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
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Power Line
» When In Doubt, DeletePundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteCommentary
» The End of the BeginningGay Patriot
» How John Hoeven Can Save AmericaCommentary
» Flotsam and JetsamJustOneMinute
» The Topless Ann AlthouseEd Driscoll
» The Bears Are Who We Thought They Were
thats exactly what the proponents of gay marriage do.
It’s incredible how many people here have discussed the “traditional” marriage without bringing up the tradition of polygamy around the world, the tradition of men marrying girls that would currently be illegal in the US today, and yes, the tradition of women marrying animals, particularly in India.
The ‘traditional’ argument is incredibly weak. Traditionaly, women have been forced to marry men. Since that has traditionaly been the case, should we support a father’s right to force his daughter to marry a stranger, as tradition dictates?
Gay marriage does exist right here in MA and in CT. In what state does a bisexual incestuous threesome involving a father and son exist?
Why stop at 2? What stop at adults? Why even stop at speices? We are redefining marriage here so we can do whatever we want. In history it was common to marry babies to kings to seal political deals. We even have historical examples of that!!! I am just trying to show that people should be careful what they ask for.
this isn’t a muslim country, sorry.
but given the ‘logic’ of gay marriage, why not, anything goes!
Not before a few years ago. Under the logic you just used gay marriage should never have been allowed anywhere. Bisexual incestuous threesome involving a father and son exist? I am sure it does somewhere, it takes all types. Why shouldn’t it exist and based on your logic with gay marriage what right do you have to oppose it?
I disagree. Proponents of gay marriage don’t support marriage simply because love in involved. Proponent of gay marriage support it because the feel they have a right to the same institution that is offered to their heterosexual(and I used that phrase lightly, since heterosexuality isn’t required for marriage currently) compatriots.
I think people are deliberitly reducing that argument to “love” so they can say ridiculous stuff like “Well, if a man loves a cardboard box, why can’t he marry it?!?! It’s all about love right?”
You clearly aren’t up on the latest pro-gay marriage propoganda.
I feel its my right to take your money. so tell me what is this ‘right’ based upon? the constitution? history? the magna charta? bible? where does this ‘right’ come from?
they make it up. thats why what to you ‘ridiculous’ arguments are so true. and why the slippery slope is so appropriate.
Technically, beastiality is legal in Texas already. So the argument that it is already illegal is not necessarily true.
The “next thing you know” arguments are complete rubbish. No one is inherently predisposed to multiple spouses or sex with family. These people can get along just as easily with one spouse who isn’t a close relative. Homosexuals on the other hand have no use or desire for a spouse of the opposite sex.
It is very simple. Heterosexuals in the majority have a government-sanctioned union, while homosexuals in the minority do not.
Fortunately, younger people in this country who actually know homosexuals are overwhelmingly in favor of gay rights, so there’s no question that we will one day recognize gay marriage. But it’s too bad that the Ellens of the world have to wait for their civil rights.
Good point. This isn’t a muslim country. But it’s my understanding that this isn’t a Christian country either, but a Democracy in which the majority is Christian. There’s a significant difference there.
Also, you also make the point that since we can’t being up other country’s when discussing “Tradition”, when we say “tradition”, we really mean “American tradition in the past 200 years”. But even that isn’t really accurate, since “traditionally” marriage in America hasn’t been between a man and a woman, but a man and a woman of the same race. So let’s say in the past 60 years of so, marriage has traditionally been done the way we are used to it being done now. 60 years of tradition; not much.
You all need to get away from the pointless who “should” marry who arguments… and deal with the pressing realities of what role should a government play in ANY such scenarios.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out and yet, you’re still having trouble. Incest is illegal. We are in no danger of it ever being made legal.
The right isn’t too marriage, the right is to be treated equally by government, regardless of creed. Obviously that’s within reason, and i believe that many of the slippery slope arguments are unreasonable. I don’t believe that gay marriage will lead to legalized man-beast marriages any more than the legalization of gay sex has lead to beastiality(which is, in my opinion, a more accurate comparison)
right. the pedophilia lobby can use the exact same arguments for their ‘rights’ as the gay marriage lobby has used.
its worked out very well…why change it for a bunch of brown-shirted fascists thugs whose main goal is to use it to silence and destroy christianity? hmmmm??
Most likely, also in MA and CT.
oh please, who decides what is ‘equal’ and aren’t some pigs always more equal than others?
and that ‘reason’ is decided upon by whom again???
it sure as hell will lead to the restriction of religious liberty in this country…and thats what your gay marriage types want more than anything else. all this blather about ‘love’ and ‘tolerance’ is BS.
I think that’s the better point. Personally, I feel that the term “marriage” should be held and applied by the Church exclusively, and the term “civil unions”(which most rational people don’t oppose) should be held by the State.
homosexuality used to be illegal too..the same ‘logic’ applies…pedophilia is just a lifestyle choice…right?
thats amusing, since my great grandfather was an indian, and my great grandmother was half black half indian..they got married…how did that happen?
If marriage is a religious institution, why are couples allowed to get married by the state, outside of the church?
No, they can’t. Pedophilia being illegal has nothing to do with the sex of the individuals involved. To bring up a point I made earlier, you support marriage between a male and a female, but you don’t support marriage between a 30 year old male and a 13 year old female, and there’s no reason for you to.
You don’t think so?
Interracial marriage used to be illegal too. Was that just a lifestyle choice?
Currently, it’s illegal for a church to marry a man to a man. How is that religious liberty?
Last time I checked, this isn’t Germany.
Some men are gay. Therefore, all men are gay. That’s the logic you’re using right now.
No its not.
and who decides its illegal, and who decides upon the age of consent?
homosexuality used to be illegal too…same logic applies….its a lifestyle choice…right?
If Germany is willing to encourage it, can the US be far behind?
Is there actually a pedophilia lobby? Anyone can use any argument, but that doesn’t mean it holds water. There’s obviously nothing in the world wrong with two people of the same sex being in a relationship, whereas it is very wrong for a young boy or girl to be taken advantage and abused by an adult.
It’s worked out well for whom? Not homosexuals! That’s like saying slavery and segregation worked out well very well for everyone but the minority. What two men or two women do together does nothing to “silence and destroy” Christianity. On the contrary, it’s misguided Christians who attempt to silence and destroy homosexuality.
uh not at all…you said it was not possible for different races to be married in this country more than 60 years ago…its a lie, sorry..I used my ancestors to illustrate you lied.
Yes, it is. Unless you want to use a definition of marriage that seperates a States recognition of that marriage from the church’s performance of the rites.
yeah ever hear of NAMBLA???
again, who decides the age of consent?
you’re clueless. gay marriage is all about destroying the religious freedom of christians. get a clue.
Yes. Far, far behind. MA has had gay marriage for four years. No one has tried to marry their dog, seven best friends or son/daughter.
Ah, i see. You’re still wrong though.
The country instituted the ‘one-drop rule’ that essentially states that unless you’re pure white, you’re “colored”. Any colored person could marry any other colored person. They didn’t have time to break the colored peoples into little groups.
zzz
This is NOT another thread for arguing the issue.
The people have decided.
The losers need to STFU.
That’s all.
How does gay marriage destroy the religious freedom of Christians? Specifically.
Christians really need to stop thinking everything is about them.
Fark really does come in handy.
Really? Please enlighten me how Ellen and Portia Di Rossi destroy your or my right to practice Christiany.
The ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, and it will fail when it reaches the courts. Are you prepared to remain silent when this happens?
What part of STFU did you fail to comprehend?
The people have decided that Obama won. Do the losers need to STFU?
My end point is this, the logic being used by gay activists is that the whole idea of marriage needs to be re-examined based on love, civil rights, and a commited relationship. Fine, but you have to understand people will use exactly the same tactics and logic to expand the definition even further. Why wouldn’t they? There is actualy alot more historical evidence to support polgymist and child marriage than gay marriage so you can expect this to expand. Great news for phedophiles, but not so much for the kids.
Buddy, STFU isn’t even a word.
Completely aside from the moral, social and societal reasons against homosexual “unions”, I find the attachment of the word MARRIAGE to it of the utmost disgrace. Marriage by definition involves a man and a woman. It’s been that way in every society as long as we’ve known civilized society. Since when do we let a court of a few just arbitrarily change the definition of a word?
If they can change that definition, why not change the definition of pedestrian to be “the color between red and yellow”, or obtuse to mean “perfectly clear”. Words have meaning and it’s not up to judges to change those meanings.
link
even without gay marriage, a doctor in CA was sued and lost, for refusing to inseminate a lesbian, a photographer in AZ for refusing for photograph a gay ‘ceremony’, etc.
What? when the courts over-ride the will of the people again???? Dictators in black robes.
obviously it is not, since it has been placed into the constitution of many states.
Again, the removal of laws prohibiting gay sex in states that had them has not lead to the removal of laws prohibiting phedophilia and polygamy. You’re speculating the opposite of what evidence supports.
I should have specified: It’s unconstitutional in California, based on a reading of their State constitution.
prop 8 is a constitutional amendment.
The Courts are not beholden to the will of the people, and should not be. If they were, they wouldn’t be needed.
Why exactly? It would take a long time, but polygamy could be stated as a freedom of religon issue and the age of consent is only a recent addition to the laws. Why exactly wouldn’t it happen? Public outcry? Like maybe a vote like prop 8? We have seen those overturned by activist judges.
So again why wouldn’t it happen?
The courts are not meant to MAKE law.
And? Constitutional amendments can be unconstitutional, just as laws can be illegal.
we live in a judicial oligarchy, because the courts can say the constitution means whatever 5 of them, or whatever majority in state courts, say it means.
testing: institution of marriage given by G-d/why would those who don’t believe in G-d want to be ‘married’? testing: testing: 123
True but once approved are supposed to be part of said constitution until it is reversed but another amendment. That is how it is supposed to work.
huh?? this is insane. a constitutional amendment, passed into the constitution, is BY DEFINITION constitutinional.
– Red State Skeptic
You’re absolutely right. Hell, Prop 8 wouldn’t have passed THIS time, if 60% of the African Americans who turned out to vote for Obama hadn’t also voted in favor of Prop 8. As Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out last night on the Daily Show, apparently the oppressed has become the oppressor. I’d bet my life savings that, had this Presidential race been between two caucasians instead, Prop 8 would have failed handily.
Even having passed, it did so by the narrowest margin of any gay marriage related legislation in the history of the state of CA. The legal challenges against it are going to be hard to ignore. Here in CA, we have a state where discrimination against an individual for race, age, creed, religion, or sexual orientation are all ILLEGAL. And Prop 8 injected discrimination directly into the state constitution. I’m embarrassed for my state, and for all those goaded into voting for Prop 8 out of fear that their kids will somehow be ‘taught’ to be gay.
I voted straight-line republican ticket this year, like every election since I came of voting age. . .but I voted against this hateful bit of legislation. I doubt it’ll take long for the ACLU to tear it to shreds.
I’m not saying it wouldn’t. I’m saying it hasn’t. You’re saying that a particular cause would have a certain effect, and I’m pointing out that a similar cause has not had a certain similar effect.
What could, I have no idea.
They aren’t making the law. They are interpreting the constitution.
whats hateful is the display of your brown-shirted gay fascists. they are the truly HATEFUL ones.
you are the oppressors, trying to ram this down our throats, and use it to harass christianity and christians.
thats BS. every time they ‘interpret’ the constitution, they tell us what it means. just like the kelo decision, and many others…they make it up as they go along…its a constitutional convention every time the court rules.
Liberals are stupid.
The gays voted for Obama because they wanted a black to have a chance at president becuse of their goofy anything goes mentality… and then the blacks voted against them.
It would be funny if they weren’t all so stupid.
Of course not, because the argument is silly and based on a kind of unhinged hysteria. At the end of the day, gays and lesbians simply want to be able to marry their significant others, the same as heterosexual Americans. Conservatives so often talk about promiscuity in the gay community, but these people want to be in lifelong, committed relationships — and to have those relationships recognized as being just as devoted as any other American marriage is. Frankly, it doesn’t affect me and my relationships, and doesn’t hurt anyone. Why do people care so much and something that has no impact on their lives?
We’re talking State Constitution here, and not the US Constitution. They’re written differently, of course. Yes, the CA Supreme Court and strike an amendment as unconstitutional.
As much as you like it or not, that is precisely their job.
actually it does. as the research of Stanley Kurtz, and the example of the netherlands have made clear.
really? show me in the constitution or any law, where it is their job.
its not, they interpret the constitution, because they say they can…marbury v. madison.
Jefferson was well aware of the problems it would cause.
so the constitution is whatever the judges say it is…so why bother to have one??
Under that exact same logic you should support bisexual incestual group marriage.
Why bother have a legislature at all???
sometimes I wonder why we do…especially with the hamdan rulings…the congress explicitly told the courts they did not have authority to rule on this law…but they went ahead and usurped it anyway…just like they have done with all their power….and we let them….sad.
we live in a judicial oligarchy.
I believe women’s suffrage was extended almost 100 years ago and I have yet to see a major movement to grant the right to vote to a single animal. I’m just sayin’…
More or less, yes.
I haven’t heard anybody here suggesting that the vote be overturned or threatening to burn down any buildings of those who supported Obama, have you?
If not, then STFU.
This is exactly why Obamas supreme court picks are likely to be so dangerous. Because of attitudes like this. Screw what the framers intended, We will just do what we think.
so why bother with voting, legislatures, etc?
It’s all a matter of perspective if they are “screwing” what the framers intended, but yes, that’s why Supreme Courts pics are important, and held as one of the most revered position country. That’s why they are appointed to life, and that’s why there are only nine. It’s an important, powerful position.
Voting and the other branches of government all have their place. Voting, obviously, puts all the other people in places of power, including the Supreme Court(albiet relatively indirectly, although no more indirectly than voting for President).
There are equal individual rights here… every individual has the same right as every other individual to APPLY FOR a governmentally recognized marriage to a person of the complementary gender. Whether the individual wants to exercize that right is another matter. If they wish to engage in a non-recognized marriage, they have that right to privacy as well. This problem with the new counter-suit arguments is that this issue is being viewed as a “restriction” of “rights-to-government-services”. Because this is a licensing for a priveledge, not a defined “right”, the government can use nearly any criteria determined by the people. Similarly, an application for a plumber’s license is measured against the people’s definition of competent plumbing standards. No law prohibits same sex couples from APPLYING for a license, and that is the detail that could very well undo discrimination-for-access-to-services arguments. If marriage is defined, and applicants lack the qualifications… they will be denied a license but the service of application review will have been rendered, and any unbiased court would be forced to uphold that decision. The tricky legal bit comes from whether/when gender discriminations are allowable by law, and contrary to conventional wisdom there ARE allowable in circumstances where gender plays an unavoidable factor, such as maternity leave law, public restroom use, or as made a popular topic recently the public funding of rape kits for criminal investigation. The question then becomes “is gender a paramount factor in a marriage?” and this will depend almost entirely upon whether the common view of marriage as a biological reproductive unit is upheld or not.
The point is about setting a legal precedent that marriage has no definition. That opens the door to polygamy and incest as well as any other legislation that is based on morals.
The simple fact is that there are civil unions that provide the same legal right to couples of the same sex. There are churches that will perform ceremonies between couples of the same sex. Therefore, what exactly is the argument to legalize gay marriage if not to destroy conventional values?
looks like some pigs votes are more equal than others…
Fact is that gay marriage or any type of definition of marriage is not in the us constitution so it is a state rights issue. It would take an amendment to the us constitution to change that. Not going to happen.
The real legal question here, I believe, is whether or not this proposition will be considered as an amendment or a revision. That is, after all, the substance of the legal challenges filed.
If it is ruled to be a revision, that means that it missed the required step of getting 2/3rds approval from the state’s legislature.
If it is ruled to be an amendment, it will need to go back to the voters or to the federal court to be overturned.
Only have a minute in between work here at the Children’s Hosp. Stanford.
Michelle, I voted for Prop 8 because I am against the word being defined differently than what has been traditional human history for the last
2000+ years. I love my gay neighbors. I love my gay City Councilman. This isn’t about caring. It’s about definitions. It’s about holding the line on values.
It’s about not letting little kids be
sexualized at a young age. It’s about them being kids and not having to ask questions like, `Why does he have two Dads?’
Shame on you Gov. Schwartzenagger for fanning the flames of this. For Shame.
I won’t vote for you if you run again and I will work to not have you elected
should you run for any further office
(Gov. or Senator).
– right4life
MY brown-shirted gay facists? What makes them mine?
Now the gays are facsists? You make my point for me. Your hysteria against gays is showing.
I was brought up believing that regardless how much the Democratic party trumpets its love of tolerance and equality for all, it’s been the Republicans who saw to the success of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. . .the Republicans who have really stood for constitutional equality for all.
Well, if you’re an example of the norm I was apparently taught wrong. Apparently, conservatives like you respect equality for all right up until it applies to someone whose lifestyle you disagree with. Then the constitution should be ammended to RESTRICT those freedoms it provides to everyone else.
You claim the gays are somehow the oppressor for trying to gain the right to marry, and for protesting when discrimination against them is blatantly ammended into our constitution?
It’s a slap in the face to anyone actually interested in equality, especially since on the SAME BALLOT, farmyard animals were overwhelmingly granted new rights to freakin’ barnyard animals.
who are the ones threatening churches, and black people for not voting the way they were supposed to??? who is demonstrating? and harassing mormons, christians, etc? if the brown-shirt fits, wear it!!
yeah your ‘freedom’ for gays, is RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIANS!!
absolutely, their actions prove it…and the threat to religious freedom from their ‘rights’ are well known.
This is disturbing I came across this while looking for the meaning of Zakat…we were told by Obama that he intends to “Spread the Wealth” Zakat is one of the 5 a pillars of Islam. Charity.
This post however on Islam and Homosexuality is frigtening. Who voted for Prop #8
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/european-muslims-debate-should-gays-be-executed/
The blending of Zakat to Socialism should give everyone the shivers. Check out Indonesia and enact Zakat.
How ’bout I send a picture of me with my favorite finger in the air?
Those punks don’t speak for all gay people. They’re an embarrassment. I got into it with someone here in Arizona when I caught them ripping “Yes on 102″ signs out of an older neighbor’s yard while the poor guy watched from his window. I’ve never felt better than I did right then.
*Finger in the air*
Vote on THIS, you morons!
The liberals that are posting on this site demonstrate a complete lack of imagination, ingenuity, and intelligence. Using mpChops’ statements, he has made his argument moot.
True, legalizing gay marriage in MA and CT has not directly commenced operations for legalization of marrying children, more than one person, and animals. However, mpChops did reveal that upon legalization of sodomy, bestiality became more prevalent.
What all of you libs are missing is logical thought/linear thinking (as usual). Cause and effect. Implementing laws is usually accomplished by building decisions and cases to the eventual goal. That is how abortion was legalized in Roe v Wade. The whole purpose of legalizing sodomy was to open the door for homosexual marriage. To deny this is sheer idiocy. You have to legalize the act that makes you “different”, therefore legitimizing your “oppressed minority” status.
There is no question that polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and bestiality will be considered in future years, probably in that order. NAMBLA already has an advocacy group in Washington.
Again, liberals, think for one damn minute, and you’ll see what conservatives (Christian or otherwise) are worried about.
And was there a breakdown in the definition of voting rights once that right was extended to women and to African Americans?
There have been two amendments to the Constitution to grant the right to vote to African Americans and to women. Prior, there was no definition of the right to vote. Why would this be a state rights issue, but the right to vote be worthy of three constitutional amendments?
Longhorn, this is insulting. I don’t believe it wise to make arguments speaking to the color of one’s skin and one’s birth gender (beyond ones control), as one in the same with a lifestyle.
It quite frankly, is a HUGE stretch.
No, it isn’t. You’re being absolutely ridiculous. Incest is illegal because it’s dangerous. Homosexuality is not illegal, it’s not dangerous. It’s just about love and I wish you Christianist bigots would live up to your professed ideals of the golden rule.
As for the polygamy thing. How dare you all try to blame polygamy on gay marriage. Polygamy has existed in Christian communities for hundreds of years, it was even the done thing in Biblical times (just read the Bible!) and still exists in Muslim countries. Polygamy has existed long before gay marriage ever did, so to scapegoat gay people, and blame them for causing something that existed long before they ever sought access to marriage is absolutely absurd!
hey mookie, people are prosecuting mormons in several states for marrying more than one person, and marrying young girls. beastiality is legal in areas around seattle, which is why they have camps for these morons. one of you homo’s was killed last year for trying to service a stallion. then there is the man boy love association which advertises on the internet and was started in massachussets also. which of these groups should we be concerned with, or do you really believe we are just picking on poor old homos. while movies of the wyoming kid killed by the cowboys was happening, 2 gay adults kidnapped, raped and brutalized a boy to death in arkansas. the cowboys got the death sentence, the queers plead and are awaiting parole. shut up and live with the vote. we have to do so on numerous occasions and numerous issues.
Revenge of the tolerant
Tell me again how nobody’s freedom of speech or religion is going to be threatened if they oppose same sex marriage?