[mab4285]

No Prada, we were not. It will take time for america to come around as it did for those issues you mentioned. I know that it will eventually be accepted. For now, I'll enjoy it the way that it is.

And like the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement, we reserve the right to protest and seek the courts to over rule the decisions made by a majority. Ever heard of a case called Brown vs. Board of Education? Separate is not equal by mandate of the Supreme Court of the US, the highest court of the land. I don't see you complaining about that...And by the way, 4% (or whatever the final percentages were) is not an overwhelming majority. Prop. 8 won't last. Get used to it.

[golfnut]

By the way....MA is not the only state to allow gay marriage. Connecticut does too. And like I've said before, Connecticut (so proud to be from that state) saw through the religious right wing conservatives in their efforts to conviene a constitutional convention that would most likely bring a Prop. 8 type amendment to CT. IL also beat a similar convention as well. So while IL does not allow gay marriage, they have defeated an effort to begin the process to banning it.

And by the way, you, by voting FOR Proposition 8 have personally denied rights. Don't think you can hide behind the majority. You contributed to that majority. Everyone's vote counts, even yours. That's the beauty of our country.

Who's hiding? I proudly contributed to the outcome as you proudly voice against it. So MA and CT allow it. Any other states? I seriously would like to know. I mean no sarcasm.

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

No Prada, we were not. It will take time for america to come around as it did for those issues you mentioned. I know that it will eventually be accepted. For now, I'll enjoy it the way that it is.

Well then I'm Happy that your okay with denying a certain group their rights-

While Your Morals are Telling You Different.

Must Be Nice.

I Wish I Had The Luxury of Having a Selective Conscience.

You must be PROUD of having the same ABILITIES as did the NAZI'S during WWII.

[mab4285]

Who's hiding? I proudly contributed to the outcome as you proudly voice against it. So MA and CT allow it. Any other states? I seriously would like to know. I mean no sarcasm.

Right here.....you're hiding behind the fact that you alone didn't deny rights. And again....the majority was not that big. And there will be more states, as people start to realize just like the wise Supreme Court Justices did in Brown v. Board of Ed that separate is not equal.

I did bring it back up. However, I am not being negative about it. I will leave CA to live a better life. Not because of some prop that passed. Remember niubeav, I alone did not deny rights. The majority spoke, again.

[golfnut]

And like the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement, we reserve the right to protest and seek the courts to over rule the decisions made by a majority. Ever heard of a case called Brown vs. Board of Education? Separate is not equal by mandate of the Supreme Court of the US, the highest court of the land. I don't see you complaining about that...And by the way, 4% (or whatever the final percentages were) is not an overwhelming majority. Prop. 8 won't last. Get used to it.

Like my Dad used to say, "A win is a win by 1 or 100". Why the hostility? Be a good sport. Prop 8 won. Maybe it won't last. Until then, we can agree to disagree, right?

[mab4285]

Like my Dad used to say, "A win is a win by 1 or 100". Why the hostility? Be a good sport. Prop 8 won. Maybe it won't last. Until then, we can agree to disagree, right?

Again....you're the one who brought this topic up again. I'm not the one who let a thread that had it's last post about a week ago up. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the fire.

And while the win may be a win, it will get overturned. I'm not being hostile. I'm just voicing my opinion. You'd do the same if Prop 8 hadn't passed, I guarantee it. I still can't believe that something so major as changing the state constitution requires a simple majority instead of a 2/3 majority. In that case, percentages do count, and winning by the 4% that Prop 8 proponents did, is less likely.

[golfnut]

Right here.....you're hiding behind the fact that you alone didn't deny rights. And again....the majority was not that big. And there will be more states, as people start to realize just like the wise Supreme Court Justices did in Brown v. Board of Ed that separate is not equal.

Ok. One more time for those of you in the back row. I, GOLFNUT, VOTED IN FAVOR OF PROP 8. Is that good enough or do you need a photo of me holding up a YES on Prop 8 sign?

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

Well then I'm Happy that your okay with denying a certain group their rights-

While Your Morals are Telling You Different.

Must Be Nice.

I Wish I Had The Luxury of Having a Selective Conscience.

You must be PROUD of having the same ABILITIES as did the NAZI'S during WWII.

^ ^ ^ ^

You Must've Missed My Little Reply.

[mab4285]

Ok. One more time for those of you in the back row. I, GOLFNUT, VOTED IN FAVOR OF PROP 8. Is that good enough or do you need a photo of me holding up a YES on Prop 8 sign?

Might be comical....

[golfnut]

^ ^ ^ ^

You Must've Missed My Little Reply.

I don't see how I missed that. Sorry, Prada. I'll reply now. It is nice to be able to agree with some things and disagree with others. I had this prop 8 debate with my little sister(24yrs old) and she was firmly against prop 8. In the end, we saw eye to eye on some points and went head to head on others. This is a topic that will never be completely agreed upon. It's that sensitive. I hope your post was directed at me or I'll feel foolish for responding. Can you specify who is "You" next time, please?

[golfnut]

Might be comical....

Yeah, I guess it would be. lol You never answered my ? if those were the only two states or not. Could you please reply?

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

I don't see how I missed that. Sorry, Prada. I'll reply now. It is nice to be able to agree with some things and disagree with others. I had this prop 8 debate with my little sister(24yrs old) and she was firmly against prop 8. In the end, we saw eye to eye on some points and went head to head on others. This is a topic that will never be completely agreed upon. It's that sensitive. I hope your post was directed at me or I'll feel foolish for responding. Can you specify who is "You" next time, please?

Well Being that "You" Were the only one actively Posting and Staunchly FOR Proposition 8, I assumed that you would understand that it was for "You".

I guess I shouldn't be assuming.

[mab4285]

Yeah, I guess it would be. lol You never answered my ? if those were the only two states or not. Could you please reply?

As of right now, CT and MA are the only states that recognize marriage. From what I could find, DC, HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, and WA will do civil unions. In addition, while gay marriage is not able to be performed in the state of NY, they will honor either civil unions or marriages that were performed in other states. So, I could marry my partner in CT and have that recognized as a marriage in NY.

But alas, as it stands, I guess if I wind up marrying my boyfriend, we'll just have to hire a lawyer who can draft an airtight document saying who gets final life support rights and who gets any life insurance policies. I'm sorry, but I want him to be able to be by my bedside if I get sick or in an accident. And I don't want to have to pay extra to have him on my insurance policies, just like married men and women can have (that's if my insurance is better than his).

[golfnut]

As of right now, CT and MA are the only states that recognize marriage. From what I could find, DC, HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, and WA will do civil unions. In addition, while gay marriage is not able to be performed in the state of NY, they will honor either civil unions or marriages that were performed in other states. So, I could marry my partner in CT and have that recognized as a marriage in NY.

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it, Niubeav.

[mab4285]

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it, Niubeav.

You're quite welcome. I hope you continue to educate yourself on issues of this importance especially this one. The old adage "ignorance is bliss" can no longer be applied in our society today. WHile I understand you probably will never change your views on this issue, I implore you to keep an open mind and not immediately judge based on prior opinions.

[squiddaddy]

I voted no in the poll but after thinking about it, I just don't understand the whole gay thing. I can't stand getting a prostate exam once a year. However if you swing that way it's your business. You have just is much right as I do to get married, divorced, lose half of your **** and hate someone the rest of your life.

[mab4285]

I voted no in the poll but after thinking about it, I just don't understand the whole gay thing. I can't stand getting a prostate exam once a year. However if you swing that way it's your business. You have just is much right as I do to get married, divorced, lose half of your **** and hate someone the rest of your life.

And I don't get the whole heterosexual thing either. But hey, to each their own, and thanks for the vote against Prop 8!

[xoclirpa]

I personally think love is love...

[exelant]

In the 90's my state passed an anti gay amendment. I was pretty embarrassed by it and the message it sent to the rest of the country. We were boycotted for a time by Hollywood people like Barbara Striesand. (I wonder if she will boycot California) Many of us were relieved when the Court threw it out. I hope they do it again. Below is an article by the ACLU and includes part of Justice Kennedy's opinion. I don't believe anything has changed as far as equal protection.

The Supreme Court said it loud and clear: States may not take away the basic rights of one group of citizens and place that group outside the political process. That is exactly what Colorado tried to do when its voters narrowly approved Amendment 2's language banning any government action aimed at curbing discrimination against gays and lesbians.


In the Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that Amendment 2 "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification...is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.""It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort," Justice Kennedy continued. "Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance."In other words, if a group of citizens thinks they've been wronged, they have the right to go to the government and ask for help.


The government doesn't necessarily have to provide that help, but every citizen has the right to ask. It was this right to "seek assistance" that Amendment 2 would have cut off for those seeking to prevent discrimination.

Kennedy wrote: To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens.

Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups which they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory). Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose: Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. And: [Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

Kennedy did not go into depth in rejecting the claims put forward in support of the law (protecting the rights of landlords to evict gay tenants if they found homosexuality morally offensive, etc.) because he held that the law was so unique as to "confound this normal process of judicial review" and "defies...conventional inquiry." This conclusion was supported by his assertion that "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort." Finding that "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," the Court implied that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a "bare...desire to harm" homosexuals.

I think it is pretty clear. We'll see.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[golfnut]

Ah Exelant, I see you made your way back to the fun side. Good to see you back. My question is, if that's the case, why even bother creating a prop to be voted on if it can be overturned in the first place? Had the prop been denied, would people still be bringing this up or ignore it because they won? It just seems that people can't except it even though it was legitamately voted on. Twice for that matter. Our state budget is in shambles as it is w/o adding this cost repeatedly. I realize it's not fair and all but come on.

[mab4285]

Ah Exelant, I see you made your way back to the fun side. Good to see you back. My question is, if that's the case, why even bother creating a prop to be voted on if it can be overturned in the first place? Had the prop been denied, would people still be bringing this up or ignore it because they won? It just seems that people can't except it even though it was legitamately voted on. Twice for that matter. Our state budget is in shambles as it is w/o adding this cost repeatedly. I realize it's not fair and all but come on.

#1, it's accept not except.
#2, ask people like yourself. You voted for it, other people like you created it. Ask them why they created it.
#3, that's the great thing about our country. We have the right to look at laws and have them overturned. All men are created equal and have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can you take that away from a certain group of people? If your state budget was in shambles, maybe the voters in California should have looked at how this would have affected the economy instead of just voting on what they feel is "morally" right or wrong

[golfnut]

#1, it's accept not except.
#2, ask people like yourself. You voted for it, other people like you created it. Ask them why they created it.
#3, that's the great thing about our country. We have the right to look at laws and have them overturned. All men are created equal and have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can you take that away from a certain group of people? If your state budget was in shambles, maybe the voters in California should have looked at how this would have affected the economy instead of just voting on what they feel is "morally" right or wrong

1. You're not Exelant.
2. The state had already voted on this once. Should have been the end of it. People like you can't accept( is that better? ) defeat and move on. If we have to pay, we have to pay. I guess money does buy happiness.

[golfnut]

That was really rude of me. I didn't realize it until after I posted. I need a break from this to cool off.

[mab4285]

1. You're not Exelant.
2. The state had already voted on this once. Should have been the end of it. People like you can't accept( is that better? ) defeat and move on. If we have to pay, we have to pay. I guess money does buy happiness.

1. So?
2. If one vote or amendment was the end all be all, can you imagine where our country would be today? Interracial marriage would not exist, women would not have the right to vote, African Americans would be considered 3/5ths of a person as well as not having the right to vote, and African American (who by your postings looks like you voted for) couldn't even vote for president, let alone win an election, slavery would still be legal, alcohol would be illegal, residents of Washington, DC would not be allowed to vote for president, the US could have the same president in office indefinitely, police could search your home whenever they wanted.....need I go on?


Oh yeah....California and Texas wouldn't even be states!

[golfnut]

1. So?
2. If one vote or amendment was the end all be all, can you imagine where our country would be today? Interracial marriage would not exist, women would not have the right to vote, African Americans would be considered 3/5ths of a person as well as not having the right to vote, and African American (who by your postings looks like you voted for) couldn't even vote for president, let alone win an election, slavery would still be legal, alcohol would be illegal, residents of Washington, DC would not be allowed to vote for president, the US could have the same president in office indefinitely, police could search your home whenever they wanted.....need I go on?


Oh yeah....California and Texas wouldn't even be states!

You are right.