Did you just say they all look alike?
For me personally......no. They're goofy religious bigots too. Now that racism is over I can say this without retribution right?
disappointed in California and Arkansas
- Thread starter cannondalejunky
- Start date
For me personally......no. They're goofy religious bigots too. Now that racism is over I can say this without retribution right?
i should post just cuz i noes Mods & Admins have to read it..
If only the gays would have setup portable basketball goals outside of the voting locations, they would have won.
Because Mormon churches strategically funded this from out of state, influencing a congregation that, in the words of a Mormon biz owner in SF, "like all of you, but my church told me to vote 'yes' on this." The Mormon vote was likely 95% yes on 8.
I agree that the black community bears some major blame, but where do you direct it? There's no central cabal that gets on the phone with every black pastor in the state. You don't know whether the predominantly black church down the street was specifically preaching this or not.
"blame"? not "credit"?
either way, it seems the militant arm of the gay community (sorry, i don't how else to describe it) has decided the time for conversation & appeal to reason is over, which will come back to bite them on the back of their collective shoulder.
Just like it bit the negroes, right?
well, at least they got the message after plessy v. ferguson & went back to their lives as closeted black people
ed: ^^^^ this is sarcasm
i find the whole thing a tangled mess: as groups, the mormons & blacks are specifically protected under the civil rights of 1964, so some gays are (perceived to be) infringing upon their civil rights. but then, marriage isn't about civil rights, now is it? one cannot claim a religious right in order to practice polygamy.
then there's the will of the people, which gov schwarzenegger supported only 2 yrs ago, only to reverse himself w/o citing any new & relevant information (just electability & to pander to whomever is more likely to keep him in office).
Last edited:
Plus there's that whole thing about there not being a single friggin 'right' that's infringed upon by two like gendered folks getting married.
I'm to the point now that I'm getting punchy with anyone who says the gay agender is infringing upon their rights.
true, yet i don't believe this is viewed as an overarching sentiment by pro-prop 8 types, but the violent backlash however...
you gonna get all techno viking @ the tabernacle?
It is when the government/states recognize marriage and provide specific affordances to citizens that are in one.
If states were to stop referring to traditional marriages as "marriages," a religious term, and start referring to them as "civil unions," a secular term, I suspect we could get much further on this topic.
It abosolutely is.
If you lived in california this wouldn't be news to you. Every radio spot I heard mentioned specifically that Prop 8 defended the CIVIL RIGHTS of traditional couples. Its passing tells me this was not an uncommon sentiment.
edit: and what ohio said. The very term itself grants allowances. Prohibiting the vocabulary prohibits these allowances. You've filled out your taxes before right? Remember the 'married' parts?
Last edited:
this may be an effective way to argue for it, even if it does smack of 'property ownership'
further, indeed.
just thinking of the fundamentally pervasive re-work of existing law is dizzying. and it would have to come at the cost of existing protected groups. to suggest this would quickly be met with "so you actually don't respect the civil rights of all, just some". this is to say nothing of the perceived indoctrination which must take place in our schools. and that churches would be legitimate targets of hate crime legislation.
do you see it this way, too? not that's it's good or bad, just checking if you think my predictions seem reasonable & expected.
Even if African Americans voted 50-50, the prop would have still passed, so blaming it on them is a bit silly, when the Mormon Church probably convinced more people to vote yes than rather than the much smaller number of African-Americans that voted yes.
you think the mormon church is more influential in california that the black voting bloc? man, you are out of touch. there's about 500K lds members in california (source), and their voting numbers are smaller than that, even if we assume member == voter, which is in itself a stretch. side note: 500K is roughly the same number by which prop 8 passed.
if anything, seeing a tv spot as sponsored by "teh church of jc of lds" would have more the opposite effect. they have deep pockets & distorted egos to proclaim they were the reason why prop 8 passed. funny, no one ever stops to think about the people whose minds were already made up apart from the lds church. to suggest otherwise you'd have to believe that if the lgbt community just spent a few million more the measure would have been defeated.
relevant excerpt from freakanomics: http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections
$17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million, which allowed them to commit a massive misinformation campaign. They didn't say it was sponsored by LDS, they donated money to protectmarriage.com and various other PACs.
African-Americans constituted 10% of the vote, 70% voted yes, which means that if African-Americans voted 50-50, it still would have passed, although by a much slimmer margin. The Mormon Church is catching flak, and rightly so.
African-Americans constituted 10% of the vote, 70% voted yes, which means that if African-Americans voted 50-50, it still would have passed, although by a much slimmer margin. The Mormon Church is catching flak, and rightly so.
Last edited:
like these?
"catching flak"? for what? exercising their constitutional right to free speech?
I didn't see any outright lies like the Mormon Church put out.
It wasn't just exercising free speech, it was stripping away a basic civil right. If a left-wing PAC put a constitutional amendment on the ballot banning protests in california, people would be going nuts. I realize that it isn't comparing apples to apples exactly, but in Loving v Virginia, they did say that marriage is a basic civil right, much like protesting.
It wasn't just exercising free speech, it was stripping away a basic civil right. If a left-wing PAC put a constitutional amendment on the ballot banning protests in california, people would be going nuts. I realize that it isn't comparing apples to apples exactly, but in Loving v Virginia, they did say that marriage is a basic civil right, much like protesting.
Not sure if I follow. I suspect a misunderstanding on one side.
I'm not asking us to de-recognize marriage. What I'm proposing is purely a change in semantics, not rights. Stop referring to marriage as marriage in any legal or governmental context, and just call it a civil union. Anyone in a recognized marriage keeps the same exact rights.
Given the passage of law and response in states allowing "civil unions" for same sex couples, it seems like a major hurdle for many religious types is simply calling these relationships a "marriage" as it doesn't jive with what the bible tells them a marriage is. In fact, the Republican Party has used exactly this fact in framing the challenge as "Gay Marriage" knowing that would mobilize the base. States that allow civil unions, still have a problem with separate but equal... my proposal is rather than try to make gay marriage equal to traditional marriage, why not make traditional marriage equal to gay marriage and get religious verbiage out of the law where it doesn't belong anyway.
Or at the very least, do what the Brits did and compromise. Civil unions and marriage have the exact same legal standing, not like our discriminatory civil unions. The marriage should be the ceremony, and civil unions should be the state recognition of it, but I don't see that happening.
For spreading lies (outright, blatant lies. like bigger than Colin Powell's) in an effort to deny other citizens of their civil rights.
Those are awesome!
cept that last one
That was gay as fvck.
This is much less awesome. And hence, relies on a weaker and therefore false premise.
faggots after your kidz, threatens your marriage, threatens your religious freedoms!!????
Give me a fuggin break
edit: all your straight kidz are belong to us™
Last edited:
The propaganda campaign behind prop 8 was overwhelmingly funded by Mormon sources and even more disturbing was the out of state origins of said funds.
To oversimplify, Utah had more influence over Californian policy than California, and that is wrong no matter which way you look at it.
To oversimplify, Utah had more influence over Californian policy than California, and that is wrong no matter which way you look at it.
i can get down on that.
Are you advocating Fairtax or ditching the progressive tax system?
Because we want to encourage people who want families to be married, and (L)lord knows they won't do it without a tax break.
Looks like someone is listening to you: LINK
Theory is that Arnie could do an end run around the language of Prop 8, by doing exactly what you suggest.
update: gays to boycott utah resorts
ummm...isn't this exactly what mormons want?
to say nothing of targeting this group due to their religion borders on violating their civil rights. (thinking of the expected 'outrage' if another group said: "don't patronize teh gheys b/c we don't approve of their actions")
ummm...isn't this exactly what mormons want?
to say nothing of targeting this group due to their religion borders on violating their civil rights. (thinking of the expected 'outrage' if another group said: "don't patronize teh gheys b/c we don't approve of their actions")
<Tour Guide>And, if you look to the left side of the bus, you'll see another dumbass American who doesn't understand what the Constitution means.</Tour Guide>
is this the part where you find no problem at all w/ teh separate but equal eharmony for teh gheyz?silver said:
There was a senator that came to my school today and was saying that once a senator gets into office, they immediately have to start doing things to get themselves re-elected for that position. So what they will do is vote on the issue on which their political party agrees with even if they have a different opinion. But, if you were to vote differently, they would not hire you to that position again next year because they did not like that you were voting against them on some occasions. The message here is that, the people that vote for this stuff are just sucking up to their party so they can get hired again in two years, they are just robots and don't really give a crap what is right for society, they just want that position in government. This is all just dirty politics inside of dirty politics. BASTARDS!!!!!! shall they live a baconless, beerless, girless, life while burning in hell.
Jersey, that is definitely true for the House, but not so much the Senate. They are supposed to be representatives of their district, which is why someone like Ron Paul who disagrees with the Republicans on a lot of things can keep getting elected.
Representing their constituents isn't dirty, it is as clean as politics will ever get.
Representing their constituents isn't dirty, it is as clean as politics will ever get.
Much legislature of houses dyslexic?
Last edited:
I disagree, was Kerry less motivated to be President than Bush? It is a matter of poor campaigning, not motivation or desire.
The most votes win.
More people voted to ban gay marriage.
Case closed.
Good intentions alone don't produce results, you need to act on those intentions. Simply blaming the momos for buying more ads doesn't justify the inability of the pro-marriage folks to convince the fence-sitters to vote against the ban.
Do you think the Republican whining about Obama's ad budget is legit? McCain was obviously motivated to win.