Approximately 20,000 people just marched by. I am unclear on the details, but apparently they were upset about something. I can tell you they were not in opposition to the extensive and varied use of color.
is it really any worse to have the majority of a population define what they deem to be acceptable for their society than a few judges force the position of the minority (and proponents for gay marriage are still a minority) on them and rewrite the constitution themselves in opposition to the public's preference? what's allowed and not allowed in society has always been determined either by the powerful or the majority. in this case, the majority won. that's pretty normal. societies always discriminate based on what they deem acceptable behavior. in today's California, the majority still believe gay marriage is unacceptable.
Uh, yes. Yes it is. I still don't understand how allowing gays to marry "forces" the issue on anyone. I wasn't aware that attendance at a gay marriage was necessary. There's a reason why we engage in representative democracy and not full scale democracy. That reason involves protecting minorities from an uninformed and dangerous majority who would institute laws based on their will rather than based on the protection of rights. I have a problem with the entire progression of events in our state. A referendum was initially placed on the ballot which allowed the majority to define civil code in 2000. In 2005, the democratically elected California state legislature voted to enact a gay marriage bill. They're not elected to office to render the will of the people, they're elected to office to act on the public's behalf and define the rights of the people under the state Constitution. They did so. Our governor vetoed it. Why did he do so? Because he felt it was an inappropriate measure? No. He vetoed it because he was afraid to take action like an elected official should, and instead turned the matter over to the courts to interpret the constitution. Again, this is their job. Interpreting the state Constitution, the court ruled that gay marriage fell within the rights granted by the state of California. Again, they did exactly what they were appointed to do. Again, the will of state legislators elected as the informed representatives of the people and the Supreme Court, appointed to uphold the rights granted by the state Constitution, both ruled in favor of gay marriage. So what happens? We overturn everything that representative democracy stands for and allow the majority to rule against the minority, not according to beliefs in accord with some understanding of the constitution, but by muddying the distinction between church and state and by legislating according to religious belief. It's baffling. Again it goes to the Supreme Court, and again the Supreme Court does what it is appointed to do. It upholds the right of the people to amend the Constitution of the state of California. Again, this is the part I have a problem with. I can't understand why in the world it would be considered okay for the majority to amend the Constitution to discriminate against the minority, and I challenge you to argue in favor of this on the grounds of original intent. There's a reason why we've never seen the US Constitution put up to a public vote. It's just a shame that some of our states didn't seem to learn that lesson.
So our society deems discrimination to be acceptable behavior? Edit: I've thought it over and I'm completely in favor of discriminating against one group: stupid people. Not from marriage but from procreation.
Of course it does. Didn't you see the KKK float in the Rose Parade? The KKK was just a populist movement protesting a national legislature that acted against the majority will of the southern population. It was a perfectly legitimate complaint, even if the group occasionally engaged in rather extreme hijinks.
We were not being assholes. We were being protective & respectful of our mods. The mods give up a good amount of their lives, in order to keep TGG the best mb in the NFL. Their preference for same sex clandestine lovers, is their business, not ours. The mods are generous with giving us their time, and there is no reason to intrude into their private lives.
societies discriminate all the time. are you seriously that unaware of the practice or should we not allow you to procreate? convicted felons can't vote while serving a sentence. that's a form of discrimination, except a felon isn't a protected class so it is allowed. if you don't understand that, you don't understand the concept of discrimination. and if your retort is they lose the right to vote because of their crime, that is just justifying the discrimination, and either one can justify any discrimination or there is no justification for any type of discrimination. either everyone is provided the same rights that can never be taken away or rights can be selectively taken away depending on behavior and actions. sexual attraction may be an instinct, but acting on it is a behavior and act, so if behaviors and acts can lead to the barring of rights, homosexuality falls within the criteria. which side of he fence do you really stand on? the argument comes down to whether sexual orientation is a protected class, unlike criminals. ironically, in California it is, and that is where any legitimate argument would have to start. except you didn't, you simply went to the dumbfounding assertion that society doesn't discriminate as your defense, which is because you simply want to ignore all acts of discrimination that dispute your position, which is illogical, or you're just ignorant.
They are making so much more than what it is out here . I dont know if they can appeal but they will . The news said they are already trying to get it back on the ballot in 2010. So we will see. It has been taken to a different level out here I mean they be protesting basically together on opposite sides of the street and then boom a fight breaks out . man 1 more year out here and im gone
^legal by who's law? And its only a poor implication if you view the legal statutes as your standard. But things are legal and then illegal and then legal again. Was alcohol consumption ok, and then bad, and now ok again? Is it not true that it's "correctness" is inherent in the act regardless if one country santicifies it and another does not? Homsexuality was considered a mental illness but now it's not. If tomorrow it is again considered a mental illness by the psychological community, would you thenl consider it a sexual deviation? What if the US government outlawed it? Would you then change your mind regarding it? Of course not. Hence, legal definitions cannot be the standard of rightness.
You obviously see the enormous difference between an adult abusing a child sexually and two adults engaging in entirely consensual relationships don't you? That comparison is one of the stupidest things ever written by anybody in the history of the world.
It takes so many words to just avoid saying that you're a homophobe. It's sad that the best argument against gay marriage is that it's alright to discriminate if you can justify it. I also can't believe you responded to my procreation comment seriously.
It's the law where I live in Florida, and I'm guessing out in NM also. Pedophilia has a victim. Consensual adult homosex does not. That is the standard by which I judge. In this case, the current laws support what is right. That is not always the case, but thankfully I don't ever see baby butt sex becoming acceptable to society.
It's a states rights issue, even though I voted to give them their rights. They should be given equal protection under the law nationally, but each state should have the right to define marriage within their own boundries. Personally, I think all marriages should be called civil unions in the eye of the law, and then let the churches call it whatever the hell they want. Someone else posted that a while ago too.
