Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
I think it’s time for Democrat leaders to counsel the anti-Prop. 8 mob to stop the protests and accept the will of the people of California.
Tell them to leave the churches alone. Tell them to stop blocking traffic and impeding businesses and harassing elderly couples and targeting donors.
It’s over. You lost. Move on.
With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Prop. 8 had 52.3% of the vote, with 47.7% against. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.
You know how those Obama supporters have launched their treacly “healing” website, “from 52 to 48 | 48 to 52 with love?”
Maybe Prop. 8 supporters should do the same thing.
If you are a Californian who voted for Prop. 8 and want to send a healing message to a sore loser who voted against it, feel free to send me a photo, e-mail, or comment and I’ll create a separate “from 52 to 48″ post.
***
Previous:
Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire
Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics
Who supported Prop. 8?
First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding
Public school politicking and Proposition 8
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Baptist Church to picket burial of Obama’s grandmother » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Left Of Center
- Radical gay group terroizes Mount Hope Church, Lansing, MI | blogs4God
- Dan Cleary
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Ignorantia Juris » Archive » Hmmm
- California Communist Party aka Democrats (plus Arnold) « Bob’s Bites
- Obama and his followers make McCain and Palin still look good! « Riggword Weblog
- Legislators throw the democracy baby out with the Proposition 8 bath water | Neolibertarian at large
- Prop 8, YES - NO | BigMouthFrog
- Stocks drop, Bum Ninjas “rock,” Big 3 don’t see the clock « Mark Epstein
- Memo to Michelle Malkin- Move on, please…. | Political Byline
- Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
- Proposition 8 Protestors Getting Out of Control « Trust, But Verify
- The Daily Conservative
- The Strident Conservative
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
Waiting for the liberal judges to overturn the will of the people in 4 … 3 … 2 ….
Yep. It’s not over. This will go to the liberal supreme court here in CA, challenged and won — on the side of the pro-gay-marriage folks I’m afraid.
No doubt that will happen – AGAIN.
And what if the conservatives had taken to the streets once McCain admitted defeat?…
This is the SECOND time in California that the people have spoken in an election and voted regarding this issue. Why don’t the losers get that?
Any wonder why the rest of the country looks at us a little strange? Oh, well, there’s always the consolation that when the big one hits, everything east of the Sierras will sink into the Atlantic, and we’ll be left high and dry.
Why do people who think they’re superior pretend they want to be regarded as equals?
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Well, the people in Lansing, Michigan are not feeling the love.
Since blacks pushed Prop 8 over the top, I invite the anti-prop 8 mob to protest them.
Here’s a map for their convenience:
Compton
Please let us know how it goes.
As a California National Guardsman for over 20 years, and a combat veteran, I’m not allowed to speak derogatorily about the rotten two faced back stabbing ignorant son of a bitch who is our Governor.
So I’ll be nice.
Do you really think so? On what basis? Can someone familiar with CA law provide an analysis?
It’s called liberal hypocrisy. If we do it, it’s called hate.
In accordance with the fundamental principle of constitutional law – the courts exist to give liberals what they want in those cases where the stupid democratic process fails to do so.
Here’s an article in the SFGate.com that explains what’s going on as of today.
52.3% of the voters had enough common sense to recognize natural from unnatural, that heading down the rabbit hole that is homosexual marriage will then have us recognizing John marrying his sister Jane and Bill marrying his dog Fluffy; Please, for the sake of future generations, let’s be honest and admit there is one and only one method to guarantee any future generations, and anything else just ain’t right!
So, can we by the same logic challenge Obama’s election? I mean, we’re against it, so shouldn’t we be able to bitch and moan until it gets overturned? Or does the will of the people only count when the left likes the outcome?
Like a bunch of petulant children they are so blinded they don’t realize they are damning their cause by their actions.
By the way I set up a little anti-48-52 blog here http://thefortyeight.blogspot.com/, please drop by and post all you like. And certainly don’t forget http://www.americanarmed.blogspot.com too I need all the Google ad love I can get LOL, so click early and click often.
(I’m just trying to spread some of Google’s wealth around…to me!!)
This gay conservative finds the humor in black voters pushing this over the top while they yet voted for the most liberal democrat EVAH who supports gay marriage. However humorous it is to me, I won’t forget their blatant ignorance.
Note that LA Answer is printed on the placards. This protest is not about gay rights, it’s about International Answer’s campaign to destabilize and transform our system of government.
Folks, I’ve said on these blogs before…GOOOD VS. EVIL….the war has begun…..even Churches are no longer immune…..it’s happening now in the streets of America….I really do hope that righteous, moral and God-fearing individuals have come to recognize this and are prepared to act accordingly….
If Prop 8 is going to be “defended” by noted Prop 8 opponent Jerry Brown, then it’s sunk.
I believe that this is how one of the anti-illegal Props was junked in California, after the voters passed it. It went to court and was “defended” by one of it’s bitter enemies.
corkie, they don’t need to worry about the law – they just make it up as they go along. they did it with the right to privacy, they’ve done it with this already, and they will do it again.
it’s going to be overturned. everyone i know in california that supported proposition 8 agrees. and guess what? when that happens, they won’t riot, or vandalize gay bars, or threaten boycotts or block streets. they’ll try to peacefully resolve the issue and follow the rule of law by going back out to the people AGAIN. and if they lose, they will be dignified about it and move on with their lives.
As a Californian, the ads in my neighborhood against Prop 8 said “Stop the Hate, No on 8″. And now that Prop 8 has passed these individuals who are against hate have decided that the solution is to riot on churches???
BURN DOWN THE BATH HOUSES if the judges overturn 8./sarc
It’s good enough for the Mormans.
Someone needs to tell Arnold.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4939340.story
As a California resident that campaigned for Proposition 8, the only protection we have against another dubious ruling from the California Supreme Court is our ability to recall them.
They have no problem hating any person or organization who opposes them.
Probably really all 52’s. That website made my teeth ache.
I’m always slightly confused by gay conservatives. By virtue of being a conservative, don’t you therefore oppose marriage…for yourself?
And, for the record, African Americans only make up approximately 6% of California’s population. So while 70% of them (and more than half of Latinos) voted for Prop 8, they clearly had a lot of help from Californians across the board in getting it passed. Think of it this way: a majority of Californians, regardless of race or ethnicity, voted both for Obama AND for Prop 8. Simple as that.
Why should they quit?
Should conservatives quit because they lost everything else last Tuesday?
With all the No on 8 folks and celebrities lamenting the outcome, you know what I have yet to hear from any of them?
A condemnation of the violence.
[Crickets chirrping]
Last wednesday a sfgate poster in support of gay marriage said “52 – 48 is not a mandate or the will of the people.”
Tell that to John McCain.
The radical homosexual activists are hurting the cause.
If those 5 year olds hadn’t been taken to see a lesbian wedding or made to sign GLBT acceptance pledge cards, then Prop 8 might have come out differently.
MLK figured out that you do your cause justice with civil and peaceful protest. Angry, in-your-face tactics do not engender support from the folks whose support you need..
Can the court really overrule the vote of the people?
since the ratio is similar to the presidential election lets swap, we get McCain and married gays, you get 0bama and divorcing gays – LMAO – deal?
Digshot has bingo. Using Michelle’s logic, maybe Kos should tell his readers to send him messages telling MM’s readers to get over it. You lost.
They should certainly quit the violence, Digshot. Or do you think it’s justified?
If so, then we’d be totally justified in protesting down in Obama’s Chicago neighborhood. Violently, if necessary, you know – for the sake of equality and all that.
There’s a democratic process in this nation; Prop. 8 went through that process.
If they want to change it, they have to put it to a vote, again.
But that’s never how it works with liberals. To you, 52% of the vote for Obama was a “mandate”; 52% for Prop. 8 was a travesty.
Good gracious.
and mormons make up less than 3% of the population. the fact that they’re being lambasted as THE REASON!!!! is funny to me.
A little something to help California with it’s loss….
And the nuttyness continues.
Article here.
I’m curious — what function does a supreme court serve in a Socialist state in a Socialist country? Snappy fashion trend setters? Party etiquette? Rubber stampers?
I told people that no matter what, gay marriage will happen in California. Prop 8 is just a way to make voters think they have a voice, but they really don’t.
The proponents of same sex marriage SAY their intention is that same sex couples would have similar legal standings as do hetero couples, i.e., visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance safeguards, etc.
Fine – I for one don’t have a problem with that, and seriously doubt the majority do. Just tell me why this has to be accomplished via an officially recognized “Marriage.”
I believe certain things such as this can be provided for without turning the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on its head and generally pissing off the majority. I would think a simple amendment to civil law would do the trick.
Because maybe their closed minded bigots? yep, believe it or not the intolerance of the left raises it’s ugly head once again.
Don’t you think threatening to burn down churchs is a little extreme?
They already have.
This is big time dangerous territory the opposition is entering. If this gets overturned, that means putting anything the liberal left doesn’t agree with on any future prop ballots won’t be worth anything.
Note to NO on Prop 8 voters: Be careful what you wish for.
When I explain to Prop 8 dissenters that it is NOT discriminatory to anyone to require one sex to only marry the other sex (one at a time please), they just don’t get it. Make no mistake, legalization of gay marriage WILL lead to polygamy as well as people marrying animals [will the groom say "I do"....arf! arf!]. We’ll have one government worker on the payroll and 257 people and 11 dogs riding on the workers health insurance benefits.
California law already gives homosexual couples registered as domestic partners all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but without redefining marriage. This has nothing to do with rights, this has to do with changing the meaning of words and forcing the public to accept it.
It also is a means to indoctrinate the children and since they had already started that process in Massachusetts, the no on 8 campaign rhetoric rang hollow.
Right on!
Yeah, people coming together out of love for their country is a terrible thing, isn’t it?
Dope.
We mustn’t ever be surprised about the protests:
Really? So, allowing two human beings to marry each other will INEVITABLY lead to interspecies couplings? I find this incredibly difficult to believe. Homosexuality and bestiality are NOT the same thing; implying so undermines your argument.
And they have every right as Americans to continue to protest and to draw attention to their cause. Getting those who oppose gay marriage to support their efforts may call for a softening of the current rhetoric being used, but they certainly don’t need to back down from peaceful protest.
The CaliPornia Supreme Clout wants us to be more receptive to the feelings and emotions of those who are like us in every way, except politically and sexually….or else.
The message from the four
toolsmembers of this panel could not be any clearer for the supporters of Prop. 8, and it has nothing to do with being patriotic…BEND OVER!A marriage ceremony is religious. Not everyone participates in religion. If 2 people want to share their lives together then they should eliminate “marriage” from the state and everyone should enter into contracts. Beyond that, if these people choose to participate in a marriage ceremony in their house of worship, then so be it. Separation of Church and State.
I support gay marriage, but democracy is democracy and the people of California voted against it. Having riots and getting up in everyone’s faces about how bigoted you think they are isn’t going to accomplish anything.
Schwarzenegger doesn’t think the fight is over. He told Prop 8 opponents that they should keep fighting until the result is nullified by the courts!
Amazing. A popularly-elected politician urging the courts to find some way to thwart the will of the people. I wonder if Schwarzenegger would also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obama’s election as president. At least that would be an even trade.
This can still all be negated if Obama Reappeals DOMA.
Obama campaign noted to the homosexual community that they favor repealing DOMA.
DOMA (FEDERAL) if repealed, means states will be forced to recognize married homosexuals who move there from states which have already legalized homosexual marriage
It’s a back door way of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
It would, if that’s what we’re implying. It’s not.
But what we are saying is that the argument that people can’t discriminate who marries on the basis of sexual orientation opens up the door wide for a re-interpretation of marriage beyond two consenting adults.
You who argue in favor of gay marriage can’t say it’s discriminatory not to allow same-sex couples to wed, and then turn around to the polygamists, the incestuous, the animal lovers, the child-bride takers and tell them they can’t receive legal recognition for their marriage because you’ve already made and tried to win successfully the argument that doing so is wrong.
See where we’re going here?
That’s a gross understatement. I’d also say stopping lawsuits against churches, groups, and individuals who don’t condone gay marriage, and allowing parents who object to raise their kids accordingly would also help.
I see that everyones favorite ignorant bigot is back.
Hi, nyk!
Until the pro-gay marriage people stop treating the anti-gay marriage people as a hopeless collection of bigots, they will never win this argument.
It’s really not even ABOUT whether gay is right or wrong… it’s about government involvement in a religious institution. I think most of us would ideally not have government defining marriage at all, but recognize the necessary evil of such. Because the state through a compelling interest insists on recognizing marriages as a legal entity, then it is important to have the term legally defined.
What is this compelling interest? From a purely secular standpoint, marriage is a contract that creates financial and legal obligations between two consenting adult parties. Why on earth would two people voluntarily enter into legally binding government licensed contracts with eachother when simple oral vows are sufficient to satisfy the religious definitions of marriage? Why does the government care HOW permanent one’s union is with one’s loved one? Simple! The government has a responsibility to defend the interests of those citizens that are incapable of defending themselves: children. Without future generations of citizens there would be no future of the U.S., so these legal terms discourage frivolous marriages and divorces, ensuring more children have unbroken homes. This is the reason behind the incentivising through tax code and credit towards marrying… the possibility of benefitting children.
Because of NON-discrimination laws, the government can not discriminate in its licensing process based on the number of children the applicants plan to have, even if that number is zero. However, people lose sight of what discrimination means… pre-judging for no-good-reason reason based on speculation. There is NO speculation as to whether same-sex couples are capable of generating offspring on their own. Much like a driver’s license does not depend on whether one intends to ever buy a car, a driver’s license would still be denied to a quadrapelegic that owned 50 cars.
It is ironic that these non-discrimination requirements of marriage licensing are part of what prevents homosexual marriage from being recognized by the state… However there is absolutely nothing that prevents any couples from entering into any personal commitment to their significant other that they so choose… even so far as drawing up contracts which mirror the legal ramifications of marriage. Now, it would be theoretically possible to create a special class of marriage for those incapable of conception which exempted them from certain taxpayer-paid benefits… but it can NOT be CALLED marriage, because then you would have a “seperate but equal” situation which would be ruled unconstitutional. This is the very reason for the invention and nomenclature of Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships that allow the conferrance of preferred statuses in terms of inheritance, health benefits, etc… the only difference is that it avoids the unfairness of asking the taxpayer to subsidize a relationship that is guaranteed to create no return-on-investment to the nation.
Many people do not take marriage seriously today as it is, even WITH children who significantly help keep committed relationships together if only for their sake… a whole new class of lowered obligation marriages potentially setting bad examples could be woefully damaging to the country’s capability to rear well-adjusted future generations. It’s a question of whether the country is willing to accept that risk, and none of this has anything to do with any moral judgement on bedroom behaviours.
So the next time you hear “it’s obvious if you’re against gay-marriage, you must hate gays!” argument… just remember it makes as much sense as “it’s obvious if you’re for gay-marriage, you must hate children!”
Well, you’re very bright.
I got this out of sfgate……Seems that if you voted for prop 8 they will Hunt you down and ………You.
Gay artists seek boycott of Sacramento theater.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/n/a/2008/11/11/state/n103927S55.DTL&o=2
Meanwhile we’re now up to 7 Mormon chapels on the Wasatch Front whose glass front doors have been smashed since Sunday morning, and the police are baffled as to motive, yet certain it’s not a hate crime.
So? Gender redundant homosexual ‘marriage’ and – traditional, 1000’s of years old, complimentary, normal, two gender, heterosexual, one of each, real marriage – “are NOT the same thing” either!
Boy, you walked right into that one!
torabora is absolutely correct. If you can start changing the definition of the word marriage to include some other combination it never meant before – then WHO is to say where the line is drawn when others come along wanting to change it again to include animals or more than two people, etc.? Their argument will be as valid as yours.
After all, that argument, the only one homosexuals have ever advanced to justify ’same sex marriage’, is simply that they “WAAAAAANT IT!”
Well you ain’t gettin it so – TS!
Should Arnold ask the California supreme court, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court (the entity itself – if not the socialist unelected law changers themselves – deserves capitalization, I believe), to nullify his election as California governor?
Of course you can. Polygamy, incest and bestiality are illegal. Homosexuality is not.
sorry wrong link
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/11/state/n103927S55.DTL&tsp=1
No puns, now.
This has nothing to do ith “Homophobia” or “Discrimination” (by the way, how do African American’s feel about gays comparing their quest for equality to the civil rights movement in the 60’s?) Name calling tactics in defense of others decisions to support this proposition is meant to silence thier opponents out of fear of being perceived as a bad, ignorant or intolerant person.
I’ve always voted against any proposition that encourages changes to the constitution. Reason? If one person or group starts to change it, (even if i agree with it)…what will keep others with ill intent from changing the Constitution once the precedence has been set. Nothing.
Our problem here in California is that we have wing-nut judges and politicians hell bent on handing down decisions by purposely misrepresenting and misinterpreting the Constitution (and voters intents) for their own ideological and political agendas – and against what the majority of Californians have ALREADY DECIDED.
If the family unit can be broken down and redefined it damages the integrity of our culture as a whole.
People say that under our Constitution we are given the rights to “Life, Liberty and Property”, and that denying marriage for a same sex couple is therefore discrimination. I would like to ask them (and I have): “As a single straight woman how do they think my rights are being denied because I am NOT married?” Answer: “I have not been denied any of these above.”
Their “movement” makes zero sense, which is why they resort to slander and bullying (burining, vandalism, hooliganism…).
Their life style is their choice. No one is denying them the right to existence, making medical decisions, buying property, finding happiness or anything else. These issues can be handled legally with any legal documents (e.g. “Power of Attorney” or “Wills” or “Executor of an Estate” etc). I mean, what do non-married heterosexual couples do?
Do they understand that there are some who voted for this Prop because they believe this Government does not have the right to tell anyone what to do when it comes to their beliefs or their Religion (or anything else for that matter)? Just as we don’t have a right to tell them who they can or cant chose to sleep with?
They HATE religion yet they want to be recognized under its “laws”. Give me a break, this STINKS.
The basic family unit is a foundation of freedom in this country and, therefore, an obstacle to socialism (a movement in which God cannot exist in order to thrive).
From a 52 to a 48.
The court can overturn the amendment if they find that it violates the state constitution’s equal rights provision. Whether they will or not is what we’re waiting for. The decision to overturn prop 22 was 4-3, so if it comes to the court, and if a single justice who voted to overturn switches, then the prop 8 stands. And they may, because it is also permitted for the people of California to recall justices of the state supreme court, and did so to the Rose Byrd court for its refusal to enforce the death penalty. The talk radio shows have already indicated that the plans for the recall drive are in the works. And so it goes…
I realize you were only responding to examples, but you shouldn’t legally confuse marriage with sex…
Polygamy is an illegal form of marriage.
While incest is illegal, that says nothing about the legality of a marriage between a brother and sister.
Similarly the illegality of bestiality says nothing about the legality of marrying an animal… for example a dolphin which has already occurred in Australia.
By your logic, Polygamy is illegal, and therefore will always remain illegal. Therefore illegal homosexual marriage (which has nothing to do with the legal sexual act) will always stay illegal
It was illegal not so long ago. So who are you to decide who should marry who? Why shouldn’t a father marry his son, and his sons wife? Who are you to deny them thier “lifestyle” because it makes you uncomfortable? Why do you fear a bisexual incestual group marriage? BIGOT!!!
I know certain fundamental tenets of a free, democratic society are considered “quaint” around these parts, but if people object to something, they are welcome — “free,” if you will — to stand up and say so.
Yes, Prop 8 passed, but this issue is far from over, and it won’t be until gay marriage is legal and recognized in all 50 states. Don’t believe me? Look at the breakdown of the vote by age. The momentum is moving towards marriage equality, and I welcome you to take to the streets and protest when that happens.
Nor are threesomes. I don’t see how redefineing marriage to include homosexual couples could be stopped there. It is now being presented as a right denied homosexual couples now, not individuals. What is so special about a group of two? Why can’t a group of three who love one another be married just like a group of two? I have yet to hear an argument, other than “That’s ridiculous! It would never happen.” That was the same thing we used to hear 20 years ago about gay marriage when homosexuality was being presented as nothing more than another lifestyle choice. Really, what legal barrier will prevent this line of reasoning from being used, as we all know it will be, once the first hurdle is overcome?
Yawn.
You didn’t answer. Bigot, who are you to deny them the right to bisexual incestual group marriage?
I did answer. I yawned.
They will not give up. They know they have the advantage because California voters do not matter. There is only a democracy when the right people want it to appear so.
This 52 will lose. Now, someone go apply this form of ‘democracy’ to the other 52.
The other side of this coin is that Government should not even be in the business of defining a “marriage”. Anyone can get “married” based on their own beliefs. Marriage would not trigger any Government benefits, special rights, or tax consequences. Anybody wanting those would do so using civil law. Separation of Church & State?
Any gay person can get “married” right now. They don’t want marriage, they want Government recognition (and approval)of their marriage.
I suspect that all the attendant benefits of marriage such as hospital visits, inheritance, and tax filing status are really secondary to the acceptance and normalization issue. IMHO.
The Left was so nasty during this election cycle, they actually spread rumors a sitting Governor’s baby, was really her teenage daughters..there was an elected official from SC saying she was chosen by the Repbulicans for VP because she never had an abortion. NEWS to SC lots of Women have not had or will have an Abortion…so this 52-48 thing is supposed to heal-unify?
God doesn’t require me to forgive Evil in fact I am supposed to resist and fight Evil.
There was pure Evil spewed out during this election. They blamed Sarah Palin for pointing out Barack Obama’s “relationship” with William Ayers as causing Violence against Barack Obama…but Michelle Obama what did she have to say about that effigy of Sarah Palin hanging in West Hollywood? Violence against women doesn’t count? So the Left doesn’t see anything wrong with all the Nasty things it did and said, during the election cycle BUT now we will all come together and heal. We Need “Unity” now because “The One” commands it? Sorry I’m not a Zombie, and I don’t join crazy cults.
Polygamy is legal in some cultures, so is incest. I imagine bestiality is condoned somewhere on this Earth, or we wouldn’t know what it was.
In any case, just because it is legal doesn’t mean it has to be shoved in our collective faces.
If somone wishes to have a homosexual relationship, that is their choice. However, when it comes to redefining marriage, it is the camel’s nose under the tent. Next will come the polygamists, those who wish to marry their sibling or offsrping and then the animal lovers will jump on the same bandwagon claiming it is their “right!”
Mookie, it is a slippery slope and the people of CA have said they don’t want to take that first step.
If the CA SC overturns this and I were a resident of CA, I would be for recalls and impeachments (for not hewing to their sworn duties).
didn’t Barry already “rule” on this issue when he said:
“brothers should pull their pants up.”
oh, right that was a separate issue…
Let us not forget, as it is possible for those making less than $250,000 to vote against “spreading the wealth around”…. as it is possible for minorities to vote against racial quotas and affirmitive-action and reparations… as it is possible any informed electorate to understand any issue beyond the sensationalized slogans and smear campaigns on both sides… so too is it possible some same sex couples may evaluate the ramifications of legalized gay marriage and find it in conflict with their long term values for the future of society to a greater degree than their short term values for personal gratification.
I worry for them, that their independent critical thought will have them ostracized as “traitors” the same as any minority who would dare to break with liberal orthodoxy.
You never explained why you oppose a loving 3-some getting married just because 2 of the 3 are father and son. Why do you fear this loving lifestyle?It must be bigotry because it would affect your life at all.
Move on? Is that what you’d do if your rights were stripped from you?
Of course it isn’t. There are always a group of wicked, immoral people seeking to tear down society by elevating the ugly, debased, and vile calling it good while tearing down that which is good calling it evil.
Hence, parents are waking up and homeshcooling their children or intervening in the public schools, standing up and speaking out more and more lest we lose a generation into the cesspit of Queer Nation.
OMU: A marriage license is not a right. BTW do you support bisexual incestual group marriage? Would you support a father marring his adult son and his sons adult wife? If fits all of the conditions that apply to gay marriage.
On November 11th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, Omu said:
Move on? Is that what you’d do if your rights were stripped from you?
Nobody’s rights were stripped from them.
Ah, but is a slippery slope once you are on the downhill slide. Who are you to say that a poligamist, or practitioners of incest and/or beastiality would not go to court and fight based on the fact that it’s just their “natural urges”, and with a sharp lawyer, a win is not a possibility? Especially in a liberal court where existing rules and moral standards are not what it’s all about.
We all know it’s about “Hope!” and “Change!!”
Unfortunately for the next four years, those words will likely be heard quite often in conversations – like ” I HOPE you have some spare CHANGE you can give me now that I am unemployed.”
Yes, a Democrat will be in charge of the economy, and as much as it will pain his supporters, he has earned the right to lead us into a depression and darkness, while setting up a yet to be named Conservative to take the office in 2012, unless he changes the law and declares himself Pee-resident for life. Just like those of his(?) and his fathers’ continent.
I will follow lawful orders and do my duty, but just as with Carter and Clinton, I look forward to the day when sanity prevails and adults are in charge.
Again, yawn.
If our right to petition the government for redress of grievances was stripped … by 4 men in black robes…
If our right to freedon of speech and of religion were stripped …
by the trial lawyers suing for damages and the IRS revoking tax exempt status from any church that refused to perform gay wedding services against their moral beliefs, right or wrong…
Well, we’d follow a legal course of action to put something on the ballot and get it passed. Others should do the same. DUH
Oh, they’re not about to stop. Here’s what is planned for November 15th… a nationwide protest.
Mookie, you bigot, why do you hate bisexual incestual loving marriages? They will not hurt you at all. EXPLAIN YOURSELF BIGOT!!!
(Man libs hate it when you turn thier own “logic” against them!!! )
Liberals win because they agitate the people and get them motivated. We lose because we close the blinds and turn up the music so they don’t disturb our cocktail party.
This country would never have come into existence with the current crop of “conservatives”. They would have thought it more prudent to petition the Monarch.
Tell me something, genius: how does one hate something that doesn’t exist?
The will of the voters trump in a democracy. The will of mob rule trumps in a socialist country. I think I can tell what type of country these people think they live in.
If you feel so strongly that you have had something you never had taken away from you, might I suggest a trip via slow boat to a country that condones and encourages your professed lifestyle? Obviously, this is not the place you want to be.
We fight for the rights of all. What you describe as a right is no such thing, and I would not put one of my troppers on the line to defend theat “right” for anyone. Our lives mean more that some lifestyle choice that will get you executed in the part of the world you want us to leave to their own devices. If you do, your fate is sealed.
Now, MOVE ON!
oops, a couple of typos.
troppers = troopers;
theat = that.
Sorry. I was in a hurry.
Like gay marriage??? How do you know that bisexual incestual groups don’t exist? It probably does somewhere. What gives you the right to judge such a grouping? (This is your logic on gay marriage)
sonofdy, Mookie is basically doing the 8-year old’s trick of sticking his fingers in his ears and saying “BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, I can’t hear you!”
Typical lib response to an argument they can’t win.
You support a man and a woman getting married. Why do you not support two men and two women getting married together?
Anyone can’t take a word or phrase, you ddecide “love”, add some ridiculousness tto and ask why a person doesn’t support it.
Do you support the right for two adults to get married?