Keith Olbermann

[Goofyluver]

I hate it when I get those

It happens to the best of us.

 

[sarasotamom]

Think of all of the progressive little lives that have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade, probably enough to have easily shot down Prop. 8. Again, you showed those baby-having evangelicals who was boss

Why are you being so mean about this. Do you not think that conservatives have abortions? Seriously, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I know a few conservatives in school that did have abortions. In fact one of them married the father after having the abortion. Not something I would ever do but it is THEIR choice. I'm not going to the gay issue because I was flamed for it before. But something for both sides to think about. If civil unions were allowed in all states would that make us all happy? The word "marriage" just makes things get convrontational.(Sp)

 

[Uncle Remus]

And if I suddenly had a change of heart, or wanted a marriage of convience with someone of the same sex, I couldn't have it either, so yes it is equal.

Again, I understand why the gay community doesn't like it, but it is infact equal.

But your not going to agree with me and I am not going to agree with you. So lets stop going round and round on this.

There is a God, thank you!!

 

[RickinNYC]

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?

Nope, not exact at all. It does, however, make it very clear that your stance is full of hypocracy and inconsistencies, thus throwing your entire position right out the window. You refuse to admit when you are caught opposing YOUR OWN POSITION. Thankfully, I am, as are most of us here and in the real world, fully aware you're not representative of a number of Republicans so that has no bearing and carries zero weight. Funny how the Republicans I know and love call friend or family member would never dream of even thinking along your lines. In fact, I'll mention it to my buddy I'm having drinks with tomorrow night. He's a Republican and appreciates a good chuckle. And he's gay. Oh, and he played ball before he went into the financial industry. Not pro ball like you aspired to (and are clearly bitter about), but college ball nonetheless. (Pssst... so did I)

 

[RickinNYC]

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.

Who exactly is getting ugly?

 

[Master Mason]

Who exactly is getting ugly?

Those that are not being fabulous?

 

[RickinNYC]

Those that are not being fabulous?

It's a tough call but heck, I'm willing to be judge and jury. Get me a chair and start the parade. I know one person so far who's not getting the tiara.

 

[Purseval]

Why are you being so mean about this?

Either you didn't read back far enough to see why I said it or else your outrage is selective. Either way it gets filed under the heading of "Don't come in throwing punches if you can't take being hit."

 

[sarasotamom]

Either you didn't read back far enough to see why I said it or else your outrage is selective. Either way it gets filed under the heading of "Don't come in throwing punches if you can't take being hit."

I don't think I threw a punch. I thought the abortion comment was just mean-spirited. I had read a few pages a few days ago. You can attack me all you want to. Doesn't hurt me.

 

[sarasotamom]

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.

I will agree with you here. By protesting in this manner it only hurts their cause.

 

[Uncle Remus]

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.

Looks like those lawyers are at work already:

(11-13) 18:17 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by Monday to lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - a sign that the justices are taking the cases seriously and will not dispose of them quickly.

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Brown has said he will defend Prop. 8 in court while also supporting the legality of an estimated 18,000 weddings performed under the court's May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

That ruling declared that state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution. Sponsors of Prop. 8 contend that the initiative - which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is "valid or recognized in California" - would invalidate all existing same-sex marriages.

The filing the court requested from Brown's office will not address the ballot measure's validity, but will focus instead on the initial questions of whether the justices should accept the suits for review - and, if so, whether they should suspend Prop. 8 while they decide the case, said the state's lawyer, Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general. Suspending Prop. 8 would allow same-sex marriages to resume.

"I think it's fair to infer that the court is looking at these (cases) very carefully," Krueger said. Usually, he said, when plaintiffs ask the state's high court to take up their case directly without first filing in a lower court, the justices dismiss the suit without asking the other side for a reply.

Krueger declined to say whether Brown's office would ask the court to dismiss the suits without further review. He noted, however, that Bill Lockyer, the attorney general when gay-rights advocates first challenged the marriage law, invited the state Supreme Court to review the issue in 2006 even after an appellate court had upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.

Although the court's request, issued Wednesday, did not mention any issues in the suits or state the justices' views, "it indicates that the Supreme Court sees the seriousness and immensity of the issue, and before it takes any action it wants to hear from Jerry Brown," said Irving Greines, an appellate lawyer in Los Angeles.

Greines filed papers Wednesday on behalf of the Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers supporting the legal challenges to Prop. 8 and urging the court to accept the suits for review. On Thursday, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute submitted a letter arguing that the court lacks authority to issue a stay that would suspend a voter-approved state constitutional amendment.

The lead case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.

Source

 

[Purseval]

I don't think I threw a punch.

I don't think you did either. Try reading comment #246, that is what I was responding to. In post #282, which was actually the last of a few along the same lines you add your 2 cents and ask why I was such a meanie, without any mention of how abortion and evangelicals managed to get into a discussion of Proposition 8 in the first place. What you got in post #288 was my answer.

 

[Purseval]

Nope, not exact at all. It does, however, make it very clear that your stance is full of hypocracy and inconsistencies, thus throwing your entire position right out the window. You refuse to admit when you are caught opposing YOUR OWN POSITION.

The only way anyone could possibly be 100% consistent in your view is to agree to your position so your answer comes as no surprise.

Thankfully, I am, as are most of us here and in the real world, fully aware you're not representative of a number of Republicans so that has no bearing and carries zero weight.

Prop 8 got shot down pretty convincingly in a state that hasn't been red in quite some time. Call me hypocritical and inconsistent but to me that would seem that it was Democrats who shot it down. Actually, we don't even have to use the word "seem", we know for a fact it was Democrats who shot it down. Perhaps you should consider switching parties.

Oh, and he played ball before he went into the financial industry. Not pro ball like you aspired to (and are clearly bitter about), but college ball nonetheless. (Pssst... so did I)

The baseball thing was a metaphor, I would have expected someone with such an amazing grasp of logic to pick up on that. But you've been having so much fun with it I didn't want to ruin it for you.

 

[RickinNYC]

The only way anyone could possibly be 100% consistent in your view is to agree to your position so your answer comes as no surprise.




Prop 8 got shot down pretty convincingly in a state that hasn't been red in quite some time. Call me hypocritical and inconsistent but to me that would seem that it was Democrats who shot it down. Actually, we don't even have to use the word "seem", we know for a fact it was Democrats who shot it down. Perhaps you should consider switching parties.



The baseball thing was a metaphor, I would have expected someone with such an amazing grasp of logic to pick up on that. But you've been having so much fun with it I didn't want to ruin it for you.

To your point #1, your Wonder Woman deflection bracelets aren't working. I'm not the only one who is aware of your hypocrisy. To your point #2, homophobia is color blind, as well as across both political parties, so as I stated before, not sure where your trying to go with that argument. Good try though. Which then leads to point #3. If that was a metaphor, it wasn't very good. Just made you come across as very bitter and quite sad about not being able to pursue your childhood dream.

And you and a few others baffle me. Since you didn't answer my previous question, I'm sure this one will be met with more hyperbole but here goes. Why do you get all up in arms and upset when you get called homophobic? Why is being called homophobic so upseting and offensive?

Honestly, if you're going to have such a strong position, you should own up to it, not deny it when called upon. I would sooner respect someone for their beliefs, however distasteful they may be, than someone who lives in denial.

 

[chrisw127]

Think of all of the progressive little lives that have been snuffed out since Roe v. Wade, probably enough to have easily shot down Prop. 8. Again, you showed those baby-having evangelicals who was boss

Well, first of all, since evangelicals apparently plan on adopting most of them, then they probably would have followed their parent's beliefs. The rest of them, growing up in poverty with mothers who didn't want them, would probably not be all that political.

Don't worry though, I'm raising three little radicals here in North Carolina, so I'm doing my part.

 

[Nancyg56]

It is not legally offered to all. Because even if you are homosexual and happen to live in one of the 2 states that allow gay marriage, once you step foot outside of those 2 states, you have no rights.

If you are married in CT, but move to Oklahoma...Oklahoma does not and will not accept your marriage as legal or valid.

If a heterosexual man is married in Oklahoma...but moves to New Mexico...that man's marriage will be recognized as legal and valid...simply because it is a heterosexual marriage.

There is no equality in inequality.

Eventually, as more states legalize same sex marriage, other States will be forced to address it. Simply insisting the marriage is not legal will not be enough.

Well, If I was a one man decision making machine, I would pass a law that says all references to marriage in the codes of the US are hereby converted to Civil Unions. Civil Unions would be open to any to legal adults that wish to form a Civil Union. Any existing marriages on the books would be grandfathered in and serve as Civil Unions for the purposes of the laws.

Then if you wanted to get Married, you should go find yourself a church that will marry you. But the state would issue Civil Union papers and no longer issue Marriage licences to anyone.

ETA after you have formed your civil union, I couldn't care less what you call it to yourself and your friends, but on the books it would be a civil union.

I agree with you. But then what would folks who are just morally opposed to same sex "unions" use to keep them illegal? Because there will still be outrage over a relationship that I cannot understand why strangers are so interested in .

 

[RickinNYC]

I agree with you. But then what would folks who are just morally opposed to same sex "unions" use to keep them illegal? Because there will still be outrage over a relationship that I cannot understand why strangers are so interested in .

Oh, I suspect I know why a large number of those people out there are so interested in what "the gays" are up to. And it's truly sad and a direct result of societal pressure.

 

[Master Mason]

I agree with you. But then what would folks who are just morally opposed to same sex "unions" use to keep them illegal? Because there will still be outrage over a relationship that I cannot understand why strangers are so interested in .

Well, it is my contention that the only "legitimate" reason for opposing gay marriage is on the basis of religious beliefs. If we remove the religious component of it by eliminating the term marriage from the discussion, then that reason for opposition is removed. And then the bigots will not have any rocks to hide behind and would just have to attempt to support it via their bigotry. Not a good place to be, in this country.


I have seen many people that state they would not be opposed to civil unions, it is the word Marriage that is the hang up. So, I'm more interested in getting people the rights they desire than being hung up on the word.

 

[Nancyg56]

Oh, I suspect I know why a large number of those people out there are so interested in what "the gays" are up to. And it's truly sad and a direct result of societal pressure.

I honestly think that with all of real problems we have in this country it would be more productive if those folks placed their energy into addressing them rather that the personal business of two adults who are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

 

[RickinNYC]

I honestly think that with all of real problems we have in this country it would be more productive if those folks placed their energy into addressing them rather that the personal business of two adults who are not infringing on anyone else's rights.

Ah, but to allow others to live their lives openly, proudly and with love just reminds them that they chose a different path and are now depressed, angry and full of self hatred. They would sooner be disparaging to that community and vilify them with the hope that it would deflect anyone looking at them and thinking, "Hey, wait a minute...." It's a very common and well known reactionary response, otherwise known as "methinks the lady, she doth protest too much..."

Personally, I don't find it attributable to most folks, but do find it very appropriate to a couple of posters that froth at the mouth whenever the posts involve gay (insert topic here). There are two posters on this thread that come to mind right now. They never fail to pop up. Just too frequent, too vehement, too over the top in their posts.