there should not of have a no on "prop 8" protest -yes- on prop 8 won fair and square.seriously there is no sense of voting anymore there will always be an argument ..and everybody wants to rule the world.stupid ass lesbians and gays should stay out of the public,government and politics they are all just going to have somthing dumb to say and rebel.
BuddyBoy in the first place why do you support anyone's rights being up to a public vote? Doesn't the constitution guarantee equal rights? What if YOUR rights were put up to a fucking public vote. You are a moron..
What's next? The polygamists? In a democracy, majority vote rules. No way is the rest of America going to allow 1 - 2% of the population (not the 10% they love to claim) make the rules for everyone else. Don't like the vote? Move to China or North Korea. You are angry simply because the rest of California didn't support your agenda. Boo-hoo.
i agree buddyboy.the people have spoken not once but twice against this crap. this is more about marriage. the homo's want us to accept their lifestyle as equal.they keep whining and complaining like little kids because they didnt get their way. they want us to be tolerant,but then they are not.what a bunch of hyprocrites.
True. They are never tolerant when they don't get their own way. If something doesn't go the way they want - they sue. Well, now even the court has spoken. Do you think they'll respect the two votes along with what the court has decided?
Nope.
They'll just keep on throwing their temper tantrums with the hope that the whole world will someday be forced to accept that their vile lifestyle is "normal."
Found a great website for those who now want to get your names removed from the church records. The Mormons prop up their membership numbers by refusing to take off names of those who no longer attend the Mormon Church.
The website mormonnomore (dot) com gives fantastic advice and step by step in how to escape Mormonism
The only problem with protests in SF is that they are always self-congratulatory preaching to the converted, since EVERYBODY in SF thinks exactly the same way (& heaven forbid anybody have a different opinion-you won't see much of the fabled liberal "tolerance" from the PC thought police). Instead of having these protests in SF in order to pat themselves on the back & re-affirm to themselves that they live in the "most tolerant/progressive Utopia" in the world, SF should mobilize en mass & march
Amazing! So sad to know that The Church of Latter Day Saints, a tax exempt institution and therefore not allowed to lobby, gave 20 million dollars (!), to fund prop 8 so that "children will be protected against gay marriage". SO sick and twisted.
LemuxFox: And the blacks could have called the back of the box the front. It doesn't change the fact that "Separate but equal" doesn't work. As long as we have two separate institution for gays and straights we're saying that gay relationships are not as valuable as gay relationships. That's not acceptable.
"Separate but Equal" refers to the fact that blacks were "equal", but separated from white society. This obviously is unjust. But simply calling heterosexual unions and homosexual unions two different names is the state's lawful decision to make...
No Lemur the excuse of separate but equal was the south's way of saying the black schools and facilities were separate but somehow on pay with the whites which was not the case. What you're saying is the exact opposite of what it means. It is not the state's lawful decision to make without approval from the legislature and the courts the minorities rights cannot be trampled by the majority. State law and federal law prevents unequal protection. What is applicable to onegroup hastobetoanother
Did you even read my post? I agree that "separate but equal" referred to segregation. However, homosexuals aren't being segregated, or anything like it. As far as your comment regarding the state's lawful authority, we live in a democracy - majority opinion often carries the day. The legislature is the government by the people, and the court opinion is limited by the constitution. No injustice has been done, as homosexual men still have the right to marry a woman, just like any other man...
Yes I read your post. Separate but equal is a concept even if it related to segregation. What you're saying is that Civil Unions for same sex couples are separate but equal. That's not the case. No majority does not rule. If it did our society would be very different. Our society may have tenants of majority rule but also the rights of the minority is protected under our federal and state constitutions. Now you're just being a jackass saying homosexual men can marry a woman.
Due process of our government will win the day. My personal opinion is that all marriages should be called civil unions. Every faith and group defines it differently, and it is not the role of government to define anything unless there is a legitimate societal concern. I never meant to be hostile. We obviously disagree on the topic of weather this is a "societal concern" or not, but that is what the democratic process is about, and I am willing to drop this in the interest of mutual respect.
But that's not what you were saying Lemur you were saying they shouldn't have the right to be married and have the rights that hetero couples have. Why should things be different for them if our laws call for equal protection under the law
No - what I'm saying is that if there is a "fundamental right" for any adult to marry any other adult, than we should just call all unions "civil unions", and let individual groups and faiths define marriage in their own way. Marriage has already been reduced to a civil contract anyway - so let's just make that official. As a mormon, I believe my marriage is eternal, which is different than a catholic would define it, etc...
You know that last excuse you made was the same as when the south used to have laws saying interracial couples couldn't marry. According to your logic no injustice was done as black men could still marry black women nevermind who the couples actually love. Equal protection under the law is what this is about. They have a right to suffer like the rest of us and marry the adult whom they love.
Again, if the law was passed forcing homosexual couples to live, work, or marry in a specific place, you might have a point. This is not the case and same-sex couples can do what they like. They can call their relationship whatever they like...
The chickens will come home to roost! Where is the seaparation of Church and State? we need to protest: Churches of Ladder Saints (Mormon)in SF, ; black churches here, DURING THE SERVICES, real loud!!! the addresses: phone book.
Where are the protests for the ECONOMY SITUATION, people lost their life savings, losing their jobs by the thousands, every aspect will be hit, where is the outrage from the US citizens??? WHY AREN'T WE OUT IN THE STREETS OVER THIS? And I mean PROTESTING IN THE STREETS, not living (on the streets), like so many more will be doing soon. George Carlin said "I love America and all the freedoms we used to have".
You organize it, people will come. The economy situation is a nationwide federal ordeal that has nothing to do with eliminating rights for a group of people. When you take rights away, you're gonna piss people off. Sure, people lost money... but that doesn't make them second-class citizens. Farm animals get preferential treatment to us these days. That's why we march.
I agree that all couples regardless of race, orientation, etc. should have the right to live together and express their love. Fortunately, that right already exists for Homosexual couples in California!
A difference in name is no difference at all. The names are different because THE RELATIONSHIPS are different. If the rights are the same then why complain? You don't see a Hispanic man getting upset just because he has to mark-off "Hispanic" as his race on his government tax forms...
So then if there's no difference then all marriage should be done away with in California and same sex couples and heterosexual couples should all be called civil unions. Since there's no difference right. Why shouldn't same sex couples have to suffer through marriage and divorce like the rest of us?
Actually, I think that is a great idea, in theory. Everyone has a different opinion of what a marriage actually is, anyway. The only problem that continues to scare people is that public officials, parents, and others who are people of faith will be seen as bigoted haters simply because they believe an speak out that "marriage" is an institution solely between a man and woman.
But its not. There's no basis for their beliefs there are many times throughout history where marriage was redefined. Some instances gay marriage was even allowed. Once upon a time they would allow a man to have multiple wives. Whose to say what marriage is
Exactly - everyone has different opinions on this. I won't insult yours. The state has no legal right to define relationships, but it has since the founding of our nation. Saying that rights are threatened simply because the state manages those rights is opening the doors towards anarchy.
Well the ban shouldn't exist then. If marriage is a right then according to the constitution there must be equal protection under the law so if heterosexuals have the right to marry so should same self couples. There used to be bans in certain states of interracial couples.
Lol - I think we agree. However, what passed was not a ban, but an amendment to the State Constitution. I agree that the state SHOULD not define marriage, but I also believe that the state DOES have the legal right to do so...
No it wasn't an amendment lemur. California state law requires a 2/3rd majority in the legislature to amend the state constitution. They do not have the right to define marriage. You're talking about the trampling of the minority by the majority. If heterosexual couples have certain rights then same sex couples should have the same rights under the 14th amendment and equal protection of the law. If this isn't so then maybe same sex couples should get a discount on their taxes.
Well - that remains to be seen. It was accepted as a State amendment referendum, so I don't see any court challenge to it's validity being successful...
"On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters."
Just because the petitions motion was struck down doesn't mean the courts wouldn't rule in favor of the state or federal constitution which calls for equal protection under the law. Prop 8 is unconstitutional
This video is awesome! Maybe 8 needed to pass to help us unite against the Radical Religious Right bigots who seek to destroy all our freedoms. The line, that supposedly separates Church and State, has been crossed. Religious organizations MUST lose their tax exempt status for politicking and trampling all over non-believer's rights!
Not really - they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. What they want are NEW rights, when they already have all the benefits of marriage, just under a different name...
wow that argument would be legit if the first two words of the ballot weren't "Eliminates RIGHTS...." try reading the ballot next time you try to put your opinion out there asshole.
Try educating yourself - The very biased secretary of state's office changed the wording to the proposition on the ballot. The actual amendment simply defined the word marriage, and had nothing to do with eliminating rights...
it has everything to do with eliminating rights. aside from not allowing gays and lesbians to marry the one person they want to send the rest of their life with, there are so many rights that come along with marriage that are being taken away. spouses have certain rights as a spouse, and those in a domestic partnership don't have the same rights, they have less because they don't have the legal documentation of a marriage. google it, i dare you to tell me all the rights are the same.
Hi Sweetstaches. No, you're right. I have a similar discussion going on in a different video. The rights are *slightly* different, but the differences are there. This is where the fight should be aimed, at getting those rights included in domestic partnerships. Most of them, however, are inter-state and federal issues, and presently at the federal level no definition of marriage exists - each state has the right to decide in their own Constitutions...
i agree. well, obviously, it was my argument. although you bring up another argument. you may not have meant it this way, but you represent the fear and uncomfortableness (if that's even a word, which it probably isn't) of something different. a majority of CA opposes gay marriage, although a majority wants them to have the same rights. it's all about a four letter word. i want them to have the same rights, but i also want them to get married if that's what they choose.
there should not of have a no on "prop 8" protest -yes- on prop 8 won fair and square.seriously there is no sense of voting anymore there will always be an argument ..and everybody wants to rule the world.stupid ass lesbians and gays should stay out of the public,government and politics they are all just going to have somthing dumb to say and rebel.
TheTechnoa 9 months ago
The people have spoken. Respect it. This is still a democracy - get used to it.
If it had gone the other way, the homosexuals would be demanding that everyone respect the vote.
Homosexuals are supposed to be so "tolerant," but I guess that doesn't apply to the voting public when they have a different opinion than theirs.
buddyboy55 3 years ago
BuddyBoy in the first place why do you support anyone's rights being up to a public vote? Doesn't the constitution guarantee equal rights? What if YOUR rights were put up to a fucking public vote. You are a moron..
lancetop 2 years ago
What's next? The polygamists? In a democracy, majority vote rules. No way is the rest of America going to allow 1 - 2% of the population (not the 10% they love to claim) make the rules for everyone else. Don't like the vote? Move to China or North Korea. You are angry simply because the rest of California didn't support your agenda. Boo-hoo.
buddyboy55 2 years ago
i agree buddyboy.the people have spoken not once but twice against this crap. this is more about marriage. the homo's want us to accept their lifestyle as equal.they keep whining and complaining like little kids because they didnt get their way. they want us to be tolerant,but then they are not.what a bunch of hyprocrites.
newtnice 2 years ago
True. They are never tolerant when they don't get their own way. If something doesn't go the way they want - they sue. Well, now even the court has spoken. Do you think they'll respect the two votes along with what the court has decided?
Nope.
They'll just keep on throwing their temper tantrums with the hope that the whole world will someday be forced to accept that their vile lifestyle is "normal."
buddyboy55 2 years ago
Found a great website for those who now want to get your names removed from the church records. The Mormons prop up their membership numbers by refusing to take off names of those who no longer attend the Mormon Church.
The website mormonnomore (dot) com gives fantastic advice and step by step in how to escape Mormonism
cryan71 3 years ago
The only problem with protests in SF is that they are always self-congratulatory preaching to the converted, since EVERYBODY in SF thinks exactly the same way (& heaven forbid anybody have a different opinion-you won't see much of the fabled liberal "tolerance" from the PC thought police). Instead of having these protests in SF in order to pat themselves on the back & re-affirm to themselves that they live in the "most tolerant/progressive Utopia" in the world, SF should mobilize en mass & march
FakeUtopia415 3 years ago
away from the little bubble of SF & march over to Sacramento, where laws are actually made & where there might be a difference of opinion.
FakeUtopia415 3 years ago
Too bad for the fags! Yes, has pass threw! Yeah!
NightAirwolf 3 years ago
Too bad that you can't spell. Yeah!
avelvetcrush 3 years ago
Does it Burn! I am glad! Yeah! ha ha
NightAirwolf 3 years ago
SMASH AND CRUSH FOR YOU! Yeah! LOL
NightAirwolf 3 years ago
I was there. Loud and proud. It was an amazing rally. I love SF
sweetXmalice 3 years ago
Amazing! So sad to know that The Church of Latter Day Saints, a tax exempt institution and therefore not allowed to lobby, gave 20 million dollars (!), to fund prop 8 so that "children will be protected against gay marriage". SO sick and twisted.
michel7773 3 years ago
Was there myself. Proudest moment of my life.
And, by the way, LemurFox is a giant idiot. Just sayin'. :D
BochsOfficePoison 3 years ago
Lol - thanks for calling me a bigot. I'm just here trying to be a voice of reason.
LemurFox 3 years ago
LemuxFox: And the blacks could have called the back of the box the front. It doesn't change the fact that "Separate but equal" doesn't work. As long as we have two separate institution for gays and straights we're saying that gay relationships are not as valuable as gay relationships. That's not acceptable.
Meatwad650 3 years ago
"Separate but Equal" refers to the fact that blacks were "equal", but separated from white society. This obviously is unjust. But simply calling heterosexual unions and homosexual unions two different names is the state's lawful decision to make...
LemurFox 3 years ago
No Lemur the excuse of separate but equal was the south's way of saying the black schools and facilities were separate but somehow on pay with the whites which was not the case. What you're saying is the exact opposite of what it means. It is not the state's lawful decision to make without approval from the legislature and the courts the minorities rights cannot be trampled by the majority. State law and federal law prevents unequal protection. What is applicable to onegroup hastobetoanother
PogueMoran 3 years ago
Did you even read my post? I agree that "separate but equal" referred to segregation. However, homosexuals aren't being segregated, or anything like it. As far as your comment regarding the state's lawful authority, we live in a democracy - majority opinion often carries the day. The legislature is the government by the people, and the court opinion is limited by the constitution. No injustice has been done, as homosexual men still have the right to marry a woman, just like any other man...
LemurFox 3 years ago
Yes I read your post. Separate but equal is a concept even if it related to segregation. What you're saying is that Civil Unions for same sex couples are separate but equal. That's not the case. No majority does not rule. If it did our society would be very different. Our society may have tenants of majority rule but also the rights of the minority is protected under our federal and state constitutions. Now you're just being a jackass saying homosexual men can marry a woman.
PogueMoran 3 years ago
Due process of our government will win the day. My personal opinion is that all marriages should be called civil unions. Every faith and group defines it differently, and it is not the role of government to define anything unless there is a legitimate societal concern. I never meant to be hostile. We obviously disagree on the topic of weather this is a "societal concern" or not, but that is what the democratic process is about, and I am willing to drop this in the interest of mutual respect.
LemurFox 3 years ago
But that's not what you were saying Lemur you were saying they shouldn't have the right to be married and have the rights that hetero couples have. Why should things be different for them if our laws call for equal protection under the law
PogueMoran 3 years ago
No - what I'm saying is that if there is a "fundamental right" for any adult to marry any other adult, than we should just call all unions "civil unions", and let individual groups and faiths define marriage in their own way. Marriage has already been reduced to a civil contract anyway - so let's just make that official. As a mormon, I believe my marriage is eternal, which is different than a catholic would define it, etc...
LemurFox 3 years ago
You know that last excuse you made was the same as when the south used to have laws saying interracial couples couldn't marry. According to your logic no injustice was done as black men could still marry black women nevermind who the couples actually love. Equal protection under the law is what this is about. They have a right to suffer like the rest of us and marry the adult whom they love.
PogueMoran 3 years ago
i was there tonight. it was fuckin amazing, i'm so proud of SF!
dannisaurusrex 3 years ago
i was there! and i totally remember this! i just got home and my feet are so sore but it was totally worth it.
sweetstaches 3 years ago 2
good for you! next time bring fog horns!!!
chillniceguy 3 years ago
i'll do that, and i'll dedicate them to you haha =] thank you for the support!
sweetstaches 3 years ago
LemurFox: Yeah, the back of the bus gets there at the same time as the front, so what were those guys bitching about in the 60s anyway?
Meatwad650 3 years ago
Again, if the law was passed forcing homosexual couples to live, work, or marry in a specific place, you might have a point. This is not the case and same-sex couples can do what they like. They can call their relationship whatever they like...
LemurFox 3 years ago
The chickens will come home to roost! Where is the seaparation of Church and State? we need to protest: Churches of Ladder Saints (Mormon)in SF, ; black churches here, DURING THE SERVICES, real loud!!! the addresses: phone book.
sfbayguysf 3 years ago
REPRESENT! I WAS THERE.
Love will prevail.
GoodSoulDept 3 years ago
Where are the protests for the ECONOMY SITUATION, people lost their life savings, losing their jobs by the thousands, every aspect will be hit, where is the outrage from the US citizens??? WHY AREN'T WE OUT IN THE STREETS OVER THIS? And I mean PROTESTING IN THE STREETS, not living (on the streets), like so many more will be doing soon. George Carlin said "I love America and all the freedoms we used to have".
sfbayguysf 3 years ago
You organize it, people will come. The economy situation is a nationwide federal ordeal that has nothing to do with eliminating rights for a group of people. When you take rights away, you're gonna piss people off. Sure, people lost money... but that doesn't make them second-class citizens. Farm animals get preferential treatment to us these days. That's why we march.
GoodSoulDept 3 years ago
Lemur: Just like when blacks couldn't marry whites...you would have said they could still marry their own race, right?
Meatwad650 3 years ago
I agree that all couples regardless of race, orientation, etc. should have the right to live together and express their love. Fortunately, that right already exists for Homosexual couples in California!
A difference in name is no difference at all. The names are different because THE RELATIONSHIPS are different. If the rights are the same then why complain? You don't see a Hispanic man getting upset just because he has to mark-off "Hispanic" as his race on his government tax forms...
LemurFox 3 years ago
So then if there's no difference then all marriage should be done away with in California and same sex couples and heterosexual couples should all be called civil unions. Since there's no difference right. Why shouldn't same sex couples have to suffer through marriage and divorce like the rest of us?
PogueMoran 3 years ago
Actually, I think that is a great idea, in theory. Everyone has a different opinion of what a marriage actually is, anyway. The only problem that continues to scare people is that public officials, parents, and others who are people of faith will be seen as bigoted haters simply because they believe an speak out that "marriage" is an institution solely between a man and woman.
LemurFox 3 years ago
But its not. There's no basis for their beliefs there are many times throughout history where marriage was redefined. Some instances gay marriage was even allowed. Once upon a time they would allow a man to have multiple wives. Whose to say what marriage is
PogueMoran 3 years ago
Exactly - everyone has different opinions on this. I won't insult yours. The state has no legal right to define relationships, but it has since the founding of our nation. Saying that rights are threatened simply because the state manages those rights is opening the doors towards anarchy.
LemurFox 3 years ago
Well the ban shouldn't exist then. If marriage is a right then according to the constitution there must be equal protection under the law so if heterosexuals have the right to marry so should same self couples. There used to be bans in certain states of interracial couples.
PogueMoran 3 years ago
Lol - I think we agree. However, what passed was not a ban, but an amendment to the State Constitution. I agree that the state SHOULD not define marriage, but I also believe that the state DOES have the legal right to do so...
LemurFox 3 years ago
No it wasn't an amendment lemur. California state law requires a 2/3rd majority in the legislature to amend the state constitution. They do not have the right to define marriage. You're talking about the trampling of the minority by the majority. If heterosexual couples have certain rights then same sex couples should have the same rights under the 14th amendment and equal protection of the law. If this isn't so then maybe same sex couples should get a discount on their taxes.
PogueMoran 3 years ago
Well - that remains to be seen. It was accepted as a State amendment referendum, so I don't see any court challenge to it's validity being successful...
"On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters."
LemurFox 3 years ago
Just because the petitions motion was struck down doesn't mean the courts wouldn't rule in favor of the state or federal constitution which calls for equal protection under the law. Prop 8 is unconstitutional
PogueMoran 3 years ago
I think you're wrong on that, but we shall see. Either way, the democratic system is working the way that it should...
LemurFox 3 years ago
When was this ;o I want in...
bokutasukeru 3 years ago
This video is awesome! Maybe 8 needed to pass to help us unite against the Radical Religious Right bigots who seek to destroy all our freedoms. The line, that supposedly separates Church and State, has been crossed. Religious organizations MUST lose their tax exempt status for politicking and trampling all over non-believer's rights!
DavePurz 3 years ago
Wow. Any excuse to get up and get rowdy...
I would say that it looked like a civil rights march - IF anyone's rights were actually being infringed upon...
LemurFox 3 years ago
Gay folks and lesbians have been denied the right to marry.
artgirlxx 3 years ago
Not really - they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. What they want are NEW rights, when they already have all the benefits of marriage, just under a different name...
LemurFox 3 years ago
And back in the '50s, black people had the right to ride the bus, just in a section with a different name.
chechcal 3 years ago
Lol - If the law was passed forcing homosexual couples to live, work, or marry in a specific place, you might have a point - Almost...
LemurFox 3 years ago
wow that argument would be legit if the first two words of the ballot weren't "Eliminates RIGHTS...." try reading the ballot next time you try to put your opinion out there asshole.
sweetstaches 3 years ago
Try educating yourself - The very biased secretary of state's office changed the wording to the proposition on the ballot. The actual amendment simply defined the word marriage, and had nothing to do with eliminating rights...
LemurFox 3 years ago
it has everything to do with eliminating rights. aside from not allowing gays and lesbians to marry the one person they want to send the rest of their life with, there are so many rights that come along with marriage that are being taken away. spouses have certain rights as a spouse, and those in a domestic partnership don't have the same rights, they have less because they don't have the legal documentation of a marriage. google it, i dare you to tell me all the rights are the same.
sweetstaches 3 years ago
Hi Sweetstaches. No, you're right. I have a similar discussion going on in a different video. The rights are *slightly* different, but the differences are there. This is where the fight should be aimed, at getting those rights included in domestic partnerships. Most of them, however, are inter-state and federal issues, and presently at the federal level no definition of marriage exists - each state has the right to decide in their own Constitutions...
LemurFox 3 years ago
i agree. well, obviously, it was my argument. although you bring up another argument. you may not have meant it this way, but you represent the fear and uncomfortableness (if that's even a word, which it probably isn't) of something different. a majority of CA opposes gay marriage, although a majority wants them to have the same rights. it's all about a four letter word. i want them to have the same rights, but i also want them to get married if that's what they choose.
sweetstaches 3 years ago
This is awesome! SF ROCKS!!! Equality will once again prevail!
Flyguyjake 3 years ago
i want to hear fog horns go off, wish i was there.
chillniceguy 3 years ago