Prop 8: The Big Lie
Uploader Comments (BruinUnderground)
Top Comments
-
PROPOSITION 8 CREATURES ARE: A FEARFUL PATHETIC HELPLESS UGLY BIGOTS - UNEDUCATED IDIOTS!
HYPOCRATES, devoted to your opinions and prejudices; ones who regards or treats the members of groups (as a racial or ethnic groups) with hatred and intolerance
;
THE BIGGEST CLOSETED CASES ALSO;
WE HAVE TO DEPORT THEM TO TALIBAN.
SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT FREEDOM MEANS!
-
MichelleMcCaffreyAnn, "clean up our act and behave?" Like when Fred Phelps and his Baptist church holds up "God Hates Fags" signs, pickets Matthew Shepherd's funeral and blames gay people for 9/11, Hurrican Katrina, and the Iraq war? Pleeeeeaaaaaaasssssee. Or what about yes on 8 supporters sending letters to 8 gay bars in Seattle threatening to poison people with ricin? Try looking at some of the comments from your "friends" and tell me that we need to clean up our act.
Video Responses
All Comments (220)
-
Why do they say "life liberty & the pursuit of happiness", "Liberty & justice for all", then have laws telling us who we can & cannot marry. There should be absolutely no exceptions. I hte the fact that I was born in the U.S. & am still treated like a second class citezen because I am gay. Like I sai, there should be absolutely no exceptions.
-
why cant they have the right to marry the person they love?
-
woo!
I am your new fan!
xXx
-
Adam and Eve weren't real. This law will be overturned don't like it . too bad of to Iran you go. I think you'll like it there because there are allot of religious fundamentalists there except they worship a different invisible man than you however I'm sure you'll find yourself right at home when you see them beheading gay couples in the town square.
-
You forgot something else:
if you don't want schools bringing up homosexuality and stuff, then vote to have that taken out of the school codes. Proposition 8 isn't needed.
-
the court ruled to allow gay marriages because the court has to protect the minorities RIGHTS from the majority rule.
in plessy vs. ferguson, the courts ruled separate but equal. blacks sit in the back, gays cant call their union a marriage, its all documentation.
when gays go to the county to get their civil unions, its not recognized by other states, and all they consider it is a legal agreement. how about this, you have have the legal agreement, but give us marriage!
-
crazywabt, the difference between you and us is that when the people of california vote on this again, and our marriage rights are given back to us, we aren't going to tell you to go to Canada. Oh, wait, Canada already believes in equality. I guess you anti-marriage folks will have to go to Alabama or some other state that's still afraid of two men or two women being happy.



3. thats why in Massachusetts adoptions suddenly had to put children in gay families.... my fault, just total consequence that it happen to Massachusetts only after it legalize gay marriage, and to no other state in the country.
4. legal experts say that this is a was possibility but i like to see the law that prevents this.
dylpickleboy 3 years ago
3) Correlation does not imply causation, silly. It WAS because of non-discrimination laws... liberal states are more likely to recognize same-sex relationships and liberal states are more likely to enforce non-discrimination laws more strictly... the fact that same-sex marriage and non-discrimination laws both occur doesn't mean that one causes the other, it means that the state is liberal.
BruinUnderground 3 years ago
You should look up the LA Times editorial: "No on Proposition 8: Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage." It does a pretty good job of providing the full - more honest - context to the case you cite. Main highlight...
"not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier"
Please read that article before commenting further. It addresses ALL these Yeson8 lies.
BruinUnderground 3 years ago
4) Legal experts roundly rejected this claim so I don't know who you're referring to. Just because something is a possibility, doesn't mean you have to have a law for it... it's POSSIBLE that atheists are going to sue priests for preaching anti-science lies... there's no law that specifically exempts this. But it's NOT LIKELY and there's NO PRECEDENT and they'd likely LOSE the case.
BruinUnderground 3 years ago