A primary example of people who just don't get it.

[03_SHOOTER]

Now, I want to be clear about one thing, I am NOT posting this to in any way take a stance either for or against Prop 8, nor am I making any commentary on homosexuality or religion. I am however posting this as a very clear demonstration of the complete and utter disregard that some people have for the Rights of others.

You cannot intellectually honestly complain about your civil rights being denied, and turn right around and infringe on someone else's civil rights, much less assault them!

[SlightlyCatholic]

Not to sound bigoted, but since when are homosexuals a "civil rights group"? The big problem with "gay rights" is the fact that people who hold traditional Christian values about marraige are being painted as "intolerant" and "inflexible".

[DoubleHelix]

Prop 8 was nothing short of ridiculous. We have a ton of problems going on in this state, and people sunk millions we could've used into both sides of that campaign. It passed somewhere around a 52-48% vote. Since then, the opponents of 8 have flooded California streets. Most have been very peaceful, just trying to explain their message, but things like that aren't going to do them any favors.

I don't see where that guy gets off on insulting a lady for her beliefs, even less when its an elderly citizen. Somebody really ought to go out to Palm Springs and kick his ass

[SlightlyCatholic]

Prop 8 was nothing short of ridiculous.

I'd rather have the people of the state of California decide what they want for themselves rather than the California Supreme Court pushing a liberal agenda. If it happens out West, it'll hit the other liberal coast (my homeland) in no time. If my state's Supreme Court decided out of nowhere that I need to legally recognized gay marraige as valid without my vote, I'd be pretty upset.

[DoubleHelix]

Indeed, its much better than the court deciding for us. However, the proposition will be back in front of every judge in California before too much longer. What will follow is that there will be a similar prop the next time we head to the ballot. And so on, and so forth. It's gearing up to be a non-stop ride because neither side is willing to call it quits and back off. Meanwhile the Golden State continues hemorrhaging money towards and against this while were floating in an ocean of debt.

Prop 8 passed in this valley by about 3 votes for yes to every 1 vote for no. I'd like to see this put down and away now, so we can focus on the more important stuff. Like the state government trying to stick it's greedy hand into the surplus of money the cities in this valley have made.

[DaveIn3D]

41 years ago it was illegal for whites to marry blacks. The Warren court decided on June 12, 1967 to allow Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man to marrry. Something notable from the court..

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment."

Replace race with sexual preference and you get the same result. The people dont always make the most rational decisions. Nowadays inter-racial marriage is and not really looked down upon in most parts of the country. This is not saying however that the courts always act reasonable, but they usually have a better perspective of how their decisions will sound 20 years after the fact.

However, do not confuse this as my personal policy on gay marriage. I am for civil unions. If christians want to keep the term 'marriage' sacred, good. By all means..keep it. But do not deny people the same protections afforded to married same sex couples just because of their sexual orientation. My cousin, who i am close to, is a full bore dyke. Her last boyfriend was 10 years ago and he was one of my friends. He dumped her because he thought she was a lesbo. Turns out he was right. There is no going back for her. Are you saying she doesnt rate the same benefits as traditionally married couples?

-3D

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by DaveIn3D

41 years ago it was illegal for whites to marry blacks. The Warren court decided on June 12, 1967 to allow Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man to marrry. Something notable from the court..



Replace race with sexual preference and you get the same result. The people dont always make the most rational decisions. Nowadays inter-racial marriage is and not really looked down upon in most parts of the country. This is not saying however that the courts always act reasonable, but they usually have a better perspective of how their decisions will sound 20 years after the fact.

However, do not confuse this as my personal policy on gay marriage. I am for civil unions. If christians want to keep the term 'marriage' sacred, good. By all means..keep it. But do not deny people the same protections afforded to married same sex couples just because of their sexual orientation. My cousin, who i am close to, is a full bore dyke. Her last boyfriend was 10 years ago and he was one of my friends. He dumped her because he thought she was a lesbo. Turns out he was right. There is no going back for her. Are you saying she doesnt rate the same benefits as traditionally married couples?

-3D

I wasn't wanting to turn this into a discussion on homosexual marriage, but apparantly it cannot be avioded.

Dave, a question if I may, but exactly what "civil rights" are being denied to a homosexual couple that don't pertain to a heterosexual couple that isn't married?

[Billyd]

This looks more like "Free speech for me, but not for thee"

This is a fundamental problem in our society today. No respect for each other. Here is the one thing that everyone seems to have forgotten. If a heterosexual couple marries in Oregon, do they need to re-marry if they move to Florida? No, they don't. Article IV, Section 1, also known as the "Full faith and credit clause," instructs the several states the marriage record in Oregon MUST be recognized in Florida. Now, Florida just passed the Marriage Protection Act whereby a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, because of the "full faith and credit" clause, if a homosexual couple marries in another state, Florida MUST recognize it as such.

[03_SHOOTER]

Originally Posted by Billyd

This looks more like "Free speech for me, but not for thee"

Thank you Billyd, that's exactly what I was looking for. The utter and complete hypocrisy of some people never ceases to amaze me. Everyone is so consumed in "what's in it for me" that they never bother to even attempt to look at it from the other side of the equation, or for that matter to even try to punch holes in their own reasoning.

Originally Posted by Billyd

This is a fundamental problem in our society today. No respect for each other.

While I fundamentally agree with you, the number of mindless 'bots' running around today screaming at the top of their lungs about whatever the issue de jure happens to be, with absolutely no concept of reality, makes it VERY hard for me to extend any respect to some of them though.

Originally Posted by Billyd

Here is the one thing that everyone seems to have forgotten. If a heterosexual couple marries in Oregon, do they need to re-marry if they move to Florida? No, they don't. Article IV, Section 1, also known as the "Full faith and credit clause," instructs the several states the marriage record in Oregon MUST be recognized in Florida. Now, Florida just passed the Marriage Protection Act whereby a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, because of the "full faith and credit" clause, if a homosexual couple marries in another state, Florida MUST recognize it as such.

That is a good point, however is it really that simple? For instance, in some States possession of a certain amount of marijuana is 'legal', while in others it's possession is strictly prohibited in any amount. Can you go to California and buy marijuana that is within the legal limits there, but return to your home in another State and claim that it's still legal because you got it in a State where it is legal? Somehow I don't think that a Mississippi Judge would buy that argument.

[Billyd]

That takes us to Article VI, Supremacy Clause. While not intended to debate the merits of the various pharmaceuticals available, and the Constitution mute on this point, if a Californication resident is able to possess at home, why not while on the road in Mississippi?