The End Of Proposition 8!

[KittenAB]

That sounded very puerile, illogical, and atrociously judgemental.

Everyone is judgmental, so long as we don't act to harm other people then it's fine. The only time judgmental is wrong is when it's used to justify harming other people. In this matter, it is not. So I reserve the right to not trust people from California since the majority still support prop 8, and unless we get to see the majority vote on it, we'll never know ....

[LILJIM]

Now to get the rest of the government BS out of out personal lives

[Alexandra]

I didn't vote on this...if I remember. Since I moved, my voting district has been all screwed up anyways, I remember tis issue, and as with everything that someone thinks is important, there was a lot of fear campaigning etc. Fear that it would threaten the 'sanctity' of marriage and the whole institution etc blah blah blah.

As you know, the current "definition" of marriage is between a man and woman. To me this is a petty detail, and marriage is a promise and 'contract' if you will between 2 people who care and love one another to the point that they wish to spend their lives together etc. Who cares about the gender?

I'm willing to bet that the whole man & woman only thing was created by the Church. That way you have off spring to bring into the church and help it continue to grow and provide income and "pass the word" and 'grow' the religion, and along with that bring in more money which equates to more power etc.

Gay couples don't produce children...there for are essentially of no use to the power and control population who always want more more more.

I think this is also why Catholics have so many children and they treasure the birth process and 'self pleasuring' is frowned upon. Why are there so many people in catholic based countries...places that cannot take care of their population....IE Mexico. So they spill over into the US and everywhere else, bringing their B/S with them.

All of this of coarse was created centuries ago, back when (or may be before) they started printing pages of the Bible and other documents and people started to read. Prior to that everything of importance was an oral tradition, and only Monks and Church higher ups were educated and knew how to read.

I know this is a tangled mess, which it is in reality as well. This is centuries old thinking that really needs to be challenged and exposed and done away with because it has become VERY destructive.

Anyways, so yeah...Congrats and everything

Your partly right, mind you this is just a hypthothesis on my part but if you look at the historical context of when the biblical scripter was written think of the greatest enemys of the chirsten/jewish people, i.e. Greece and Rome both of which were openly gay/bi and at least in Greece's case possible in Rome too men often had male partners as well as a wife so my guess is that the damning of homesexualality came from that. as a farther note other cultures such as ancient japan also encoraged men to have a male partner as well as a wife, and in japan's case the male partners were considered to be even more imoprtant than their wifes so it can be assumed that hatred for homesexuality developed because of specific issues of the time for the jewish/christen people of old.

[Alexandra]

This is the problem with this country, if your not anti gay you must be anti Bible. Kinda sounds black and white to me. I would like to believe nothing has to be this way. Sure the first settlers came to the Americas because of religous repression. The forfathers wrote we will have freedom of religion. The context that it was written was rather freedom of expressing christianity, not anything else. Years later we were burning witches for thier beliefs. My point is, the US is suposed to be a free country, for us to have diverse beliefs and be nieghbors. I agree we dont need any laws telling us who we cant marry, and the catholic people can live next door so long as thier beliefs dont allow them to come through my front door with an ax.(I am not gay, and Im not anti gay)

A few things, one only some settlers came to America for religious reason the majority came for economic reasons. two while your sort of right about the founding fathers they were all well educated and I'm sure they knew enough about other religions to intend for religous freedom to be freedom of any religion, plus they were masons which isn't exactly christen its slightly differn't. three the witch burnings, unless your being metaphorical, happened a good while before the revolutionary war. beyond that I definately agree with you

[Alexandra]

Everyone is judgmental, so long as we don't act to harm other people then it's fine. The only time judgmental is wrong is when it's used to justify harming other people. In this matter, it is not. So I reserve the right to not trust people from California since the majority still support prop 8, and unless we get to see the majority vote on it, we'll never know ....

Judgment through predjudicous is judgement based on false words and beliefs, and to qoute Socrates

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."

[Leilin]

Everyone is judgmental, so long as we don't act to harm other people then it's fine. The only time judgmental is wrong is when it's used to justify harming other people. In this matter, it is not. So I reserve the right to not trust people from California since the majority still support prop 8, and unless we get to see the majority vote on it, we'll never know ....

As long as you realize that such is an incredibly prejudiced generalization, we're golden. To the rest of the thinking populace, I think the general hypocracy of your point is quite evident so not much more should need to be said on the subject.

[Diaper Mike 05]

I don't understand why Californians vote on anything. The two biggest Propositions I have seen in that state have had the majority of people's decision overturned (I was there when Prop 187 was passed by the people, then it was overturned in the courts - and I am not debating whether I feel it was valid or not since I was 12 when the vote was passed).

It's good that people somewhere are seeing gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriages.

[Leilin]

I don't understand why Californians vote on anything. The two biggest Propositions I have seen in that state have had the majority of people's decision overturned (I was there when Prop 187 was passed by the people, then it was overturned in the courts - and I am not debating whether I feel it was valid or not since I was 12 when the vote was passed).

It's good that people somewhere are seeing gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriages.

The state's constitution has a rather idiotic few rules wherein any civil issue (including those that require funding) can be passed on a simple majority, whereas any increase in funding requires 2/3 of their legislature.

[KittenAB]

I don't understand why Californians vote on anything.  The two biggest Propositions I have seen in that state have had the majority of people's decision overturned (I was there when Prop 187 was passed by the people, then it was overturned in the courts - and I am not debating whether I feel it was valid or not since I was 12 when the vote was passed).

It's good that people somewhere are seeing gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriages.

This is part of my point, oddly. The democratic portion of our government is fading, little by little. Although the laws should not be bias in any way toward anyone, it's a scary thought in itself that anything can just be overruled by the government at any time. If someone has to be told to be tolerant, they are still not tolerant, instead they just hide it better.

[Saschadzg]

it's a scary thought in itself that anything can just be overruled by the government at any time. If someone has to be told to be tolerant, they are still not tolerant, instead they just hide it better.

Has already happened in other parts of the world in the 20th century.

[Alexandra]

Has already happened in other parts of the world in the 20th century.

two things one where in the world aside from dictatorships, and two we're in the 21st century unless reffering to some time between 1900-1999 then can you be more specific because a lot happened in that century.

This is part of my point, oddly. The democratic portion of our government is fading, little by little. Although the laws should not be bias in any way toward anyone, it's a scary thought in itself that anything can just be overruled by the government at any time. If someone has to be told to be tolerant, they are still not tolerant, instead they just hide it better.

1. we're a democratic republic not just a democracy theres a big differnce. two law aren't just overruled its rather difficult to overturn a law, state or federal, and even this overruling of prop 8 is no true end, not until it reachs the supreme court and if it is judged unconstitutional there thats the end of it, but even the supreme court can have its power checked by either the legislative or executive branchs so the government is not nearly as black and white as you seem to think it is. and while your right you can't force some to be something they are not but in the same way murder isn't legal just because it someones a murder they won't stop just because its against the law I'd rather people be forced to at least act tolerant towards others even if they aren't really tolerant.

[Leilin]

This is part of my point, oddly. The democratic portion of our government is fading, little by little. Although the laws should not be bias in any way toward anyone, it's a scary thought in itself that anything can just be overruled by the government at any time. If someone has to be told to be tolerant, they are still not tolerant, instead they just hide it better.

Luckily, we're not a pure Democracy, but a Democratic Republic, wherein we have protections that are designed with just these sorts of cases, where the majority vote to remove the rights of a minority, in mind.

[KittenAB]

I love being corrected when I was not wrong. Yeah. Both of you, reread what I wrote, just reread it over and over and over again until it makes sense. It's plain and correct English, you'd think one of you being a grammar nazi would understand what I posted there.

[Alexandra]

I did and its not a gramatical issue there is a real difference between a democracy and a democractic republic, the differnce being that a democracy is simply the idea of people controlling the government through equal voting. but a democratic republic, which is what we are, is the governmental state where the people elect public offical who represent them in a democractic process that is guided by a set of guide lines that well protect the rights of the people. so basically what your saying makes no sense unless your trying to say that we no longer get to vote for the people in government and to say that the democractic portion of our government is fading is simply wrong because that would mean or to be even clearer here is the definitions of democracy from dictionary.com

1.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.

a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3.

a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4.

political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5.

the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

now the first definition simply doesn't appy to america because people don't have supreme power we have the power to choose who to give supreme power to but not ourselfs, this is more of a direct democracy such as Athens. the second and fifth don't aply to this disscussion. the third one proves you statement wrong because the remove of this prop gave the homesexual equal, or closer to equal, rights and priviledges so the democracy in this sense is actually stronger than before. the fourth diffition is the same as the first so again your statement is debunked.

So I'll be far I should have clarrifyed when I correct your use of the word democratic I assume you used in the 1st definitions sense, i.e. that the peoples power is being taken away, which again is wrong because we never had that power for some vary good reasons not the least of which being that the founding fathers realised that it would be impossible for every american to be as informed as he/she needed to be to function in a direct democracy.

[Leilin]

I love being corrected when I was not wrong.

Nice nonsequitur, since not a single thing you've posted in this thread has been based in a little thing called reality.

Since the Supreme Court and other courts of the land have existed, it has been their responsibility to see whether the actions of state and federal governments violate the individual protections set down by the constitution. The fact that you are ignorant of that doesn't make you right. It just makes you funny.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with that thing, you know, the constitution?

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.

Judicial review, which you continue to rail against, is "not a precedent" about as much as Ron Paul is "not an anti-federalist authoritarian."

[longtract]

This is good news.

Eventually Gay Marriage will be legal everywhere. Conservatives are fighting a losing battle that even some of them realize is futile. The conservative movement is dying because it refuses to be inclusive and alienates everyone who is not a WASP male living in the south. The demographics just don't work for the Republicans anymore. I'm very positive on the political course of America in the future. The only obstacle is the refusal of Republicans to allow this country to be governed by filibustering everything that is not exactly to their liking.

[Diapered Jason]

...The conservative movement is dying because it refuses to be inclusive and alienates everyone who is not a WASP male living in the south. The demographics just don't work for the Republicans anymore. I'm very positive on the political course of America in the future. The only obstacle is the refusal of Republicans to allow this country to be governed by filibustering everything that is not exactly to their liking.

Sadly this is true. While I think conservatism should be there as a balance to provide caution to change, the Republican party has been asinine and overreaching as of late. We should never forget our roots, but at the same time we should not cling to them. While it is clear the conservative movement has over extended itself recently, eliminating it all together would be a mistake. I just hope they realize the folly of moving further right instead of towards the center soon, or they will not survive the next elections.

[KittenAB]

Ignoring the two Hipster Trolls, the conservative and liberal angle both need to die, really. We keep swinging from one extreme to the next. Now when the cons are in charge, armed with the power to overrule anything voted on, do you believe they will ignore that power?

[Leilin]

Ignoring the two Hipster Trolls, the conservative and liberal angle both need to die, really. We keep swinging from one extreme to the next. Now when the cons are in charge, armed with the power to overrule anything voted on, do you believe they will ignore that power?

Edit: I take it back. I am now convinced that you're bored and trolling. Projection is a good tactic. I will not be responding to you in the future.

[Alexandra]

Edit: I take it back. I am now convinced that you're bored and trolling. Projection is a good tactic. I will not be responding to you in the future.

agreed

[Diaper Mike 05]

We keep swinging from one extreme to the next. Now when the cons are in charge, armed with the power to overrule anything voted on, do you believe they will ignore that power?

Ignoring the first part of your post...

Right thought, except I don't think that this is the right thread for it. In government, both sides are working to one-up the other (hence why I only once voted major party in an election and it was the California recall election of 2003, but that was on the candidates qualifications only), and both sides are represented by the extremists of their party.

Also, you might want to work on how you word things. Even if you disagree with what people say, you're going to get more respect in a debate if you don't come across as a troll.

[Leilin]

Ignoring the first part of your post...

Right thought, except I don't think that this is the right thread for it. In government, both sides are working to one-up the other (hence why I only once voted major party in an election and it was the California recall election of 2003, but that was on the candidates qualifications only), and both sides are represented by the extremists of their party.

Also, you might want to work on how you word things. Even if you disagree with what people say, you're going to get more respect in a debate if you don't come across as a troll.

The reason why I have stopped responding to her is not just this thread, but EVERY other thread she has recently posted in or started. She has taken a softly worded tack of responding to everything with literally the most offensive viewpoint possible, in context.

Just look at the multiple stances she has taken here.

1. The courts overturning prop 8 is bad because... now she can't use Prop 8 as a litmus test and she distrusts all Californians, but she's really pro gay rights, amirite? She's just concerned that this will prevent people who might move there from seeing the true nature of California.

2. This is a HUGE violation of precedent, despite the fact that the precedent of the courts doing this turned 210 years old this year.

3. Everybody who likes facts and is pointing the facts out to her is just a "hipster troll."

She purposely ignores facts and makes things up to start arguments, and it is evident in almost every post she has made on this site in the last two weeks.

[KittenAB]

I wonder why it's so hard for trolls to troll ... then I am reminded, even grammar nazis have their kryptonite. Yep, logic fails them so easily. So, when you go to California (if you're gay) and get the shit kicked out of you, beaten to death, then don't go crying to anyone else. In Washington we are considered one f the "safest" states for gay people, yet here there is more violence toward gay people. Trans are beaten to death almost monthly ... yeah, we're safe. The option was never put to a public vote, so people think we're a "safe state" for gays, but we are far from it. So what does that say about California? It says we can't trust them either. If you think that just because gay people have the right to marry in Washington makes them safe, dare you to kiss on third and Pine, double dare you to. If you're TG, forget it, you're dead unless you're me.

Yeah, the police know about it, and they arrest the perps, but the courts ignore this shit and let the killers out on technicalities. So if you want to trust California now, you're doing the same thing people do in Seattle. When the voters are overruled, then you are just giving them an excuse to continue their crimes without being checked anyway. A TG child, yes a child, was beaten nearly to death by an adult here recently, not her parents mind you. The police and courts did nothing. Nothing. So ... yeah. Just because something is legal in a state does not mean you are safer. So no, I will NOT trust anyone from California anymore than I trust those in Seattle now. Period. Government intervention only creates a more dangerous and volatile situation, no arguing that. It also gives the bigots a way to hide. I live from experience, not from mainstream media. Hipsters are the reason our society is falling apart, they allow the morons to hide, so yeah, Leilin is a hipster troll, and nothing more. Complaining about other people's mistakes yet never admitting his own .. hipster .. then dictating which mistakes are legit ... troll.

[Total Trash]

The option was never put to a public vote, so people think we're a "safe state" for gays, but we are far from it. So what does that say about California? It says we can't trust them either.

Personally, I wouldn't feel meaningfully safer in a state where 49% of the population was homophobic than I would in a state where 51% of the population was homophobic.

[KittenAB]

Personally, I wouldn't feel meaningfully safer in a state where 49% of the population was homophobic than I would in a state where 51% of the population was homophobic.

Granted, but at least you can see if they progress at all or just hide their resentment.