Keith Olbermann

[Purseval]

And I will again state my opinion on the matter...

You're entitled to your opinion and I acknowledge it, for what it's worth (which is exactly 1 vote, same as mine)

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I would find it objectionable to have anything set on fire in my front yard. Fire is damaging, destructive and can be deadly.

 

[Goofyluver]

You're entitled to your opinion and I acknowledge it, for what it's worth (which is exactly 1 vote, same as mine)

And if we both lived in California...unfortunately, in this case...your vote would have just cancelled my vote.

 

[chrisw127]

But everyone is equally protected, NO one can marry someone of the same sex, that is NO ONE. And the CA court can only rule on CA law, the guidelines for their rulings must be the state constitution. If anyone is going to be able to stike it down it will be the US supreme court, and they have already recently ruled that it is a states issue. I wouldn't hold your breath on it going down.

I'm actually a lawyer who worked in civil rights defense for a good while (mostly 4th amendment violations, as it was for law enforcement) before becoming a SAHM, however I wouldn't begin to say that I understand how complicated this situation is. I think however, you may have missed my point. The CA state constitution has an equal protection clause. This amendment changes that clause so they are not just adding an amendment, they are fundamentally changing the constitution. In addition, the CA supreme court has already ruled that a similar statute is unconstitutional based on the state's constitution. These are only two strikes against Amendment 8. If you want to take it a step further, they have already granted 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples. Courts generally will not take away rights that have already been granted. Where does that leave California but in an embarrassing legal situation where some same-sex couples have legal unions and others do not?

In the end, there are a lot of brilliant legal minds who want a piece of history, which is what this will be when it's challenged and struck down. I don't think you can stop this one. If you do, you don't know lawyers very well.

 

[Purseval]

I personally don't find it funny at all...and fail to see why someone would.

Because the original point of the poster was that somehow being "progressive" and having more money was actually going to matter. He was gloating, I pointed out the hole in his logic.

In addition, I agree. It is ugly. It's ugly that an entire group of people are being discriminated against. Very. Ugly. Indeed.

Then I suggest you forget about Mormons and little old white ladies with crosses, head down to Compton and go after the people mainly responsible.

 

[chrisw127]

The progressive side spent $40 million to get Prop 8 defeated. Very smart investment But they did throw their money away legally and peacefully, it's only since they lost that things are starting to get ugly.

Hey, if you're going to make an omlette, you've got to break a few eggs. I'm sure the conservatives spent quite a lot of money too.

Besides, the gays:

More money.

Better lawyers.

Nicer clothes.

And hey, if evangelicals are wasting their money fighting this, whose going to save all those babies they're going to adopt when abortion is made illegal? Whose going to scare teenage girls in front of abortion clinics? Got to get your priorities right, people.

 

[Goofyluver]

Because the original point of the poster was that somehow being "progressive" and having more money was actually going to matter. He was gloating, I pointed out the hole in his logic.



Then I suggest you forget about Mormons and little old white ladies with crosses, head down to Compton and go after the people mainly responsible.

Every single person who voted for Prop. 8 is equally responsible.

 

[Master Mason]

I'm actually a lawyer who worked in civil rights defense for a good while (mostly 4th amendment violations, as it was for law enforcement) before becoming a SAHM, however I wouldn't begin to say that I understand how complicated this situation is. I think however, you may have missed my point. The CA state constitution has an equal protection clause. This amendment changes that clause so they are not just adding an amendment, they are fundamentally changing the constitution. In addition, the CA supreme court has already ruled that a similar statute is unconstitutional based on the state's constitution. These are only two strikes against Amendment 8. If you want to take it a step further, they have already granted 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples. Courts generally will not take away rights that have already been granted. Where does that leave California but in an embarrassing legal situation where some same-sex couples have legal unions and others do not?

In the end, there are a lot of brilliant legal minds who want a piece of history, which is what this will be when it's challenged and struck down. I don't think you can stop this one. If you do, you don't know lawyers very well.

And there are an equal number of Brilliant Lawyers that feel otherwise and will make a lot of money making sure that it stands up. The constitution allows for the public to vote to change it. They did. Once it is changed, the supreme court can't rule it unconstitutional, because, guess what, it changed as per the constitution. As I said, the CA supreme court is not going to have the last word on this, if they even attempt to over rule it.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I don't know would you find it objectionable if someone were to light one on fire in your front yard?

Because the original point of the poster was that somehow being "progressive" and having more money was actually going to matter. He was gloating, I pointed out the hole in his logic.



Then I suggest you forget about Mormons and little old white ladies with crosses, head down to Compton and go after the people mainly responsible.

 

[Master Mason]

Hey, if you're going to make an omlette, you've got to break a few eggs. I'm sure the conservatives spent quite a lot of money too.

Besides, the gays:

More money.

Better lawyers.

Nicer clothes.

And hey, if evangelicals are wasting their money fighting this, whose going to save all those babies they're going to adopt when abortion is made illegal? Whose going to scare teenage girls in front of abortion clinics? Got to get your priorities right, people.

But it wasn't only the conservatives that voted the new law in, remember, this is one of if not the most liberal state in the union, and it still got voted in.

 

[taheenee]

But everyone is equally protected, NO one can marry someone of the same sex, that is NO ONE. And the CA court can only rule on CA law, the guidelines for their rulings must be the state constitution. If anyone is going to be able to stike it down it will be the US supreme court, and they have already recently ruled that it is a states issue. I wouldn't hold your breath on it going down.

Not everyone is allowed to marry the person they want to marry/love. I can go pull some joe schmo i've never met before off the street and as long as he is of legal age, not married to someone else and willing, I can marry him. But I'm not allowed to marry the woman I love, who is also of legal age and not married to someone else. Doesn't feel much like equal protection to me!

 

[Master Mason]

She was asking why someone would find it objectionable to stamp on an inanimate object. And I was attempting to point out that doing things to inanimate objects carries with it certain associations and stigmas.

ie burning crosses, hanging effigys, burning flags etc. They are all inanimate objects, but yet they all cause gutteral reactions. Just as stomping on a cross would do.

 

[Master Mason]

Not everyone is allowed to marry the person they want to marry/love. I can go pull some joe schmo i've never met before off the street and as long as he is of legal age, not married to someone else and willing, I can marry him. But I'm not allowed to marry the woman I love, who is also of legal age and not married to someone else. Doesn't feel much like equal protection to me!

Well, I couldn't go pull Joe schmo off the street and marry him. You may not like it, but it is equal.

 

[Goofyluver]

Well, I couldn't go pull Joe schmo off the street and marry him. You may not like it, but it is equal.

Inequality is never equal.

 

[taheenee]

Well, I couldn't go pull Joe schmo off the street and marry him. You may not like it, but it is equal.

You can grab his sister Jane tho, unless you're already married.

It's not equal tho. How come other of age, unmarried people that love each other can marry and I cannot?
And you should be allowed to marry joe too if you want too!

 

[Master Mason]

Inequality is never equal.

No man may marry another man, no woman may marry another woman. Sounds equal to me. Now if some men could marry other men and some women could marry women, then those that were denied would have a complaint of it not being equal. However as it stands now it is equal. I understand why they don't like it, but that doesn't make it unequal.

 

[Goofyluver]

No man may marry another man, no woman may marry another woman. Sounds equal to me. Now if some men could marry other men and some women could marry women, then those that were denied would have a complaint of it not being equal. However as it stands now it is equal. I understand why they don't like it, but that doesn't make it unequal.

That argument holds no weight. Because simply because you are heterosexual...you have the RIGHT to marry who you love...as long as that person is of the opposite sex.

A homosexual person has no options to marry the person they love...because the person they happen to love is of the same sex.

Unless marriage is equally offered to all...it will never be equal.

 

[taheenee]

No man may marry another man, no woman may marry another woman. Sounds equal to me. Now if some men could marry other men and some women could marry women, then those that were denied would have a complaint of it not being equal. However as it stands now it is equal. I understand why they don't like it, but that doesn't make it unequal.

Kinda like how no black people could use the white's fountains and no white people could use the black's fountains?? that kind of equal?

 

[Master Mason]

You can grab his sister Jane tho, unless you're already married.

It's not equal tho. How come other of age, unmarried people that love each other can marry and I cannot?
And you should be allowed to marry joe too if you want too!

Trust me, I don't want to marry joe, guys are gross, I don't know how women put up with us, but that's a whole other discussion.

To you question, you can marry, just not another woman.

Which brings me back to my point of removing the word from the equation. There have been a number of people on this thread that have said unequivicoly that they would have no problem with civil unions that grant the same rights as mariage. I think that there are a whole lot of people out there that feel the same way. I would think that those effected would be most interested in the rights they are looking for rather than the word. After you get the rights, call it whatever you want.

 

[Master Mason]

That argument holds no weight. Because simply because you are heterosexual...you have the legal option to marry who you love...as long as that person is of the opposite sex.

A homosexual person has no options to marry the person they love...because the person they happen to love is of the same sex.

Unless marriage is equally offered to all...it will never be equal.

As already pointed out, my opinion carries some weight it was about 1/11.7M

And again, it is legally offered to all, some just don't want it the way it is currently offered.