^

11/5/2008 1:05:40 AM

Quote :

"i guess they didn't want the economic boost that having a significant percentage of the country's population going there to get married "

yeah, no need to throw an opinion in there

the guy asked where it stood

11/5/2008 1:07:38 AM

As a California resident, I'm very saddened and worried by the returns that have come in so far... non-metropolitan precincts are anywhere from 60-75% for the ban, and the more liberal areas just aren't coming in strong enough against it to counterbalance. Not even a majority against it in LA or Orange Counties.

Institutionalized discrimination makes me a sad panda.

11/5/2008 1:07:47 AM

how'd you guys fuck this up?

11/5/2008 1:13:48 AM

look nigga

no one is saying gays can't brokeback it up whenever they want

they just don't want it to be the same as man and woman and they DAMN SURE don't want kids involved

a legal union would be OK with me, with the same rights, but some dude in a dress is just plain fucked up

11/5/2008 1:15:57 AM

^^

LA is only ten percent in so far. The exit polls show it losing overall. We'll see; California is very slow at counting ballots.

11/5/2008 1:16:41 AM

^^^^ me too, very disappointed in southern california

still holding out hope, but not feeling too good about this one - an absolute shame too, this is a terrible step backwards

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 1:17 AM. Reason : ^'s]

11/5/2008 1:17:20 AM

come on fuckers, it's not like they are voting on arresting queers for sodomy or anything

but to involve children in a gay relationship is a serious problem

11/5/2008 1:19:47 AM

what happened to all you states rights people?

11/5/2008 1:28:49 AM

this is a states' rights issue. That's why the state has the referendum on the state ballot

Quote :

"^^The legal right to enter into marriage with a person that they desire to enter into marriage with. (The sentence I just typed contains questionable grammar but is logically sound.)"

I don't have that legal right. I have the legal right to marry a woman, as do all american males

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 1:33 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2008 1:30:57 AM

I'm all for state's rights, but on an issue like the legislation of discrimination, there are some things that no level of government should be allowed to write into law.

^Because you desire to enter into marriage with a woman, you DO have the legal right to enter into marriage with someone you wish to enter into marriage with. Unless I missed something and you're actually gay, in which case you don't have that right. Seems like you kind of ignored the specific wording of my statement.


[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 1:36 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2008 1:32:20 AM

Quote :

"but to involve children in a gay relationship is a serious problem"

statements like that sound more universal than statewide to me... but whatever, the republicans tried to make elections about god & gays & obama hangs out with terrorists and all that nonsense one too many times and it finally backfired... and there's always Connecticut & Massachusetts.

11/5/2008 1:34:51 AM

^^

There are many people who thought Jim Crow laws were OK, too.

...

It's not an issue of state's rights. That's ridiculous; could you imagine a state having a referendum like "should black people be allowed to vote?"

Marriage is a right not a privilege and it ought to be protected by the U.S. Federal Constitution and the 14th amendment in particular. Equal protection under the law -- real equal protection, not nominal equal protection -- is one of the guiding principles of modern democracy.

It's just a sad irony for something like proposition 8 to pass on the night that Barack Obama is elected. The man is the product of miscegenation. We're not the first generation to fight a long, hard road for marriage equality; we likely won't be the last.

When our leaders have the political courage to speak correctly on this issue -- and, I may add, our President-elect does not -- then the next advancement will be made.

11/5/2008 1:42:45 AM

yeah, this is one of the biggest things that irks me about obama, being an obama supporter.

biden, too.

11/5/2008 1:45:56 AM

^^ Obama officially opposes prop 8.

11/5/2008 1:46:55 AM

^

So what? It's not like he was here stumping against it. Arnold showed more political courage on the issue.

11/5/2008 1:49:16 AM

^ it should be obvious why he wouldn't say anything before the election.

but it's not implausible, I don't think, to see Obama speaking out about it more.

11/5/2008 1:55:04 AM

Quote :

"There are many people who thought Jim Crow laws were OK, too."

You know I was agreeing (in general) with you, right? When I said that no level of government should be allowed to write discrimination into law?

11/5/2008 2:02:23 AM

^

Sorry, that was directed more at the poster above you. The whole "I have the right to marry a woman like everyone else" logic is just Jim Crow 2008 edition.

11/5/2008 2:23:16 AM

Quote :

"Seems like you kind of ignored the specific wording of my statement."

The specific wording of your question included a desire, and neither a right nor privilege. If I desired to drive my car on the wrong side of the road it would not be legal. In this same way, you also would not be able to drive on the wrong side of the road. Thus, we have equal rights, even though I cannot proceed with my desire.

Quote :

"The whole "I have the right to marry a woman like everyone else" logic is just Jim Crow 2008 edition."

So suddenly gays are equivalent to a different race? I did not say gays can't do this or that. I'm only arguing that they have just as many rights as everyone else in the country.

11/5/2008 2:31:08 AM

^ Why wouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else. Because they are gay? That is like saying they cannot because of the race they are, or the sex they are, or how old they are. I say if they want to get married then let them. It will be interesting to see if all of their marriages end in a 50% divorce rate like hetro marriages do.

11/5/2008 2:47:10 AM

everyone is free to marry the same race, everyone has the same rights

11/5/2008 2:47:31 AM

lets face it, its the religious undertones of marriage that people are trying to protect

when are people going to start voting to protect the rights of minorities instead of voting on whether or not they thing its weird

and the child thing i can half way understand, but lets be honest, there are more fucked up heterosexual or single parent situations than both parents being gay

11/5/2008 10:42:13 AM

Quote :

" So suddenly gays are equivalent to a different race? I did not say gays can't do this or that. I'm only arguing that they have just as many rights as everyone else in the country."

Well, it might help if you understood that I was comparing the restrictions on marriage to Jim Crow laws; I wasn't comparing gays to blacks. Obviously comparing the effects of laws on groups is not the same as comparing the groups themselves.

Black people had the same right to vote as white people under Jim Crow. All they had to do was learn how to read!

Gay people have the same right to marry as straight people. All they have to do is alter their sexual orientation!

Any reasonable person can see the obvious parallels here. In both cases a specific group is denied a basic protection unless they overcome an unreasonable hurdle. That was the very premise of Jim Crow then; it is the very premise of marriage inequality now.

11/5/2008 12:01:54 PM

entirely wrong thread, had too many open

[Edited on November 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2008 5:15:27 PM