Attorney General Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban »
Posted By ybdogsct 11 months, 1 week ago in NewsCalifornia Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, declaring that:
"the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification. There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. IIf every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."
"Rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may not intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment. Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an <b> 'inalienable' </b> right would establish a 'tyranny of the majority,' which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent."
Brown argued that Proposition 8 was not written to be retroactive and that the marriages should remain valid. Protect Marriage argued that no same-sex marriages should any longer be recognized.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
4271 Views Share Story 97 Comments Report
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 385 of 396 Comments (view all)
-
77%
rightfromwrong11 months, 1 week ago
-
30%
Pecossam11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
rightfromwrong,
Reply
There are two sets of parents in Arkansas who would disagree with you. Their 8 to 9 year old Sons were riding their bikes when they were accosted by 2 homosexual men who sodomized, tortured, and then brutally murdered these INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Do you really believe that sexual orientation substantially influences criminal behavior one way or another? If you do, then you are a BIGOT!
To find out more about the above mentioned case, I suggest you surf to the A.C.L.U., and NAMBLA web sites. They are both defending these SICKOS. And I say "SICKOS" NOT because they are homo or heterosexual, but because of their ACTIONS against these children. -
82%
slate11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who would of thunk it? A segment of society that makes up a very small percet of the society commits a smaller percent of crime?
Reply
Pretty hateful of you to vilify Heterosexuals for your cause. That type of approach will really further your cause. -
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
100%
ybdogsct11 months, 1 week ago
-
88%
Goppy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those of you who are familiar with my posts, know that I have a keen insight into the thinking of America's Modern Christian.
Reply
For those of you who don't, I have a short synopsis of the origins of the Modern Christian Conservative movement on my Propeller Profile here --> http://www.propeller.com/member/goppy/
In short, the Modern Christian Conservative is not really a Christian at all. It's more of a political expression with overtones of hardline bigotry. This way of thinking is found the world over ... most especially in third world nations.
If you notice, the Modern American Christian uses a couple of Old Testament Biblical references to homosexuality to stand in judgement of millions of Americans. Millions.
And yet, these same people IGNORE the numerous references and endorsements to POLYGAMY that are in the Bible. Many of the authors of the Bible were Polygamists.
Picking and Choosing references from the Bible to rationalize Bigotry and Hatred is as old as the Bible itself.
If you want to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ - you could do no worse that this simple message from Jesus:
"In short, there are three things that last: faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is love."
If you are honest in your comparison - you will see that America's Modern Christian Conservatives are a POLITICAL expression .... NOT a religious expression.
Equally tragic, the Modern Republicans have become a movement to Legislate Personal Behavior.
. -
100%
Goppy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know some of you may be quite skeptical of my reference to the Bible promoting Polygamy ... so I thought I would provide the Biblical references.
Reply
Exodus 21:10 - If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Deuteronomy 21:15 - If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
1 Kings 11:3 -He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.
These are but a few of the references, (and non-judgmental endorsements) of Polygamy.
There are numerous others.
Now, I'm not endorsing Polygamy. Lord knows, I have enough on my hands with ONE wife. But obviously, Modern Christian Conservatives are being disingenuous by claiming the Bible Commands them to stand in judgement of homosexuals.
Clearly, they are using the Bible as a bludgeon to demean behavior they don't like.
.
-
-
96%
not2needy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gays should be allowed to live, love, work, marry and have all the rights anyone else does, and should never have been allowed to become a "majority vote" issue at all! I have worked with many gay people, became good friends with several of them, and still keep in touch with them today. They provide invaluable services to this country, and need to be left alone.
Reply-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive21 Replies
-
-
95%
not2needy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My comments are disappearing AGAIN! Also, i have propped this article a dozen times, and i am not shown as one of the people propping this article either.. Guess i am going to have to go into exile again!
Reply
That said, Gays deserve the same rights as the rest of us, they work and pay their taxes the same as everyone else does. Discrimination in any form is wrong.-
reidgatorComment removed: Spam
-
-
19%
reidgator11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Responding to Eagle-Eye's post below (Propeller will not let me respond directly ???)
Reply
Your logic makes no sense!!!
Just WHO decides just what those "certain rights" are? If the right is not stated in the Constitution (US or California), then that right is not protected by the Constitution! If you rely on the Supreme Court to "infer" such a right, then, we are no longer a nation governed by laws, but a nation governed by men. We have effectively replaced the British crown with a panel of "kings & queens", each appointed for life. If they get to decide which rights we do have, then they essentially control all of the laws. Our legislative branches have become impotent, or at least subserviant to the courts. What happened to the balance of power between the three branches?
When the CA Supreme Court struck down the first gay marriage ban, one of the judges who dissented warned the others that they exerting an authority that they did not have. And she was right.
The fact is: the POWER rests with the PEOPLE!!! And the PEOPLE SPOKE!!
Are you really so stupid as to claim that the people can not decide the policies that guide their state or country?
Besides, as much as we want to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority", what about protecting the majority from the "tyranny of the minority"! In fact, if you look through the 20th century, EVERY single case of genocide and oppression was from a MINORITY ramming their agenda down the throats of the majority, using fear, violence, and intimidation to maintain power. So who should we really be afraid of???-
100%
ybdogsct11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
REIDGATOR :
Reply
"If the right is not stated in the Constitution (US or California), then that right is not protected by the Constitution! "
WRONG.
In fact, the converse is true. Any power not explicitly granted to the government by the Constitution is granted to the people. The Constitution was NOT designed to limit the rights of the people; the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the government. As per the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
REIDGATOR :
The fact is: the POWER rests with the PEOPLE!!! And the PEOPLE SPOKE!!
Are you really so stupid as to claim that the people can not decide the policies that guide their state or country?
WRONG AGAIN.
In fact, the Founding Fathers were very distrustful of the "mob" and had several built-in mechanisms to act as checks against the "tyranny of the majority." Judicial Review is just one of these checks. The Electoral College is another.
Jerry Brown argues that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, which states that no state law (even one passed by a majority of voters) can violate the Constitution. since Jerry Brown swears an oath to protect California and the Constitution (he does NOT swear an oath to protect the voters of California, only its laws), then Jerry Brown's request to void Proposition 8 is consistent with this oath since he views Proposition 8 as a violation of the very Constitution he swore an oath to protect.
http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/s/Supremacy...
"Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as 'the supreme law of the land.' The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it. "
Marbury v. Madison
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c...
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void , and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged."
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/93.pdf
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr=0...
James Madison: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void .”
REIDGATOR :
"In fact, if you look through the 20th century, EVERY single case of genocide and oppression was from a MINORITY ramming their agenda down the throats of the majority, using fear, violence, and intimidation to maintain power."
Baloney. Native Americans weren't driven to near-extinction by "minority" Caucasians. Neither were African-Americans subjected to discrimination by the "minority" Caucausians.
Your logic is as faulty as your knowledge of the Constitution. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive5 Replies
-
100%
Will131311 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact is: the POWER rests with the PEOPLE!!! And the PEOPLE SPOKE!!
Reply
Are you really so stupid as to claim that the people can not decide the policies that guide their state or country?
--
it the majority voted to reinstate slavery.. would that be legal... -
100%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
reidgator aka sock puppet....
Reply
"Responding to Eagle-Eye's post below (Propeller will not let me respond directly ???)"
Maybe it was God since you sound like a moron in your post....,.all I did in my post below was post what was said by the Attorney General Brown and agree with it......where did you come up with all this shizz..
"Your logic makes no sense!!!"
What logic????? All I did was repeat what the Attorney General said so I guess you think his logic makes no sense.. -
100%
memestryker11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So reidgator, if I convince the citizens of CA to banish you and they vote on it, we can run you out? This isn't about oppression BY homosexuals. This is about oppression OF homosexuals.
Reply
If you had a homosexual coworker, friend, or family member you might just decide they deserve the same rights as everyone else to pursue happiness. Why would anyone deny another individual happiness? Anyone who knows a long-term healthy homosexual couple knows they are as ethical, committed, and loving as any healthy heterosexual couple. Why should they have to hide? I think homosexual teens would benefit greatly knowing they can be who they are without trying to hide. Instead, many are even afraid to tell their own parents.
-
-
92%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."
Reply
I agree with him it will be interesting how the Supreme Court will decide with this argument. -
57%
cowboygrandpa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jerry Brown who personally supports same sex marriage...
Reply
Again we have the politicians not listening to the peoples' voices but going with their own agenda !!!!
Now some will say it is because he believes it is right, me I say politicians have a much deeper agenda. By backing those who don't support the amendment he is stripping away the voices of the people.
He is the Attorney General for the State not just those he agrees with !!!!!
He should be removed from office immediately for going against the voters wishes.
This is the second time that CA has said no !!!!!!! And it is the second time the politicians and cours have tried to step in and say to the voters we don't care what you say !!!!! We are going to do what we want !!!!
Right now the gay community is all for it,because it benefits them !!!
But what will happen if someone else comes into power who absolutely will not even tolerate gay behavior ????
Now, I have studied history enough to know that whatever one group take to the far left another comes in and swings to the far right.
Just be sure ya understand that when you allow one to do it ya allow the opposite to do it as well.
Don't be fooled by the hogwash of the unconstitutionality of the proposition !!!! This is a pure and simple power grab that has enough liberals behind it to allow Jerry Brown to do it !!!
Don't you find it funny the Governor is for him doing this ????
Look beyond the immediate "rewards" given to those who approve of this.
Look at the far reaching possibilities of this. When we get an ultra conservative attorney general, will he then ban everything and use the same process that Brown did, will he go even farther and say that the consenting adults law is against what is acceptable to him and therefore is not acceptable to the State anymore ????
All I'm saying is beware, when these politicians seem to bearing gifts it usually turns out to be for themselves or those who pay them for their gain.
Doesn't Brown have ties with many legal friends who would prosper from all the business this would create for them ?????-
reidgatorComment removed: Spam
-
reidgatorComment removed: Spam
-
reidgatorComment removed: Spam
-
reidgatorComment removed: Spam
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
89%
ybdogsct11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
COWBOYGRANDPA :
Reply
"He is the Attorney General for the State not just those he agrees with! He should be removed from office immediately for going against the voters wishes."
You and I usually agree on most issues, but on this issue I must respectfully disagree. Allow me to make my points in as civil a tone as I can in the hopes that you will reciprocate with a likewise civil, dispassionate tone.
Jerry Brown is essentially arguing that since Proposition 8 violates the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Proposition 8 should be ruled unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, which states that no state law (even one passed by a majority of voters) can violate the Constitution. Also, Jerry Brown does not swear an oath to protect California's voters; he swears an oath to protect California and its Constitution, which is precisely why he thinks Proposition 8 should be voided -- because it violates the Constitution he has sworn an oath to protect.
http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/s/Supremacy...
"Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as 'the supreme law of the land.' The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it. "
Marbury v. Madison established the authority of the courts to declare a law unconstitutional if it conflicts with the Constitution.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c...
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void , and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged."
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/93.pdf
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr=0...
James Madison: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void .”
The idea that the liberties and laws of the Constitution trumps even the vote of the majority is not a new one. In fact, there have been many instances where judges have overturned laws approved by a majority of voters.
For example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26759466/from/ET/?gt1=...
"A judge has decided a law banning sagging pants in this town is unconstitutional after a teenager spent a night in jail. Voters in Riviera Beach approved the law in March. A first offense for sagging pants carries a $150 fine or community service, and habitual offenders face the possibility of jail time."
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/andrews/en/haz/20060622...
"A Washington federal court has struck down a state law barring the federal government from sending radioactive waste to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation until all existing contamination at the site is removed. Judge Alan McDonald of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington found the voter-approved Initiative 297 violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The clause establishes the Constitution, federal statutes and U.S. treaties as 'the supreme law of the land,' and binds judges in every state by the documents."
http://www.ssbb.com/article1.html
"The voters of California enacted Proposition 187 to drive out undocumented aliens and to deter their entry by cutting them off from medical and other public services and depriving their children of an education. The statute was immediately attacked as unconstitutional in several lawsuits.
Based on the judge's statement, the written decision/order, when issued in January, will find that much of the statute violates two of the provisions of the Constitution -- (1) the Supremacy Clause, by stepping on ground preempted by federal immigration law; and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment, first, by effectively ordering the deportation of California residents without hearings or other due process of law and, second, by denial of free education to undocumented children, that Amendment's Equal Protection clause."
Like I said, we usually agree on most issues. On this particular issue, we happen to disagree, but I hope we can continue to discourse civilly and dispassionately anyway.
Feel free to respond.-
73%
cowboygrandpa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ybdogsct:
Reply
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me !!! Just because we don't always agree doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong or you are right and I'm wrong.
It means we see this differently. That is what I love about America !!!!! We have the right to disagree and still be free.
I don't agree with Jerry Brown because I feel that he is doing this because he stands to gain a lot from it. Not because it is in the best interests of CA or that it does violate the constitution.
I also believe that this will lead to some things later on that we will be really sorry for, in that someone else will come in and start pulling out all these other decisions and challenging them.
If proposition 8 was not legal why then was it allowed to be put on the ballot ???
As I said it was passed earlier in CA and a judge over ruled it.
I just think that if this allowed many will be sorry later.
I have no problem with the amendment being put back on the ballot for the voters to vote for again and if it passes it is the will of the people.
I just hate for the judges and politicians to lead from their beliefs instead of the voters voices. It is becoming far to common for one special interest group to not like the vote and fight it in court. While another then fights it in court.
I think very soon we will have a very conservative Attorney General here who will indeed revisit these issues.
Even judges are opinionated and legislate from the bench. My real fear is that the people in CA will become fed up and make the mistake of placing ultra conservative judges and politicians in power in response to these continued rebuffs of their votes.
-
-
-
32%
CHAM11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have had various problems in the past and my problems finally stopped when I downloaded Firefox. If you are not using Firefox then I can assure you that you will have problems.
Reply
To the Gay issue. Remember when Gay meant happy? Why not use the word Homosexual? Surely a Homosexual should not be ashamed of being labeled what they are.
I don't care what they want to call themselves. It's OK with me. One of the problems of calling a Male-Male or Female - Female joining a marriage is that it changes the definition of marriage.
Think it would be OK with the Homosexuals if we straights called our marriage something different?
One thing for sure about Homosexuals. If they remain true to their "choice" they won't last very long. They won't be any Homosexuals left, that is if its really in the Genes as they claim. Sure will put a drain on that Gene pool. Why? Well let me explain - Let's start with a story I'll call "The Birds and The Bees".
I have no problem with Homosexuals, as long as they don't demand that I become one, or if they don't demand that I accept their choice. I have no input on their choice.
I don't think they should be able to adopt children. Why should they want to adopt children? They decided not to have their own progeny when they chose the Homosexual lifestyle.
As to whether the Atty Gen. of Calif is refusing to uphold the law, and that's what he is doing, he should be impeached. It is not up to him to make law, it is his duty to enforce the law.-
-
-
94%
ybdogsct11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CHAM :
Reply
"Remember when Gay meant happy? Why not use the word Homosexual? Surely a Homosexual should not be ashamed of being labeled what they are."
I'm not gay, so I don't know this for certain, but I've never heard of gays objecting to be labeled as "homosexual." Even Propeller's hyperactive censors don't censor the word "homosexual." I don't know where you're getting this idea from.
CHAM :
"Think it would be OK with the Homosexuals if we straights called our marriage something different? "
"Separate but equal" has already been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. It is unconstitutional to have one marriage standard for heterosexuals and a separate civil union standard for homosexuals.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c...
"Separate is inherently unequal. We announce that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment."
CHAM :
"One thing for sure about Homosexuals. If they remain true to their "choice" they won't last very long. They won't be any Homosexuals left, that is if its really in the Genes as they claim."
Homosexuals have been around for millions of years longer than this marriage issue. Contrary to your claims, homosexuality has not gone extinct from the gene pool. Do you know why?
The reason is that although homosexuality appears to be congenital, it does not follow simple Mendelian genetics. Therefore, your reasoning that homosexuals will go extinct because they can't reproduce and pass on the "homosexual gene" is fundamentally erroneous at the molecular level. Homosexuals have never been able to reproduce, and yet millions of years into human evolution, they still persist.
CHAM :
"I have no problem with Homosexuals, as long as they don't demand that I become one, or if they don't demand that I accept their choice."
Most homosexuals feel that homosexuality is something they were born with. Therefore, it would be inconceivable for them to force you to choose to be homosexual, since they don't regard homosexuality as a choice to begin with.
Likewise, they're not asking you to "accept their choice" because they don't believe it's a choice. They are simply asking for equality -- to be granted the same rights everyone else has.
CHAM :
"I don't think they should be able to adopt children. Why should they want to adopt children? They decided not to have their own progeny when they chose the Homosexual lifestyle."
Homosexuality is not a choice.
CHAM :
"As to whether the Atty Gen. of Calif is refusing to uphold the law, and that's what he is doing, he should be impeached. It is not up to him to make law, it is his duty to enforce the law."
Well, we usually agree on most issues, but disagree on this particular one. The Attorney General takes an oath to defend California and the Constitution, not the voters. In his arguments, Jerry Brown states that the reasoning behind his opposition to Proposition 8 is that it violates the very Constitution he has sworn an oath to defend.
I can see where Jerry Brown is coming from, although I honestly don't know whether his argument will be enough to carry the day. SCOTUS may have to intervene.
Still, you and I usually agree on issues, despite our agreement on this particular one. But I hope we can continue to discourse civilly and dispassionately anyway.
Feel free to respond. -
60%
CHAM11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not a problem Ybdog. Just an observation of mine. I used to have several homosexuals working for me. We got along fine. One of the Lesbians went over to being straight. Has children now. Tells me she wonders why she once felt as she used to.
Reply
We had some long discussions about it. She was raised around some homosexual relatives but she doesn't believe that was a factor. But she tells me now that she no longer has any thoughts of returning to homosexuality.
Since I've never been one, I couldn't say.
But once upon a time she was very vocal , sort of an "in your face" about her life style. She seemed to want people to know and be shocked by her behavior. That is something that I've noticed as a sort of common theme.
She was working for me when she told me she was a Homosexual, that is she said she was gay. She told me what Gay women do. Of course she knew I already knew, she just wanted to say it. She admitted later to me when we accepted each other for what we were - one straight, one not, that she did her informing to "shock" me. I don't know why and I never asked.
She told me one thing I haven't forgot. She said I was sure in my sexuality. And when she got married and had children, she called me one day and said if it hadn't been for me and our conversations, she would still be trying to please her friends. She is completely happy now with her life.
I never passed Judgment on her. But I always wondered, why the "In your face" attitude about something that this woman chose.
That is my experience with a Homosexual. And why I asked the questions.
Ybdog - I can always agree to disagree and I have no problem with someone having a different opinion, except when they try to leave the impression that I'm not allowed to express my opinion. You are not that way.
-
-
13%
dissuper11 months, 1 week ago
-
50%
Pecossam11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hello, CHAM! How goes it?
Reply
Your "lesbian experience" reminds me of an encounter I had while riding in an elevator four years ago. The three of us, two young ladies and myself, had just entered the elevator car. When the doors closed, they both gave me a quick glance, and then (as if prearranged) they lip-locked french-style and hugged each other as if they were holding on for dear life. This went on for approximately 5 or 8 seconds. When they had finished, they again looked at me; for a response, I guess. When i didn't respond with the "expected shock" and disapproval, they looked upset. My floor was reached at this time and I waved, gave them both a smile, and departed. It was definitely an "in-your-face" moment.
Merry Christmas! -
89%
Sageparadox11 months, 1 week ago
-
88%
jordan1111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep all these weird people miles away from me, and I mean a lot of miles. Like on a Island in the Red Sea.>>>>>
Reply
I'll bet there are people you've known and liked who are gay. Prejudice really does a number on people's minds, like yours. While you run around villifying something made up in your head, you set yourself up as looking quite pitiful, & more than a little "weird" yourself. -
-
-
87%
CaptainLucid11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your logic is as stupid as you. Are gays trying to outlaw straight marriage or make you have a gay marriage? Exactly what are they ramming down on you? Gay rights to marriage and straight rights can coexist without any conflict. Banning gay marriage is an attempt to ram down your bigoted lifestyle at them and tell them how to live their life. What the F is wrong with people who spend so much money and time to make someone else unhappy by forcing their own hateful beliefs on others? You are a sick F*ck. By the way when you say same sex is abnormal you are again showing your massive ignorance of reality. If you knew anything about anthropology or primate behavior you wouldn't be saying crap.
Reply -
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
88%
jakesguile11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cappin, Cappin'!!!
Reply
Shhhhh.....let them dream, in their minds the animals don't do things like that, (in spite of the fact that I think I have photographic evidence somewhere in my house of two of my male cats bumpin uglies ((it looked hillarious so I just had to get a photo of it))).
-
-
-
91%
CaptainLucid11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In some cases yes. If the government wants to tax voting that is expressly illegal even if the state passes it. Damn, do any of you pro 8 people know anything about things like the constitution our country was founded on. Jerry brown is following the law but you are too stupid to know it.
Reply -
100%
Dionys11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Jerry Brown is a ass..He was a a govenor too. If he doesn't follow the law, his butt should be tossed out like the rest of us would be"
Reply
He is following the law, and his sworn duty. As Attorney General his duty is to protect and uphold the constitution before any other laws. This clearly violates the constitution, so he is following the law.
-
-
29%
fh193911 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This so called (gay) issue has a nice name now meaning happy in the dictionary. In reality it is sodomy and an unnatural act of the same sexes.If Jerry Brown tries to please these sikos he and the Judges should be recalled like Gray Davis and the head of the Ca. Supreme court Rose Bird.Throw them out of office. They are our servants and should follow the rules of the last election. Meaning no same sex mariage:
Reply -
-
86%
jakesguile11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poul, don't even bother hon, they're not from the last 3 millenia, they crawled out of their caves... actually...hold on a minute!
Reply
NEANDERTHAALS LEARNED ENGLISH! Furthermore, it appears they can type at least partially coherrant sentences! I must inform the govnah' of this impressive feat. QUICK, call a scientist, call Stephen Hawking, he'll be more than impressed with "The Little Neanderthaals that could"-
100%
jordan1111 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sounds like Jerry Brown is gay! He is supposed to support the laws of the state----amendments included. He should be impeached or thrown out of office.>>>>
Reply
He's supposed to support laws which are Constitutional, and challenge laws which are not. That's what he's doing. If our laws didn't have a base to start with, we'd be in chaos. Southern states would have kept slavery, with the majority voting for it. Women would still be barefoot and pregnant, & job discrimination perfectly fine in some states. Divorce would be illegal in some states, & women abused by their partners while the law looks the other way.
We're not a pure democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. And being a Constitutional Republic, we all start off at the same gate, with the same rights & the same protections. Those rights and protections aren't negotiable. That protects one person from the tyranny of a majority of people.
I'm amazed that in the 21st century, some people are still shouting "majority rules! Majority rules!" Well no, the majority does not "rule" when it subverts the Constitution. In this country, the last word lies with the Constitution. -
-
-
93%
Poulenc11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cham, above: "Remember when Gay meant happy? Why not use the word Homosexual? Surely a Homosexual should not be ashamed of being labeled what they are."
Reply
Gay may not be the ideal word--and in fact, one day, perhaps rigid sexual boundaries will ease sufficiently such that pigeonholing will be at least less necessary--but "homosexual" is an artifact of a time in which rigid, medicalized distinctions were thought necessary to separate "normal" people from those who were deemed sick.
Today, we know better.
"I don't care what they want to call themselves. It's OK with me. One of the problems of calling a Male-Male or Female - Female joining a marriage is that it changes the definition of marriage."
Precisely! Marriage is a human-made institution that's evolved over the millennial and can (and will) change again. The important thing to keep in mind is that allowing more people to marry strengthens the institution of marriage rather than the opposite. In other words, something is added, not take away.
"I have no problem with Homosexuals, as long as they don't demand that I become one, or if they don't demand that I accept their choice. I have no input on their choice."
Why should they? I believe we're in the realm of unjustifiable defensiveness/paranoia/condescension here--how would you feel if I said, "I have no problem with heterosexuality as long as they don't try to make me one."
As for accepting gay people as such (their sexuality is not a choice any more than straight peoples' is): acceptance is the goal, but, in the meantime, toleration will do. Toleration means that you live and let other's do the same. A corollary to the Golden Rule, if you ask me.
Finally, Cham, if I may: you talk about gays as if they existed on the other side of some great human divide. But they are a part of the same world you are. They're brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers, your children...you get my point, no? -
-
88%
david_nwpa11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It also looks to me as if a number of the comments posted on this forum are from sockpuppets and spammers. Many of the names listed here look like they are variations of people who have since been kicked off of Propeller and Netscape. Mayhaps I am mistaken?
Reply-
78%
jakesguile11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No mistake, the scum rides again. Kinda ****** you off until you realize how truly sad these sad sad fools must be. Having to take their anger out on Greg and Terry, Tim and Eric, Jasper and Ricardo.
Reply
I know it's rough without electricity, running water, gas, decent food, comfortable clothing, a kindergarten education or any of the other advancements from the last 2000 years...but DAYMNNN -
94%
Sageparadox11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
read it again people:
Reply
"Rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may not intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment. Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an 'inalienable' right would establish a 'tyranny of the majority,' which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent."
Simply put, just because the majority of Californians may want to discriminate and take away the rights of the minority (homosexuals), it does not more it constitutionally just or legal.
-
-
86%
patibarry11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow. I am so surprised by my fellow Californian's who I thought were more progressive thinking and tolerant of all others. NO ONE has the right to vote away another's right. Just as you can't "sign" your rights away even if an employer forces you to. For example, working overtime for regular wages. If everything were up for a vote, do you even think that the civil rights act would have passed? NO WAY! In 1968 the white majority of the country were prejudice against every other race. They would have "voted" their rights away too. So Jerry Brown is attempting to correct a wrong. This will prevail.Prop 98 will fall. And those of you who are homophobic will look as ignorant as a racist in the future, to the majority. We'll look back at this and think "those crazy homophobes!"
Reply -
87%
Eagle_Eye11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
""those crazy homophobes!"
Reply
Some times the most phobic are that way because they are closet gay but won't admit it so they feel good at putting them down thus relieving themselves from the guilt and thinking they have beaten it and are all righteous, etc. when in fact they are the smallest minded beings on the earth. -
-
-
92%
ETproductions11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
California is certainly a bellwether state as laws go. I felt when it was proposed that Prop 8 would be writing discrimination INTO a Constitution. To me, that is a VERY bad idea. After all the discrimination that Mormons have suffered, the fact they were at the forefront of the movement was instructional.
Reply
If we were to put it up to a vote which religion should control America, there are 70 million Catholics. So we should amend our constitution to be a Catholic country, because all those other "splinter" religions are minorities and they do things in their sanctuaries no good Catholic would ever countenance.
Then we could put what race you should be up to a vote. Whites, better do that one quickly, because we are soon to be the minority.-
83%
CaptainLucid11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Funny that another discriminated party was also big on prop 8. The blacks. I think it is truly sad that they can not understand the sameness between laws barring gays from getting married and laws forbidding blacks from marrying whites. As far a the morons from utah go F them they are an organized group of A-holes and deserve it and we should tax their ass like any other political party.
Reply -
33%
Endoscopy11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Explain to us where the discrimination comes into play. For thousands of years marriage was understood as between people of opposite sexes. In this country that was reinforced against the Mormons over polygamy. The Mormons were forced to accept the definition of 1 man and 1 woman. But somehow through magic a right comes into being that has NEVER EVER EXISTED before.
Reply -
100%
RedstateLib11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe we should have a vote removing all rights from white male hetrosexuals! they are no longer a majority. Lets let blacks, asians, hispanics, women of all races and gays decide if white hetro men deserve equal protection under the law. After all historically in this country they have been the group who is so found of the idea of majority rule!
Reply
-
-
85%
patibarry11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The California State Superintendent of Schools (Jack O'Connell) said that nothing about marriage is required subject in schools. It's propaganda. And if you think that this Prop 8 hasn't informed our children more than any teacher, then you missed all of those wacko commercials that then had to be explained to my 8 year old. I explained it simply enough.... "honey, some people just hate anyone who is different than they are. And now those people are trying to convince others to take away people's rights. It's called discrimination and it's illegal in this country. I hope that voters don't fall for it." He agreed. Too bad we were disappointed. I hope that wrong will be righted, and sooner than later.
Reply-
25%
reidgator11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If that is how you truly explained it to your child, then you are a liar and a child-abuser.
Reply
To tell your child that someone who has a moral objection to X just "hates" X is simply stupid and immoral in itself. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
If you or I can oppose racism, slavery, pollution, or anything else with being "haters", then, you or I can oppose homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage, why even polygamy without being "haters"!
Look at it this way: from your perspective, I am different from you. Does that mean you "hate" me?
Every time I read posts such as yours, I am convinced more and more that my position is right!
-
-
Cater1Comment removed: Hard Banned22 Replies
-
75%
babbs012811 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why was prop 8 allowed to be on the ballot in the first place. I hope Jerry Brown wins his case with the calif supreme court. What are people afraid of? Marriage is a civil union. You must go to the county building for a marriage license. That marriage can then be blessed in a church or not. That should be up to the couple. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a right of all people in these united states. Not for a select group. I think any monies churches spend on political issues those monies should be taxable. Why should churches get tax exemption on anything not directly related to church business.
Reply
Think of all the tax money we would get. We could have a balanced budget.-
89%
ybdogsct11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BEAVITH:
Reply
"please don't use state sponsorship to cram it down my kids throat until they are old enough to be able to make their minds up."
So that's your issue? You're afraid your kids aren't strong enough to remain heterosexual on their own?
What a coward.
LOL. -
25%
orndorffter11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
beavith1, I agree with you, thats what I was trying to say down below in my comment, I know two wemon who are married, and they dont hug ,kiss or anything like that around me, because they know how I feel, I have granchildren running around,and one of the wemon are my uncles wifes sister, I dont want my grandchildren to see anything out of the way, I dont want them to think thats how life is suspose to be, they grow up fast enough and well find out on thrie own. Right now no one is going to help them find out. all they know is that they are friends of the family and the wemon respect that, and they are nice people.
Reply
-
-
SageparadoxComment removed: Spam
-
11%
sting955711 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Repent...for the day of judgement comes quikly. For all have sinned and fell short of the Glory of God. If your reading this...you still have time....please understand our Lord Jesus loves you...but we must turn from evil....and pick up our cross and follow Him. Being homosexual is a sinful lifestyle, but so is a liar,cheater,killer,sexual offender,thief....we all have messed up....the only way out is Jesus...and He provides us GRACE. Thats why its called Amazing Grace, because none of are worthy, but because of what Jesus did,His Love, for all man,that we might choose Him,instead of sin. I don't hate homosexuals, I hate their sin, just like I don't hate liars,just their lying. God Bless...and may Grace find you in time!
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
CaptainLucid11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is why I hate fundies. Your idea is sin is perfectly fine as long as you tell god you are sorry everytime, I am an Atheist. that means If I do something wrong I man up and accept responsibility and try not to make that mistake again. I don't say sorry jesus and then act like it never happened. By the way jesus was an AHole Schizophenic who stole what people like Bhudda said better and earlier. You know what the difference is between jesus and the crazy homeless guy in the park is? 2000 years and a billion suckers.
Reply
-
-
25%
leilah11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fh1939: Sodomy is essentially a sexual act which cannot result in procreation.
Reply
Per Merriam-Webster: 1) copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal;
2) noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Thus, same-sex coitus is sodomy, So is anal sex, ******** and, by default, hetereosexual acts involving condoms and other birth control.
For centuries, people have regarded M-M and F-F sex acts as sodomy; but, then again, anal and ******** were not widely accepted as normal practices among people/Americans, including married couples, until the 1960's -- they were "sick" acts to be conducted in brothels. But the "Sexual Revolution" wasn't just for heterosexuals; as you opened the doors to the acceptance of nontraditional behavior, everybody walked through.
If you were born in 1939, fh1939, you surely experienced a woman calling you a siko (sic) when you wanted something other than the old missionary tango; so you just might have to thank your fellow siko's for finally receiving a shame-free b1ow job!-
-
-
Neutral
DarkWizard11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Call me sick, but I liked the whole sodomy diatribe. I mean, from the looks of some of these posts, I'd say a good dose of sex education was appropriate. Especially, the puritanical pundits who didn't realize that every time they have sex in any other position than the church approved missionary position or for any other reason than to procreate, that they are committing sodomy.
Reply
I know we are talking about the rights of gays to marry, just like their heterosexual counterparts, but maybe if heterosexuals were to really think about all the things they do in the name of "sex" (i.e. a glass of wine, viagra, birth control, sex toys, some innocent pornography (to get in the mood), foreplay, oral, etc.) maybe they'd realize that sodomy is sodomy whether between gay or hetero couples.
Now, personally, I could give a rat's ass what any church thinks of my sex life or anyone else's. That is between each couple.
-
-
100%
patibarry11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now, here we have an example of someone who attempts to force his/her lifestyle on everyone else. What did you say Cham about being "in your face" and like it's some kind of honor bestowed on someone and you ought to appreciate it? Well, this is a perfect example of that. Way more religious zealots than gay zealots.
Reply -
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
50%
CHAM11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of you jump to conclusions. Please go back up the string and read what I wrote to Ybdog. I do not feel threatened by Homosexuals. I just can't see why they are "In your face" about being a Homosexual, you know , like its some kind of honor bestowed upon them and you ought to appreciate it.
Reply
Really you need to read my reply to Ybdog.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.