Keith Olbermann

[Purseval]

Not at all. I see that the term "homophobic" is very appropriate when describing your thought process, sentiment and post above.

Of course it is, if that is your way of handling people who disagree with your rationale. They must have an irrational fear of you. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they might not agree with your position. Call me Democratophobic while you're at it because a lot of their positions are worse than yours, far worse.

ETA: As for your second point, you still didn't answer my question and haphazardly tried to distract others, what exactly is your position?
A. Yes
B. No

That would be be B. First of all I'm a Republican, one of the people who helped pass the Civil Rights Act while the Democrats fought tooth and nail (people like Al Gore Sr. and Richard "KKK" Byrd) to block it. Second of all, it's between a man and a woman. If you were talking about a black man marrying a white man change my vote to A. Is that exact enough for you?

 

[taheenee]

Of course it is, if that is your way of handling people who disagree with your rationale. They must have an irrational fear of you. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they might not agree with your position. Call me Democratophobic while you're at it because a lot of their positions are worse than yours, far worse.


That would be be B. First of all I'm a Republican, one of the people who helped pass the Civil Rights Act while the Democrats fought tooth and nail (people like Al Gore Sr. and Richard "KKK" Byrd) to block it. Second of all, it's between a man and a woman. If you were talking about a black man marrying a white man change my vote to A. Is that exact enough for you?

Doesn't sound like you're for civil rights tho, at least not for everyone.

 

[LakeAriel]

The name is Robert...

 

[Goofyluver]

Of course it is, if that is your way of handling people who disagree with your rationale. They must have an irrational fear of you. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they might not agree with your position. Call me Democratophobic while you're at it because a lot of their positions are worse than yours, far worse.


That would be be B. First of all I'm a Republican, one of the people who helped pass the Civil Rights Act while the Democrats fought tooth and nail (people like Al Gore Sr. and Richard "KKK" Byrd) to block it. Second of all, it's between a man and a woman. If you were talking about a black man marrying a white man change my vote to A. Is that exact enough for you?

The aim of the Civil Rights Act was to grant equal rights to citizens of our country.

Initially, the act was aimed solely at black people, but, the act was amended and expanded to include women, etc.

It is ridiculous to proclaim yourself one of the people who "helped pass the Civil Rights Act" when in the same breathe, you proclaim yourself to be against equal rights for all.

It's one or the other.

You either believe in equal rights for all of our citizens, or you don't. Picking and choosing who to give equal rights to is not equal at all...but remains discriminatory.

It's one or the other.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I support gay marriage 100%. Prop 8 is unconstitutional and there will be a challenge, and hopefully it is reversed.

Gays couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, nothing less. I don't support the separate but equal status either. It's just wrong.

I know many loving gay couples. Why should my DH and I share a union called marriage, and they aren't allowed? Makes no sense to me.

Equal rights, equal opportunities.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I support gay marriage 100%. Prop 8 is unconstitutional and there will be a challenge, and hopefully it is reversed.

Gays couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, nothing less. I don't support the separate but equal status either. It's just wrong.

I know many loving gay couples. Why should my DH and I share a union called marriage, and they aren't allowed? Makes no sense to me.

Equal rights, equal opportunities.

Could be the silver lining in the cloud...the folks FOR Prop h8 may have just helped the case go to the SCOTUS!

Gonna be hard to argue against equal rights on a constitutional level.

I hear gays got equal rights in MA 'n CT.

 

[chrisw127]

Well you can keep trying, there's nothing stopping you. But you have to realize there also isn't anything stopping people from pushing for amendments that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As long as it's done legally and peacefully you have to live with the results.

Well, it looks like Amendment 8 in CA will eventually be thrown out because it actually changes the constitution, which has an equal protection clause. So maybe YOU will have to get used to the progressive side being smarter and having more money and beating you in court! Hey, as long as it's done legally and peacefully, you'll just have to live with the results.

 

[Goofyluver]

Could be the silver lining in the cloud...the folks FOR Prop h8 may have just helped the case go to the SCOTUS!

Gonna be hard to argue against equal rights on a constitutional level.

I hear gays got equal rights in MA 'n CT.

I stepped into a classroom today and the teacher called me over to his computer and said:

"The country is going to hell in a handbasket."

Here, I'm thinking..."Gosh, he's so right. Our country is in financial ruin."

He points to his computer screen where he has pulled up an article on the internet...the title???

"39 same sex couples apply for marriage license in CT"...or something to that effect...

 

[Purseval]

You either believe in equal rights for all of our citizens, or you don't. Picking and choosing who to give equal rights to is not equal at all...but remains discriminatory.

It's one or the other.

If what you say was true it would have been decided many years ago. Just because you think it's discriminatory that doesn't automatically make it so. It has already been pointed out that civil union laws can be modified to make them exactly like marriage, differing only in name, but that isn't acceptable (the old separate-but-equal argument). My opinion, which is worth exactly 1 vote, is that you aren't interested in whatever rights you are claiming to lose. You merely think that calling it marriage is sticking your thumb in the eye of those dreaded religious people and showing them just who's who. I'm not particularly religious but I can see their point. Watching some *******s stomp on a cross only reinforces that belief (see one of the earlier posts for a YouTube link).

 

[chrisw127]

Could be the silver lining in the cloud...the folks FOR Prop h8 may have just helped the case go to the SCOTUS!

Gonna be hard to argue against equal rights on a constitutional level.

I hear gays got equal rights in MA 'n CT.

At this point, Amendment 8 is probably better argued at the state level because the Supreme Court is stacked against gay marriage. I mean, on its face, these amendments and statutes are unconstitutional, but if the court won't hear the case (and regards it as a state issue), then what can you do? However, there are really several strong grounds upon which it may be attacked at the CA supreme court, the least of all being that it's something that the CA supreme court has already ruled on and there is some argument of whether or not an amendment can come into place that goes directly against what the highest court in that state has already determined to be law.

In any event, I think it's only a matter of time before gay marriage gains legal status. I mean, what is it, 2008? Why is this still an issue?

 

[Goofyluver]

If what you say was true it would have been decided many years ago. Just because you think it's discriminatory that doesn't automatically make it so. It has already been pointed out that civil union laws can be modified to make them exactly like marriage, differing only in name, but that isn't acceptable (the old separate-but-equal argument). My opinion, which is worth exactly 1 vote, is that you aren't interested in whatever rights you are claiming to lose. You merely think that calling it marriage is sticking your thumb in the eye of those dreaded religious people and showing them just who's who. I'm not particularly religious but I can see their point. Watching some A-Holes stomp on a cross only reinforces that belief (see one of the earlier posts for a YouTube link).

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

You either believe in equal rights for all of our citizens, or you don't. Picking and choosing who to give equal rights to is not equal at all...but remains discriminatory.

It's one or the other.

When you deny people equal rights based on sex, race, religion, age, disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, etc...it is discriminatory.

 

[Master Mason]

At this point, Amendment 8 is probably better argued at the state level because the Supreme Court is stacked against gay marriage. I mean, on its face, these amendments and statutes are unconstitutional, but if the court won't hear the case (and regards it as a state issue), then what can you do? However, there are really several strong grounds upon which it may be attacked at the CA supreme court, the least of all being that it's something that the CA supreme court has already ruled on and there is some argument of whether or not an amendment can come into place that goes directly against what the highest court in that state has already determined to be law.
In any event, I think it's only a matter of time before gay marriage gains legal status. I mean, what is it, 2008? Why is this still an issue?

The Highest court in the State can not determine what law is, that is not the job, that is the job of the legislature and the people. They can only base their decisions on the constitution, and that document was changed by the prop. That was the whole point of the exercise by those supporting it.

 

[chrisw127]

If what you say was true it would have been decided many years ago. Just because you think it's discriminatory that doesn't automatically make it so. It has already been pointed out that civil union laws can be modified to make them exactly like marriage, differing only in name, but that isn't acceptable (the old separate-but-equal argument). My opinion, which is worth exactly 1 vote, is that you aren't interested in whatever rights you are claiming to lose. You merely think that calling it marriage is sticking your thumb in the eye of those dreaded religious people and showing them just who's who. I'm not particularly religious but I can see their point. Watching some A-Holes stomp on a cross only reinforces that belief (see one of the earlier posts for a YouTube link).

Federal courts in this country have said over and over again that you cannot grant one right to one group and withhold it from another without a compelling reason to do so. Being uncomfortable with two dudes kissing is not a compelling reason to withhold the right to get married and all the benefits that come with it. If gays want to walk around with their spouses in Home Depot at 8:00 pm on a Saturday night bickering with each other, than they should be able to do so. Just like straight folks.

Personally, I have no desire to stick a "thumb" or anything else in the eye of the religious right, although they seem particularly interested in uterus and I'd like them to stay out of it. I simply believe that what is fair for one group is fair for another. No one has shown me a valid reason why gays can't marry.

 

[chrisw127]

The Highest court in the State can not determine what law is, that is not the job, that is the job of the legislature and the people. They can only base their decisions on the constitution, and that document was changed by the prop. That was the whole point of the exercise by those supporting it.

No. In this case, the constitution has an equal protection clause. If you change that clause, then you change the constitution. Amendment 8 changes that clause. You can't do that. Further, and I think we can both allow this, some of the greatest legal minds of our time can't decide if Amendment 8 is even valid considering that the CA supreme court has already found that a law which limits marriage to members of the opposite sex is unconstitutional, so the fact is, no one really knows what's going to happen here or on what grounds it will be challenged. I mean, there are brilliant people out there who live and breathe this stuff. You can be assured that the brightest constitutional scholars in this country all want a piece of this. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. But in the end, I'm betting 8 will be struck down.

 

[taheenee]

If what you say was true it would have been decided many years ago. Just because you think it's discriminatory that doesn't automatically make it so. It has already been pointed out that civil union laws can be modified to make them exactly like marriage, differing only in name, but that isn't acceptable (the old separate-but-equal argument). My opinion, which is worth exactly 1 vote, is that you aren't interested in whatever rights you are claiming to lose. You merely think that calling it marriage is sticking your thumb in the eye of those dreaded religious people and showing them just who's who. I'm not particularly religious but I can see their point. Watching some A-Holes stomp on a cross only reinforces that belief (see one of the earlier posts for a YouTube link).

marriage isn't owned by the religious. My uncle and his wife got married in my parents living room by a justice of the peace. Good friends of mine got married in their parents back yard, also by a justice of the peace. Absolutely no religion involved but the state considers them just as married as someone who was married in a church. Should they not consider themselves married? Or is it a lesser marriage than one done in a church? should they not be called married at all?

 

[Master Mason]

No. In this case, the constitution has an equal protection clause. If you change that clause, then you change the constitution. Amendment 8 changes that clause. You can't do that. Further, and I think we can both allow this, some of the greatest legal minds of our time can't decide if Amendment 8 is even valid considering that the CA supreme court has already found that a law which limits marriage to members of the opposite sex is unconstitutional, so the fact is, no one really knows what's going to happen here or on what grounds it will be challenged. I mean, there are brilliant people out there who live and breathe this stuff. You can be assured that the brightest constitutional scholars in this country all want a piece of this. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. But in the end, I'm betting 8 will be struck down.

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.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I wonder why you Purseval finds it so upsetting to have someone stamp on an inanimate object?

 

[Purseval]

Well, it looks like Amendment 8 in CA will eventually be thrown out because it actually changes the constitution, which has an equal protection clause. So maybe YOU will have to get used to the progressive side being smarter and having more money and beating you in court! Hey, as long as it's done legally and peacefully, you'll just have to live with the results.

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.

 

[Goofyluver]

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.

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

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

 

[Master Mason]

I wonder why you Purseval finds it so upsetting to have someone stamp on an inanimate object?

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