Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

  1. #16
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    no, instead he invites them up on stage and promotes their shit.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #17
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Yes, but so far he's a symptom of the problem
    True. And so are many other people in Washington.

  3. #18
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    yes but we arent talking about them
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #19
    Elite Member nana55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dreaming about being on a lake in Ontario
    Posts
    4,084

    Default

    This is so not right. How can they even think of doing this. Also all those people who said they were for Prop 8 because of the children being taught this in school, it just goes to show you, they are homophobes pure and simple. They aren't worried about the schools. They just hate gays. Obama, you better get rid of Warren before the inaguration buddy.
    If I can't be a good example, then let me be a horrible warning.

  5. #20
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    yes but we arent talking about them
    Touche'.

  6. #21
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    i was hoping that now that he's elected, he'd have the balls to tell the fundies to go to hell.
    It's not just the fundies that are against same sex marriage. The vast majority of Americans, including some liberals are. Having Obama in the White House does not suddenly change American opinions about gay people. Hell, it doesn't even change opinions about people of color.

    I can understand the anger, but I don't know why so many people are shocked. This is America. This is how people are. They won't change until we drag them kicking and screaming to change.

  7. #22
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Or equality is imposed by the courts.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #23
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    You're absolutely right, Grimm. In most cases it's the only way to see change.

  9. #24
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,807

    Default Re

    It's not just the fundies that are against same sex marriage. The vast majority of Americans, including some liberals are.
    I'm not sure I'd call it a vast majority who are against it...After all, the vote on prop 8 was fairly close. I think maybe if more time had passed between the court's decision to allow gays to marry and the ballot question, that opposition to gay marriage might have dissipated somewhat.

    Here in Mass, there was talk of a ballot initiative after same-sex marriage was legalized, but it never came to fruition. It still could, of course, but if it made it on to the ballot it wouldn't pass.

    It amazes me how people think that allowing same-sex marriage is "giving" something to homosexuals, when it is not giving; instead, it's not withholding a right.

    People can be fucking jerks.

  10. #25
    Gold Member ymeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    this is a mistake in strategy, a huge one...

    these folks are far more bitter than even I estimated.

  11. #26
    Elite Member Sweetie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Den of the roving cunty bitches
    Posts
    24,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Nice of Obama to invite one of those assholes to his inauguration to lead a PRAYER

    Fuck you Obama.

    Some "change"
    Tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen!

  12. #27
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,591

    Default

    I am not suprised Obama sees no problem in inviting Warren to the inauguration. Both Obama and Biden admitted they are not supporters of gay marriage. That is one issue both tickets agreed upon. I think it is in very bad taste this man was invited.

    Unions performed under the prior law should not be nullified. Retroactive law is unacceptable. That situation is a real slippery slope.

    Quote Originally Posted by mamaste View Post
    It's not just the fundies that are against same sex marriage. The vast majority of Americans, including some liberals are. Having Obama in the White House does not suddenly change American opinions about gay people. Hell, it doesn't even change opinions about people of color.

    I can understand the anger, but I don't know why so many people are shocked. This is America. This is how people are. They won't change until we drag them kicking and screaming to change.
    Obama being elected is just one early step on the million mile journey to complete change.

    If no one wants to listen to each other and discuss concerns civilly, that journey is going to double in length. Neither side is innocent here. Everyone is screaming and yelling and no one is listening.

    The true obstacle is the wording and people's perceptions of what gay marriage would mean. As I have stated previously, civil unions between two consenting adults regardless of gender, ethnicity, or any other labels, should be fully legal. Many of those who oppose gay marriage see the word marriage and perceive it to mean something it doesn't. Right wingers fear their churches could be forced to sanction and perform gay unions, jeopardizing the doctrines.

    State performed unions, with all the benefits and rights of marriage, should be allowed, meaning the fundies would just have to deal with it. On the other hand, churches should be given the choice to opt out of performing religion-based marriage ceremonies for gays and completely immune from any type of discrimination challenges which could arise, while retaining the ability to perform legally binding unions which are recognized by the state and are within the policies of the church. Churches which choose to officiate gay unions should be given the power to do so and have those unions recognized just as a heterosexual union would be if performed by a church official.

    One question I have heard many times is," If gays are allowed to marry, will churches be sued for discrimination of they refuse to perform ceremonies then forced to do so?" If the law is clear, showing church and state are clearly separated, the major obstacle standing in the way of gay unions being legalized is removed. Grant gay civil ceremonies, completely equal to ones offered to heterosexuals. Protect freedom of religion and block any, and all, possible future legal challenges against churches if those organizations refuse to participate in gay ceremonies. If the churches are not given the right to choose whether to participate, but would be forced to do something which goes against their beliefs, I couldn't support that any more than I could support one religion being given the rule of the country.

    The answer is quite clear, but arrogance on both sides has clouded judgment.
    Last edited by RevellingInSane; December 25th, 2008 at 09:53 AM.



  13. #28
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    One question I have heard many times is," If gays are allowed to marry, will churches be sued for discrimination of they refuse to perform ceremonies then forced to do so?" If the law is clear, showing church and state are clearly separated, the major obstacle standing in the way of gay unions being legalized is removed. Grant gay civil ceremonies, completely equal to ones offered to heterosexuals. Protect freedom of religion and block any, and all, possible future legal challenges against churches if those organizations refuse to participate in gay ceremonies. If the churches are not given the right to choose whether to participate, but would be forced to do something which goes against their beliefs, I couldn't support that any more than I could support one religion being given the rule of the country.
    The "If gays are allowed to marry, will churches be sued for discrimination of they refuse to perform ceremonies then forced to do so?" question is pure hyperbole, primarily on the part of those against gay marriage. No church is required to marry even heterosexuals! Churches are private organizations. If a non-Catholic woman and a non-Catholic man ask to be married in a Catholic church and have no intention of converting to Catholicism, the Catholic church has the right to deny their request. Same with any other church. I don't know why people, for whatever reason, think that all churches will marry heterosexual couples under any circumstances. The ultra pro-marriage Mormon church won't even allow heterosexual couples to be married in Mormon temples unless they are Mormons in "good standing," which includes documented proof of tithing 10% of one's income.

  14. #29
    Elite Member Shinola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Smokin' with your baby
    Posts
    4,211

    Default

    Setting aside all of the real concerns about civil rights, these may seem like petty observations, but here in Cali it was widely recognized that all of these marriages were a big boon to the faltering economy. I can't help wondering if any of the people who profited from the spate of weddings actually turned around and voted against gay marriage rights.

    There's something extra cruel about extending a right and then threatening to revoke it. Some of the couples who married had waited many years for the right and exercised it immediately and with a lot of joy. Finally, they were legally validated, and now someone wants to come along and erase it all. It's like some kind of nightmare.

    Also, some of these weddings involved children, who were presumably at the ceremonies and were proud to see their parents legally wedded. How do you explain to a kid that the marriage is no longer valid? I mention this specifically because some friends of mine, whose son is my son's age, were the first lesbian couple to marry in my county after the laws changed.
    Posted from my fucking iPhone

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nigeria arranges 'HIV marriages'
    By Honey in forum News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 7th, 2008, 02:04 PM
  2. Tour sponsors almost killed Mary J Blige with booze gifts
    By MaryJane in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 06:38 PM
  3. Hollywood's Top Sham Marriages
    By AgentOrange in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: November 6th, 2005, 04:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •