Frank K, Please lay off the German-Gay-Midget-Porn. For your own good.

We don’t expect you to be sad. Your comment shows that you really don’t give a shit about what has happened to gay people but only to your selfish, self centered self. If you have not figured out by now that you are not one of us then maybe your more of a simpleton than you seem.

Should you not be meeting with “your kind” right now strategizing how you can see that the same things happen in other states? I think there are over 20 that need to see that gays
get no where so stop wasting time here and get on with it boy!

http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=.....ayport.com

“”Fabulous” in the sense of something mythical or non-existent?”

Something quite real. And I just really like using that word, and threw in the quotes because I know how much you like them.

You’re welcome.

“Unlike you, who will be exactly the creature you are now for the rest of your life.”

If I am to remain an honest, industrious, inquisitive, hard-working, generous, and charitable person for the rest of my days, then I will consider myself a fortunate soul.

Well, I must be off, do keep yourself well.

Those are quotation marks, not parentheses. And I did it to see if I would get the ho-hum predictable response(s). I was correct.

“And regard her partner as a sort of fuck-buddy.”

I get along “fabulously” with her, same as with my sister. And they know exactly where I stand on the issue: I supported the passage of the DPRRA, but am opposed to same-sex “marriage”. And while they disagree with me, I’ll be damned if they aren’t considerably more understanding of my right to have an opinion than so many who profess to be paragons of “tolerance”…but only if you think like they do.

“Your “convictions” are the convictions of a malicious, hateful person.”

Incorrect. And apparently your convictions are that of a haggard old queen who hates the democratic process when it doesn’t go in your favor.

Those are quotation marks, not parentheses. And I did it to see if I would get the ho-hum predictable response(s). I was correct.

>And regard her partner as a sort of fuck-buddy.Your “convictions” are the convictions of a malicious, hateful person.<

Incorrect. And apparently your convictions are that of a haggard old queen who hates the democratic process when it doesn’t go in your favor.

As you said, the issue has not been determined yet. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize why the Court declined to rule before the election. Why should it put itself any further in the line of fire when it can give the people a chance to do the right thing themselves instead? Of course, now that the people failed yet again, the Court has to step in and fix their mess (yes, I am an unrepentant elitist. I think educate people should be making these decisions, not the stupid masses who don’t consider anyone’s interests but themselves, and even get that wrong half the time, i.e., Joe the Plumber thinking McCain was better for him).

In any event, the Court will have little choice but to rule on the substance of the question now, and if you read the precedent and consider the issue objectively, seems to lean much more toward revision to me.

Gee whiz, don’t have a hissy and get all hysterical on me. Actually, my tiny pea brain can muster just enough capacity to understand very well that, as yet, there is no resolution to the “revision vs. amendment” issue. It’s not like this is a shock to anyone that’s been following the issue.

I know that although they didn’t issue a ruling, the very same CSC that struck down Prop 22 in May subsequently denied the petition to remove Prop 8 from the ballot over this very issue.

So call it “conclusory garbage”, a hunch, gut feeling, or premonition for all I care. My money is on it’s deemed an amendment and the CA Constitution will state that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized.

And nice bit about the hate-free day…very amusing how imbeciles can’t conceive of the notion that some people can stand behind their convictions with nary a drop of malice or hate. And gosh, I would never say that I hate my own sister and her “partner”.

Your placing “constitutional” in quotations instead of “amendment” shows that you CONTINUE to have absolutely no grasp on this issue. Your small brain is apparently incapable of this type of legal analysis. This is not about whether this is statutory or constitutional; it’s about whether it’s an amendment or a revision to the constitution. I’ve already made my argument and provided some case law, to which you haven’t responded.

As far as the wording goes, Jerry Brown’s wording was correct. This proposition was about taking away the rights of gay couples to marry. It does not affect heterosexual unions one bit. Perhaps you are correct that the wording played a part in closing the gap, but it rightly should have. “Affirming marriage as between man and woman” does not disclose the full impact of this provision. People who aren’t following the debate may not even realize that this is really about keeping gays from getting married. Gays may not even cross their minds when they hit the “yes” button because OF COURSE who’s going to vote “no” if they don’t understand what the issue is. Jerry Brown’s wording was direct and right on point. Congrats on winning anyway; as I have already laid out, you’re going to lose in the long-run.

Have a hate-free day.

If the title/summary wording had been left as-is, “affirming marriage as between man and woman”, THIS vote would have been a route. I suspect you know that. But Jerry Brown succeeded in playing a trick with semantics which, without question, greatly helped the “No” side. But even with rigging how the question was framed, Prop 8 STILL passed.

And yes, if gay activists can manage to get an initiative on the ballot that would “legalize” so-called gay marriage, it will get crushed by upwards of 8 points. Who knows, perhaps whoever is AG when that happens will change the wording of the proposition to “eliminates the will of the people”.

And Prop 8 will be upheld as a “constitutional” amendment.

http://www.metnews.com/article.....052108.htm

When you spend a week in law school, then open your big, useless mouth. “Revision” is a very specific term applied to constitutional changes in california. Prop. 22 did not “revise” the family code. And of course the Court will weigh Prop. 8 DIFFERENTLY from Prop. 22. This is a completely separate issue. The new question before the court will be whether Prop. 8 makes such a big change to the constitution that it requires the legislature’s involvement rather than just a vote of the people. This is actual law in California, not something I made up. Now, of course the Court COULD rule that Prop. 8 is a mere “amendment.” However, Prop. 8 singles out a group of people previously ruled to be a protected class (makes an exception to equal protection) and denies them the fundamental right to marriage (exception to due process and privacy). There’s a very good chance it will be ruled a “revision” and be invalidated. Again, if you have some actual legal analysis to add rather than your ridiculous conclusory garbage statements, I’d be happy to hear it.

And I’m sure gay marriage will be “decimated” at the polls just like it was yesterday by 2 points. How much did Prop. 22 win by again? about 12 points? You’re losing. It’s only a matter of time. Keep pouring your money and your church’s money into this. You’re flushing it right down the toilet.

Congratulations for being the first to finally get it. Yes, your “brethren” should look him up. And understand that in 1973, it was his and others’ activism and political pressure, not any scientific or medical “breakthrough”, that forced a vote of the APA to remove homosexuality as a disorder from DSM-II.

Vagisil, aisle 9.

Evil because I state the truth? And I don’t need to rip up marriage licenses, as Prop 8 has effectively done as much. There was no language dealing with retroactivity, dates, grandfather clauses, etc. It simply states that in CA “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.” Ipso facto, all the “marriages” between mid-May and November 4th are “void”.

No doubt this will be a battle in the courts, and maybe I’m wrong. So be it. But I do know that from this point forward, gay “marriages” will not be recognized.

Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment. Is it really that hard to understand? If you actually believe judges will not weigh that differently from Prop 22, which “revised” the Family Code, then you are uninformed.

And as I’ve said, I truly hope gay activists DO manage to get an initiative on the ballot. It will get absolutely decimated at the polls. Good luck with all that.

Oh, is this the part where you trot out the claim these priests were “pedophiles”? Point of order…when the target is BOYS, they are HOMOSEXUAL pederast priests.

Prop. 8 actually lost: VERY unlikely, but still technically possible. However, if it’s true, then we win.

Cali Supreme Court rules that Prop. 8 is a revision as opposed to an amendment, and strikes it down, just like it did Prop. 22. That leaves you bigots with only the hope of pursuading 2/3 of the legislature to put the question back on the ballot for a re-vote (not happening in a million years). We win.

We gather signatures and put the question back on the ballot next election. If it passes, we win. If not…

We gather signatures and put the question back on the ballot for the NEXT election. If it passes, we win.

Eventually, a challenge under the federal constitution makes its way to the US Supreme Court, which strikes down every ban in the country. We win BIG!

Any way you slice it, we win! As Mayor Newsom said, whether you like it or not. It’s inevitable.

Only America could prove they’re not stupid and vote for Barack only to then confirm they ARE stupid by voting Yes on Prop 8.

and finally…to the guy who wrote…

“children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children”

How the hell is that any different from your fucking religion? How is brainwashing children into believing a big guy in the sky made them not a ‘amoral filthy lifestyle’? And I think you’ll find the figures of priests buggering little boys is much higher than gay related sex offences.

Make what illegal?

And I offended you? Duly noted. Now ask me if I give a s&%t.

You just offended me. Maybe we should vote to make it illegal now.

OBAMA WON!!!!

THERE’S HOPE, HOPE MADE A COMEBACK:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” -OBAMA

“As a Christian — he is a member of the United Church of Christ — Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers.” -OBAMA

“he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say.” -OBAMA

http://www.queerty.com/obama-p.....-20081103/

THE CHANGE WE NEEDED!

OBAMA’08

“African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.”

There’s NO MORE GAY MARRIAGE IN CA.

Wow, for someone who’s surely all about “diversity”, that’s very “intolerant” of you to object to a dissenting opinion.

Don’t pat yourselves on the back too hard because you narrowed the gap from Prop. 22. For one, the little game of semantics employed by Jerry Brown with the wording of the proposition title…if it would have been kept the way it was, in essence this prop “affirms marriage as between man and woman”, then that’s at least +5 for Yes. But the prejudicial language of “eliminates the right” misleads some people into thinking there was truly a right with which to begin.

Second, and perhaps most important, the definition of marriage as between man and woman will now be codified in the constitution. Voters are typically loathe to AMEND the constitution, but they did. Now go ahead and ask them to repeal what they just passed. As I stated earlier, I welcome gay activists attempting to get an initiative on the ballot. I welcome it because THAT will be defeated so resoundingly that even the most thickest of skulls will finally get the picture.

All you can think about is the sex. Sex doesnt make you gay. Who you love does. Call us perverts? Go fck yourself.

“Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

The California Supreme Court overturned that measure, Proposition 22, in its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the state Constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples.

Opponents of Proposition 8 faced a difficult challenge. Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said California voters “very, very rarely reverse themselves” especially in such a short time. Both sides waged a passionate — and at times bitter — fight over whether to allow same-sex marriages to continue. The campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars in dueling television and radio commercials that blanketed the airwaves for weeks.”