Don't get me wrong I totally agree with you..but I don't think taking religion out of politics will be happening anytime soon.
disappointed in California and Arkansas
- Thread starter cannondalejunky
- Start date
Don't get me wrong I totally agree with you..but I don't think taking religion out of politics will be happening anytime soon.
Sadly, I agree but every journey begins with the first step. If we never attempt that step than nothing ever changes.
Damn, this is getting heavy. I better pop over to the carnitas thread for some comic releif
Massachusetts is doing a pretty good job of it.
Some things should not be decided by popular vote, either because the issue is too complex to be comprehended by a non-expert based on text in a voters guide, or because it is not up to them to interpret the law.
I am not one of the folks that thinks this is of the same scale as racial segregation but I do think it's the right precedent. Brown v Board comes to mind.
it's the witch caucus being played out there
The constitution is designed to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority.
I'm sure if you had a ballot referendum re-legalizing slavery in southern states in the 1880s it would've passed, too.
Stupid.
Perhaps I should organize a protest in front of the jesus place in Santy Cruz...I'm sure I could get at least a few thousand to turn out.
fixed. agree that issues like this shouldnt be left up to popular vote. otherwise im sure most southern state would still have separate but equal schools and such
Public policy should be shaped by the will of the people unless said policy's purpose is the denial of rights.
In 2004 we had a measure to define marriage as between a man and a woman and the churches came out in force with lots of stickers and yard signs. I lived in a small town and it was amazing the amount of propaganda floating around. I voted against it as a middle finger response to the churches. As for the issue, I'm on the fence.....marriage is a religious thing that has been turned into a legal status. If gays can't marry, should I have been allowed to? I have a distaste for religion, yet had a ceremony and was married. The Governor recently signed a bill allowing civil unions for gays in Oregon, which I thought was the right thing to do
CA's vote has just changed the state constitution to strip rights from a minority. The state supreme's are governed by this document and amendment. The only recourse is Federal Court or to get the amendment removed from the constitution by another vote.
Funny that the two states that have legal gay marriage (MA and CT) arrived there via a decision by the courts. Protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority rarely happens in the voting booth, but once you've gone and changed the document that governs the state courts, you've really f-ed things up.
In the interim, however, I do like the idea of going after the Mormon Church's tax exempt status, given their heavy involvement, financially and otherwise, in this political issue. Doubt it would ever happen, but if they want to talk the talk (and fund it) they should walk it.
And now, the people who've had their rights stripped away are, righteously, starting to go after their persecutors: "No More MR. Nice Gay."
Last edited:
Good for them, fight the power.
hAiL yeayuH!!!
testify!
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
by race, blacks were most opposed (70/30) [whites split]
if anyone's been paying attention, this has resulted in mobilizing the gay kk
Old people also overwhelmingly voted yes, and in greater numbers than black people. Killing old people also has the effect of saving on Medicare costs
just close down all the country kitchen buffets
I'll use the words of the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia
They should have stomped her, and not just the cross.
She wants to strip a basic civil right of man from somebody, if she was protesting against freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or any other basic civil right of man, I would say the same thing. She is a bigot and a hypocrite.
Loving v Virginia banned racial discrimination for marriage, and hopefully Obama appoints some good judges and the same will happen for gay marriage.
Old people...bigotry? Nooooooo....
Lets just say I know a lot of mormons, and amazingly, they are totally stunned about having their temples protested. Like they weren't expecting such a backlash, and it is quite funny.
^^This particular phrase comes to mind:
Reap what you sow...
Reap what you sow...
when yoiu live in an insulated world (by design) it is very easy to believe that nothing exists outside of it. they never could have imagined that so many of the gays (or gay supporters... can't tell the difference) would live right downh the street from them.
Not an ounce of sympathy for this woman. She was aggressively but non-violently protested by people who she was calling sub-human to their faces. I think it was an impressive amount of restraint by the crowd considering the nature of crowd behavior, and the passion of the moment. A testament to that fact is that she saw no reason to move on. She clearly had no fear for her well-being and was just seeking to stoke the fire. Additionally, from the smugness of her demeanor, it seemed like the purpose of her vote was vindictiveness, not genuine belief.
**** her. **** her right in her little old lady ass.
Last edited:
Dang sister. You come out that closet swingin!
I had a nice post thought out but just pretty much got sniped by everyone.
I don't bring my dildos and anal beads to baptisms. Grandma ain't too bright.
agreed!
I agree but until we develop another system what are we supposed to do...I mean why even have a democratic process if people are just going to appeal every one that doesn't come out just the way they want it??
We have a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us, and they then devote their full time to understanding the complexities of government and evolving it in a way that advocates for their constituents.
I think ballot measures are idiotic in today's world. Almost no one can possibly understand them well enough to make an informed decision that takes the full impact of a measure into account, especially with all of the bull**** ads put out. People should not make laws. Legislators should make laws. That's what we pay them for.
There a lots of issues that are perfectly capable of, even well suited to, decision by public ballot.
At least here in MA, there are detailed descriptions printed in the papers and the ballot has a concise description followed by a simplified summary (ie. a YES vote mean you hate teh gheys).
Legislators are still in the pockets of others and don't always reflect their constituents on many levels. The recent marijuana decriminalization is MA is good example. It would be political suicide to a career politician to vote for that yet the public ballot allowed for it to pass overwhelmingly.
I do think that issues like gay marriage, abortion etc be handled by the SC, however.
I'm a big fan of direct democracy, however the more and more I realize that the majority of people are unfit to govern themselves, the more and more depressing it is.
Hell yeah, they're getting all defensive and cocoony.
Mind you, crap like Prop 8 is business as usual in Yootah, so for someone to actually tell them "fvck off" is new.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_us/suspicious_powder
which has me thinking: why is there so much anger, hostility, and now (perceived) domestic terrorism against pie-baking cultists, and not against blacks (who voted 70/30)? are blacks who voted against this harder to distinguish, or is there fear of literal & symmetric retribution, or are gays uncomfortable going after blacks for perceived racist reasons (which would be sweet irony, no doubt)?
which has me thinking: why is there so much anger, hostility, and now (perceived) domestic terrorism against pie-baking cultists, and not against blacks (who voted 70/30)? are blacks who voted against this harder to distinguish, or is there fear of literal & symmetric retribution, or are gays uncomfortable going after blacks for perceived racist reasons (which would be sweet irony, no doubt)?
http://jointheimpact.com/
slated for tomorrow: more protests
opinion piece in latimes: no gays for a day
but aren't mass boycotts & demonstrations just self-marginalization, which feeds into pro prop 8 types?
i suck at teh ghey think
slated for tomorrow: more protests
opinion piece in latimes: no gays for a day
but aren't mass boycotts & demonstrations just self-marginalization, which feeds into pro prop 8 types?
i suck at teh ghey think