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
Legal Insurrection
» Thanks, Global Warming
Stop The ACLU
» Oops! Now New Zealand NIWA Accused Of Faking DataRiehl World View
» BBC, KGB, Oh My: More On Climate Change FraudJustOneMinute
» The Prescient Joe BidenAmSpecBlog
» A Good Time Not to be a DemocratRiehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
we have that same problem now with a lesbian, who is not the mother or even ‘wife’ getting visitation rights over X-partner’s child…
your stupidity is stunning.
NATURAL LAW sport
Easy with the use of “boy”…
I have the constitutional right under natural law, to discriminate against gays.
#
I don’t have to address the issue of the polygamy. It has nothing to do with my support of gay marriage. This is an entirely simple, simple concept and yet you flat out refuse to accept it because if you did, you’d lose the thin veil you hide your horrible bigotry under.
true…but turnabout is fair play
the entire homosexual movement is based upon bigotry and hatred towards christians…as we’ve seen with these riots…
What on earth are you talking about? It want to talk about nature and homosexuality – let’s do just that! You know homosexual sex has been documented in many thousands of animals and even insects. You know it’s existed for long as heterosexual sex. It’s not just a product of human “perversion”.
Damn!
You beat me to it!
Good for you!
Keep on keeping on.
You’re truly a bizarre character, right4life.
The gay movement is based upon securing equal rights for gay people. It’s about stopping the treatment of gays as second class citizens. The only thing standing in the way of this is Christianity. Christians have made gay people the enemy, it’s not the other way around. Most gays (like most Americans) are Christians and most of them don’t want to have to fight a religion. You are the one that is forcing them into this fight.
thank you!
Is that all you can come up with?
Because you can’t defend the reality of the “slippery slope”.
‘rights’ that have never existed…at the expense of the rights, and freedoms of christians.
go ahead and show me the hate-filled riots and demonstrations that christians do to gays…as we have seen the gay community do. what you say is a lie, a pathetic, and despicable lie. but thats what the entire gay ‘rights’ movement is based upon..a lie.
gay christians…OXYMORON…duhhhhh
Digshot has just explained how gay marriage isn’t a a complete overhaul of all existing laws regarding marriage. The only thing that changes with gay marriage is that the second person in the marriage can be of the same sex. In all honesty, it’s incredibly trivial. But because some backward and ignorant people just can’t get their heads around it (eg. FamilyMan: “Hey perverts!”) gay people are going to treated as second class.
digshot is a liar and a fool. his explanation, like the entire gay rights movement, is BS.
I already gave an example that blew his ‘logic’ out of the water…
its obvious logic, truth, history, etc isn’t your strong suit…
The “slippert slope” arguement is so ridiculous! Digshot has just shown how utterly ridiculous it is, and everyone ignored him because it’s inconvenient.
And even if you guys were right, and there was a “slippery slope”, is that really a good reason to make an entire group of people second class? Is that really a good reason to deprive people of fundamental rights? If that’s the best excuse you can come up with, then your argument fails catastrophically!
Become familiar with constitutional law.
It is without a doubt a HUMAN perversion. It’s abnormal. Get it? I will discriminate against homosexual marriage under the natural rights arguments that are allowed for in the constitution.
Lion will kill cubs in order to mate with a lioness. NATURAL RIGHTS FOR LIONS
there is no ‘right’ to marriage.
hey moron, YOUR argument has failed spectacularly…even in LIBERAL CA BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAH
We have our natural rights to do so.
I’m guessing you are 12 years old? You certainly behave that way, anyway.
Omu
We’re just laughing at your stupidity. No one has the right to marry. It’s a license like a drivers license. The problem is gays haven’t learn to keep their car n the road.
FamilyMan – if you have ever used birth control, you too are a second class citizen, since that too is a violation of “natural law”.
I don’t have to guess about your stupidity or level of maturity!!
So are you saying that Christians have more rights than gays? That they’re entitled to more? You’re saying that Christians have so many rights, they even have the right to deny rights to others?
I’ve never seen anything like that in any American law. I’m sure you think it’s in your stupid little cult-book, but what does that have to do with the United State government?
I’m saying that there is no ‘right’ to marriage. gays want special privileges that no one else has. and in doing so they will trample on the rights of christians, and members of other religions…and you are unable to dispute this.
but you’re far too stupid to argue the issues…all you can do is bend over for the gay lobby and spew talking points.
None of you trolls understand natural law as pertaining to the constitution.
Go back to school.
No, it isn’t. No one has to be “tested” in order to qualify for a marriage license. And unlike a drivers license, if your marriage fails, you can get as many more licenses as you like!
What’s the special privilege gays want that no one has?
You need to learn how to write.
And how to make a point.
Omu
It is a license authorized by the state.
Omu;
I never said there was test.
since you’re side has been losing the elections moron, I think I’ve made my point, and you’ve FAILED, loser.
and given the quality of your ‘writing’ try logic 101, english 101, history 101..truth 101.
wacko
FamilyMan – would you care to enlighten us with your own thoughts on natural law as it pertains to the constitution? So far you’ve just said “natural law” over and over again, with one quick cut and paste from wikipedia that offered nothing.
Or do you not have any original thoughts?
You can’t even spell ‘your’ correctly. English 101 would be over your head. That’s second-grader stuff, dude.
I’ve already pointed out various ‘tests’ that you have to get a marriage license. One is you have to be of the opposite sex (void in CT and MA) another is you cannot be brother and sister. A third is it is between two people. A fourth is you have to be of age. And you can get a hunting license over and over, even if you don’t ’succeed’ in killing a deer the first time out.
Now, I ask again, you yourself said that ‘rights’ must never be denied to a minority. So are you going to agree that it is not a ‘right’ but a privilege, or are you going to agree that incestous/underaged/polygamous/marrying cartoon characters are allowed in your worldview. You leave yourself no other option.
Here come the word games.
I’m not that good a speller, but I sure can spot a dumba** in a NY minute..*dude*
oh and diggy, how does it feel to know that your entire life is based upon a lie?? and that all those lies…and you can’t win ONE ELECTION on this issue!!
loser!!
My bigotry????
I challenge you to find something I’ve written against gay marriage. You won’t.
Contrary to what you think, I’m not arguing against gay marriage. I’m arguing against your hypocrisy in this. Many on this thread have proven that you’re a bigot, but you’re not smart enough to understand.
I’m still laughing at digshot’s weak argument against polygamy (and your praise for it)!!!!
It would be inconvenient to use a new formula for divorce, etc.????? Is that the best you’ve got? You want to deny consenting adults the right to form a marriage simply because a few divorce and benefits issues will arise? Are you insane?
longhorn734
I don’t expect you to understand but; We all live in a dualistic theology. That is without dispute. We my only exist through constant discrimination which gives us the ability to survive. Human laws are an extension of the natural laws and apply when survival on any level is perceived as a need. Homosexual marriage is perceived as socially destructive and as such well not be license.
Digshot,
so you’re admitting that you can’t refute it either.
and while it might be too late, please everyone keep it civil.
Any student of history knows that gay marriage is an inevitably, unless of course you crazy Republicans manage to wipe out human civilization before that. You just keep bragging all you want. Religion, oppression, and control are on the way out. Law, equality, and freedom are the future. All I have to do is be patient.
Omu et al,
Why don’t you all just admit that you arbitrarily think that gay marriage should be legal while arbitrarily rejecting the sound arguments made by polygamists and NAMBLA.
Seriously, you would all probably get much more respect from others on this board if you just admitted that your opinion is arbitrary.
why cause you say so?? laughable. 30 elections or so haven’t taught you differently???
newspeak. Orwell would understand you gay rights types all too well.
That’s funny. You know nothing about a third of the future – law.
You’re playing semantics. You want to call marriage a privilege and not a right? So be it. What difference does it make?
I like how you just lump the gays in there with people that have sex with animals and their family members, by the way. How very civil of you.
It isn’t arbitrary.
And what makes you think I care about having your respect?
Gay marriage, will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships are in. A decade of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen. Marriage between heterosexuals is now at only 20%. Marriage has lost it’s meaning. No impact HMMMM
I don’t know why you’re so giddy. Every other roadblock to equality has fallen, from slavery to women not being allowed to vote to the ban on interracial marriage. This roadblock is no different, regardless of whether or not you choose to recognize it as an issue of equality.
You can be really happy about your 30 elections if you want, but your side only won this vote 52-48. It’s impossible to argue that those numbers aren’t proof that this issue is trending away from the caveman Christian position, though I’m sure you’re about to try.
Yes, it is arbitrary.
I assumed that you comment here to have your opinions known and respected. Am I wrong??? Why do you bother drafting replies, etc? Are you insane?
FamilyMan, of course I don’t understand, because you conveniently leave out the middle part of the argument. We live in a duality of good and evil. Laws are made to discriminate against evil. You haven’t remotely explained how “natural law” as it applies to the constitution tells me that gay marriage is evil and therefore worthy of discrimination.
So straights are going to stop marrying each other?
Not to beat a dead horse, but have we started to see these sorts of trends in the states where gays are allowed to marry for years?
I almost think you’re joking.
the victims of these things don’t agree with you at all. you throw these terms around, but like everything else you say, its a LIE. this has nothing to do with equality…its the gays ramming their lifestyles down our throats, and restricting the Freedom and RIGHTS of everyone else.
you and your gay allies are nazi pieces of trash.
then why are you SOOOOOO upset about this, since you think ‘history’ is on your side??? stalin thought the same thing…
yeah he is…diggy omu, are so blind its laughable. its not merely believing a lie…its descended to a spiritual darkness that covers them…they have no idea…but they will!
Your definition of equality is vague and arbitrary.
I get it. You want equality…unless it’s “impractical.” I think that was the word you use – impractical.
I’ve explained a number of times why it’s not. If you don’t want to read those explanations, fine, but at least take my word for it. I have nothing to gain by lying to you about why I maintain a certain political position.
I do it because I’d rather talk politics with people I disagree with than with people who agree with me on everything.
But hey, I’m probably lying about that, too. Go ahead and just assume I crave your respect. It would be really easy for me to just mindlessly agree with everything you guys say, would that earn me your respect?
Civics 101; the question of liberty and license.
What you trolls need to know, just like a drivers license, you need to learn to park your car in the right garage if you what validation from the state.
I’m everyone else, and I can recognize that allowing gays to marry doesn’t restrict my freedom or my rights.
Also, how are two married gays that you’ll never meet or hear from rammin their lifestyles down your throat? If you’re really worried about that, then you should be trying to get TV shows with gay characters canceled, shouldn’t you?
Awesome.
Like I said, I can be patient, but we’re getting awfully close to that watershed moment. It’s a bit disheartening to get close and come up short. But in ten years, how many more states do you think will allow gay marriage? In twenty?
We’re progressing with or without you, thanks.
Right4life, you’re going to fall over, but I’m gay and I’m a Christian. I don’t believe it’s an oxymoron (nor do I go to a liberal “open and affirming” church to listen to politics I disagree with preached from the pulpit). That’s just something we’ll have to agree to disagree on.
I do believe traditional marriage should be left alone. Civil unions give the same rights. We should be perfectly happy with that. And I would like to hear Omu stop using the words “hate” and “bigotry” and actually answer the questions he’s being asked. You’re dancing around it because you don’t have an answer.
The gay community at large–at least what you see on TV–is being remarkably stupid right now. They have talked about suing churches, a practice I hope a judge nips in the bud before it gets off the ground. We need tort reform, and we need it quickly.
Click here if you really wanna know what gay people with brains are like.
I’m not, Digshot. Omu specifically is the one saying that it is a ‘right’ that should not be denied to any minority. I’m just taking him at his word.
And, I’m very specific. State recognized marriage is a privilege. Religiously I don’t care a whit what consenting adult marries what other consenting adult(s) in their ceremonies.
The flaw, as I see it, in your arguement is that I take your arguement as “A man can marry a woman, so it’s wrong to say they can’t marry a man, it’s discriminatory.” I look at it as “The state has these criteria to get a license to marry.” Your rebuttal seems to say “Criteria A is wrong, but Criteria B & C are ok.”
Please, politely correct me if I misunderstand your position.
Mosey over to Gaypatriot.org for a good chunk of civil discussion. I admit I’m disheartened by the vitrol here. Especially from fellow conservatives, I expect better of them.
I believe that you’re not lying. Actually, I never thought you were.
I don’t think you’re smart enough (or willing enough) to understand the arguments which have been effectively put forth by many groups that are interested in their rights. Your “impractical” argument doesn’t trump human rights.
For the record, I don’t think you are a bigot. However, you are quite clearly a hypocrite.
You gay trolls are really very boring. None of you understand a rational twit about the law. I’m out of here.
Yeah? I’m pretty sure you didn’t say what the flaw in my argument is with that paragraph. If Criteria A is about there being a man and a woman, yes I am saying that Criteria A is wrong. If Criteria B is that the two can’t be related, and Criteria C is that the two are of age, yes they’re okay. What’s the flaw there?
you’re boring me. you cannot dispute what I have said, or post anything that backs up your positions.
this has gotten to the point of casting pearls before swine.
Keep these troll on this thread folks. Michelle’s blog is so much more enjoyable without them.
your disagreement with me is not the disagreement you have to be concerned about….
you seem like a nice lady, I just don’t see how the positions are compatible. The Bible is clear..I don’t know what else to say.
you expect too much lady! left-wing trolls can do no more than spew talking points.
I only bring up the impracticality of the government recognizing polygamy to demonstrate how dissimilar it is to gay marriage, thus rendering any comparison between the two null and void. The arguments for polygamy and gay marriage are not in any way the same.
There is a human rights argument against polygamy as well. Polygamy is associated with all sorts of problems like child rape, incest, and rape. It’s illegal in this country for that reason. This too, demonstrates how different polygamy and gay marriage are.
It’s not hypocritical at all. It’s not something that should even be brought up if the discussion is about gay marriage, because they’re apples and oranges.
Hahahaha.
In other words. You think the law should be whatever YOU want the law to be – even if that means applying it inconsistently.
the laughter of the deranged.
but we’ll see who has the last laugh!!
so far I’m laughing…and you are NOT!!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAH
What? Are you just making stuff up now?
Your first two paragraphs were extremely sophomoric, but that comment is idiotic.
Impracticality renders comparisons null and void???
You ARE making stuff up.
ever hear of NAMBLA?????? hmmmmm??? duhhhh your arguments are idiotic. laughable.
name a polygamous equivalent of NAMBLA…or a straight equivalent.
you cannot.
What is inconsistent about what I said?
Whenever a conservative mutters the phrase ‘in other words,’ …. incoming! They’re about to totally misrepresent your position and criticize their misrepresentation. As the sun rises….
The homosexual and lesbian community likes to say that their behavior doesn’t affect anyone else. Unfortunately, that is not true. There are a number of studies, particularly one conducted in the Netherlands, that shows an uncomfortable correlation between homosexual and lesbian acceptance and out-of-wedlock birth rates. Basically, the lack of sexual disciple leads to many pathologies.
Yup, that’s not what I said at all.
This isn’t really about rights, but about gays and lesbians wanting legitimacy through the courts and state sponsor. If this were just about tolerance and being free to have a relationship with visitation and inheritance/bestowal rights, then civil unions would be enough, wouldn’t it?! No, they are looking past tolerance and looking for acceptance, and they want to hammer that acceptance home through “sex education” and the other social engineering that passes for a school curriculum. Proponents of Prop. 8 were wise to point this out and a majority of Californians agreed that they didn’t want their children endoctrinated in this way with official state sanction. Proponent 8 opponents showed that intolerance is okay as long as they are the ones allowed to be intolerant.
Then you boil it down for me.
1. You don’t think laws should be based on the will of the people. This is proven by the fact that you favor overturning Prop 8.
2. You think laws should be based on granting rights to consenting adults – yet you want to decide which consenting adults should not receive equal rights and you want to arbitrarily define an adult.
Challenge me on my use of the term arbitrary. Spare me the impractical argument – it means nothing. Spare me the fact that certain rights are supposedly associated with incest, etc. You have no data to support this AND an “association” has NEVER been a criteria for granting rights in the past.
digshot, this may help you.
Stop thinking that I’m arguing against gay marriage – since I’m not.
Pretend that I’m an attorney representing polygamists and NAMBLA. Now, let’s debate. Tell me why my clients shouldn’t be granted the rights they seek.
Hi AniMel, Glad to see you tried to bring a little bit of reason, but unfortunately it was in vain. It’s so refreshing to hear a gay state his/her case so rationally. You obviously get that most of us here do not object to civil unions that at least accords the gay community the benefits of a married couple. Omu and Digshot, are of the hysterical variety who are not satisfied with that compromise, they want it all. They don’t realize that undermining the foundation and meaning of marriage would not bode well for society. Much like children, they don’t care, they WANT it. Nice to see that there are some gay people who have grown up.
NAMBLA is a group of sick, deranged and twisted individuals who are trying to take something absolutely unacceptable and make it alright. The American Psychological Association has concluded a number of times (and in a number of different ways) that sexual contact with a child leaves the child irrepairably mentally scarred. A child is incapable of understanding sexual contact, consequently we have age of consent laws.
Just because NAMBLA promotes same-sex behavior with children doesn’t mean gay people support them. And it does not mean that gay people are as sick and twisted. The huge difference is the ability to have a lasting, meaningful, CONSENTUAL relationship with another adult.
I both understand and agree with arguments linking gay marriage with polygamy and incest. I do not, however, appreciate the NAMBLA argument, or the bestiality angle.
AniMAL – this question is not meant in a snotty tone at all, but in a theologically inquisitive one; what is it that makes you think you are a Christian?
I brought them up because of diggy’s argument…
every where the black robed gods allow a vote, gay marriage is banned. until you can start winning elections instead of seeking out a liberal judge, you are going to face anti gay marriage laws. btw you can’t remarry in the catholic church once divorced unless you are a kennedy and bribe the pope to annul it. so your argument about marriage being a right as opposed to a priviledge is only partially true at best, but the real issue is gays behavior which causes the majority to rise up in the voting booth and smack them down. gay pride parades, fulsom st festival, etc. quit rubbing peoples nose in your debauchery, and you might win an election.
And you didn’t touch on such things like the “Folsom Art Fair”, R4L.
To the athiests here who support gay marriage, why have not you answered the questions to who are right wing Christians and right wing bible verses that you claim we use from the bible? I have asked numerous times and none of you have come up with one verse that makes it rightwing, so now could you possible do it now? I sure would appreciate it. Were the defenders of Sodom accusing God fearing people of rightwingism? I certainly hope you are not calling the Lord Jesus Christ rightwing or are you but afraid to admit it.
I agree with every statement you made in this paragraph. However, I could certain argue about the definition of adult. Shall we define adult by some arbitrary chronological age? Emotional development? Intellectual development?
Please don’t insult me by suggesting that you’re ok with current age of consent laws unless you’re ok having such laws changed (the age lowered) by a court.
I think the argument about the ’slippery slope’ does hold some water, I remember when the Sodomy Law was repealed in England in 1967, I’m not sure when in the US. First, legality, then the push to redefine marriage. What’s to stop any of the polygamists et al to push for legality, when their eventual goal could be to gain acceptance of their lifestyle?
flmom, I know this concept seems simple to you, but many on this board seem unable or unwilling to accept this logic.
I’ve been doing that for the past few comments. Polygamy and Man-Boy love are both illegal for a variety of reasons, which again, I’ve been enumerating.
What purpose did that serve? I’m not going to repeat myself over and over again, if that’s what you’re after.
If a practice being illegal is the criteria then you have a major collapse in your reasoning; Homosexual activity was also illegal. By your own logic, that would disqualify it from receiving legal sanction.
And, the reasons that it was illegal weren’t any weaker than the reasons which you’ve been “enumerating.”
Yup, Corkie. Beside that, in logical debate, it’s using circular logic to say “something can’t be made legal because it’s illegal”. (Obviously, we know by experience that’s a false statement/argument to begin with!)
Homosexuality was illegal for no good reason. The reasons for polygamy and kid-sex being illegal are sound.
What can I say, I’m a simple gal. You betcha! At least Digshot has quietened down for a minute, probably googling Sodomy Laws as we speak.
spoke too soon.
Are you kidding?
Tell us, what was the ‘no good reason’?
Your problem here is that those who practice such sort of things use the exact same line of reasoning and excuses that you are for their own chosen lifestyles. (”Polygamist marriage doesn’t affect anyone else’s marriage”)
And they too can always point to some other group, e.g. necrophiles, and say “Well, they are worse than we are!”. And so the downward spiral goes.
Polygamists have the strongest argument for legality, not that I am in agreement with polygamy. In the days of Brigham Young, polygamy was practiced by the Mormons to increase their population. Hasidic Jews advocate large families with the theory that larger numbers of Hasidic Jews would then lead the Jewish faith into a more orthodox view. So arguing that polygamy is illegal for good reason, really doesn’t hold.