IN THE PRIVACY of their homes or other private places.

I do believe the Government has the right to legislate what is allowed in the public domain however.

I am simply pointing out that almost all laws discriminate against some minority. That the majority of a society have the power and authority to legislate what is and is not legal within the frame work of their agreed upon Government.

I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government.

I am past tired of Liberal judges thwarting the legit desires of the majority for their own personal agenda's.

You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws. Not judges. You want marriage defined as anybody can marry anybody? Either get an amendment to the Constitution to make it enforceable through out the Country or get YOUR State legislature to pass a law making it legal.

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman. there is no such law that actually exists. you keep stating that history is on your side. well history was on the side of not allowing interracial marriage, slavery and womens suffrage. all which have since been struck down in the court of law.

your posts have all been based on your personal opinions and feeling on the matter of homosexual individuals. you cant see the legal argument, which is that they are being legally discriminated against based upon the sole fact that they are gay or lesbian.

"I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government."

your quote right here says volumes about your understanding of the legal system since judges do not legislate laws, they interpret their meanings. this has been their duty since the inception of this country. and case in point here, prop 8 was not legislated by the state of california, but it was brought about by a small group of people. the argument before the appellate court asks this same question for several reasons.

1 - is was a change to the state constitution
2 - the prop stripped the state legislature and governor from reviewing or vetoing the proposition if it became law

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

hence they were not legally able to change the state constitution through a ballot initiative. so that being the case, the proposition, no matter what it actually says, in not a legal document.

"You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws"
if you marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, YOU have the legislature write a law which defines it as such, since to law exists on the books defining it as such. see how that argument works as well.


youre either intolerant of people who are different than you, or ignorant to facts of the case. your simply showing that world that youre a bigot by supporting a law that strips people of their rights.

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

 

[bodecea]

I don't think Homosexuals can marry. Marriage is between a man and a woman and has been so through the entire western worlds History. And its laws.

I do not oppose Civil Unions. And I do not think the Government has any business legislating what sexual conduct is permitted between consenting adults IN THE PRIVACY of their homes or other private places.

I do believe the Government has the right to legislate what is allowed in the public domain however.

I am simply pointing out that almost all laws discriminate against some minority. That the majority of a society have the power and authority to legislate what is and is not legal within the frame work of their agreed upon Government.

I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government.

I am past tired of Liberal judges thwarting the legit desires of the majority for their own personal agenda's.

You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws. Not judges. You want marriage defined as anybody can marry anybody? Either get an amendment to the Constitution to make it enforceable through out the Country or get YOUR State legislature to pass a law making it legal.

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman. there is no such law that actually exists. you keep stating that history is on your side. well history was on the side of not allowing interracial marriage, slavery and womens suffrage. all which have since been struck down in the court of law.

your posts have all been based on your personal opinions and feeling on the matter of homosexual individuals. you cant see the legal argument, which is that they are being legally discriminated against based upon the sole fact that they are gay or lesbian.

"I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government."

your quote right here says volumes about your understanding of the legal system since judges do not legislate laws, they interpret their meanings. this has been their duty since the inception of this country. and case in point here, prop 8 was not legislated by the state of california, but it was brought about by a small group of people. the argument before the appellate court asks this same question for several reasons.

1 - is was a change to the state constitution
2 - the prop stripped the state legislature and governor from reviewing or vetoing the proposition if it became law

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

hence they were not legally able to change the state constitution through a ballot initiative. so that being the case, the proposition, no matter what it actually says, in not a legal document.

"You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws"
if you marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, YOU have the legislature write a law which defines it as such, since to law exists on the books defining it as such. see how that argument works as well.


youre either intolerant of people who are different than you, or ignorant to facts of the case. your simply showing that world that youre a bigot by supporting a law that strips people of their rights.

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

Simply not true.

 

[martybegan]

once again, point me to the actual written text of a law that defines marriage as between man and woman. there is no such law that actually exists. you keep stating that history is on your side. well history was on the side of not allowing interracial marriage, slavery and womens suffrage. all which have since been struck down in the court of law.

your posts have all been based on your personal opinions and feeling on the matter of homosexual individuals. you cant see the legal argument, which is that they are being legally discriminated against based upon the sole fact that they are gay or lesbian.

"I am opposed to legislation forced on us by some robed Judge. It is not their job, nor do they have that power granted to them by our system of Government."

your quote right here says volumes about your understanding of the legal system since judges do not legislate laws, they interpret their meanings. this has been their duty since the inception of this country. and case in point here, prop 8 was not legislated by the state of california, but it was brought about by a small group of people. the argument before the appellate court asks this same question for several reasons.

1 - is was a change to the state constitution
2 - the prop stripped the state legislature and governor from reviewing or vetoing the proposition if it became law

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

hence they were not legally able to change the state constitution through a ballot initiative. so that being the case, the proposition, no matter what it actually says, in not a legal document.

"You want Gay Marriage? Have the legislature CHANGE the laws"
if you marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, YOU have the legislature write a law which defines it as such, since to law exists on the books defining it as such. see how that argument works as well.


youre either intolerant of people who are different than you, or ignorant to facts of the case. your simply showing that world that youre a bigot by supporting a law that strips people of their rights.

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

Simply not true.

There are of course outliers, but they are the exception, not the rule. The only real rule break was polygamy is some cultures. If you have to go to some small sect that was wiped out in the Yellow river valley in 3 BC for an example of legitimate same sex marriage then you are not really proving your point.

I have nothing wrong with people wanting to legalize same sex marriage, but I do have issues with the methods some use to get to it. Using the courts via made up consitutional rights and claiming that there is no social or economic precendent against it weak in my opinion.

Fess up to the fact that you are trying to overturn centuries of precedent and established law and tradtion and I may have more respect for your position.