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
Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyone
Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip clubLegal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesStop The ACLU
» Hasan Tried To Contact al Qaeda. Sounds Like A Jihadi To MeEd Driscoll
» Go Flag Yourself, Mr. President!JustOneMinute
» Stay Classy, Ezra!protein wisdom
» Quote of the Day [Darleen Click]
I agree, FLMom, of all the groups clamoring for legal validation they have the best case. As you sez, that’s not to lend approval, just making an observation.
Please.
1. It would be impractical to figure out divorce and benefits?
Why couldn’t these issues follow partnership laws? These laws contemplate the same exact issues as polygamy. Marriage is a partnership. I honestly don’t understand how you can deny someone a human right on this criterion.
2. Polygamy is associated with higher incidents of rape and incest?
First, is this even true? Can you quote credible studies which support your claim? Second, do you honestly believe that this is a sound criterion for making something illegal. If so, should we outlaw pornography, alcohol, etc. simply because credible studies proved that such things are associated with higher incidents of rape and incest?
Seriously, you need much better reasons to keep polygamy illegal. Your enumerations are quite sophomoric. Bring something real. I’ve heard better arguments while debating this issue with high school students.
I’m always surprised that gay marriage advocates are so often anti-polygamy. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not as if it weakens their argument at all.
My sociological theory is that they’re merely not desensitized (yet) to some of the concepts we’ve discussed here. Further, in an effort to feel ‘progressive’ they feel compelled to support a trending issue (even if still minority). Finally, they are incapable of supporting anything associated with a societal stigma. The issues we’ve discussed all still have stigmas associated with them (as did homosexuality 50 years ago). The notion that 7 years (or whatever digshot was citing) is enough for stigma errosion is laughable.
I delight in the thought that someday digshot will be shouted down as a bigot and promoter of hate for trying to argue his “impractical” or “association” points….wait..what am I saying? As soon as a stigma is lifted I predict that he will shamelessly change his baseless opinion.
I think your analysis is right on target, Corkie. Good points.
Heh. I suspect you are right, since many people will jump on every trendy bandwagon that comes down the pike just to avoid having others attack them for being non-PC.
purplepeep
YOU FOLKS ARE STILL HERE!!!
The trolls can’t let go. This is one of the left’s defining issues, therefore the extended thread.
Purplepeep, what makes me a Christian is my faith that the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross paid the penalty for my sin. The debate comes in where I say I no longer believe homosexuality to be sin. That’s what we have to agree to disagree about. I used to teach on the issue, I know it all too well.
Corkie–some age of consent laws are a little too lax. It should be 18 everywhere with exception to adults with diminished mental capacities (rape is considered in all cases of adults with, say, downs syndrome, because the APA believes that even adults that have the mental capacity of a 12-year-old are, like a 12-year-old, incapable of truly consenting to the act). I’m not willing to see age of consent lowered by any judge. The APA has stood firm on a child’s inability to give informed consent to sexual contact, and I very strongly doubt they will ever change that position.
I WILL bring up the Folsom Street Fair. It’s a disgusting display of absolute filth and I refuse to put my money into Miller products as a result.
The trolls are here but as of yet none of them want to face the Lord promoting their homosexual agenda? I know if that opportunity comes up they won’t have a single word to say to Him. By the way can you guys make your case that homosexuality according to the Lord?
No, it isn’t. It’s a defining issue for the right because for a while, preying on the ignorance of the public in regards to homosexuals and creating fear around them helped the right to win a few elections. Those days are now over, you’ll surely be sad to hear.
Could one of you make your case according to Sponge Bob? I watch him EVERY Sunday morning! That Patrick Star cracks me up!
Garydt, I’m not getting into that argument. I don’t believe it will be any more of an issue to Him than my tattoos or piercings (I have both). When I face God I will do so with a clear conscience.
And what “agenda?” I pretty well agree with most folks here.
It seems the anti-gay side has been sucessful in confusing this issue and making it about polygamy.
Please explain to me how polygamy is the same thing as gay marriage. Please explain why you think you can do my thinking for me, and conclude that I must support polygamy because I support the right of same sex couples to get married. Not one of you can explain any of it.
AniMEL,
Just wanted to say thanks for being a thoughtful, informed, and intelligent poster. That wasn’t being said and it needed to be.
Hopeless trolls.
Omu, I’m not anti-gay, I’m a lesbian. I agree that redefining marriage itself will, in fact, put us on a slippery slope. I’m perfectly fine with civil unions; I think we should leave marriage alone.
Nobody is saying that you think polygamy should be legalized. But you have yet to give a solid argument as to why gay marriage should be allowed and polygamy and incest shouldn’t. I have to admit, it’s a difficult argument to make, that’s why I agree with them.
Oh, FamilyMan, quit bein’ so grumpy! You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar, man, lighten up!
I will take that challenge:
Omu, it is not that you openly support polygamy, it is that the legal methods you wish to see pursued WILL support polygamists as well, as they are equally applicable. Again not confusing sex with marriage, although the two are closely related, polygamy is a marriage between parties in respect to their chosen lifestyle. This has nothing to do with the (il)legality of sexual acts involving minors, rape, incest, etc. A Polygamous marriage necessitates none of these. In fact, group-sex is not illegal if it were at all pertinent, even though polygamists generally only interact with one partner at a time. A recognized polygamous marriage COULD even be 100% abstinant. Again, the sexual habits have nothing to do with the recognition of marriages based on arbitrary lifestyle choices.
If you make the legal argument that any party A may join with whomever they feel satisfies their lifestyle choice and force others to call it a valid marriage, then there is a legal precedent that can be used and reused in exactly the same formula for other lifestyle choices. To declare that word definitions may be altered on a whim to satisfy the convenience of any negatively affected party is legally volatile. If society wishes to change the definition of a word, it must happen naturally over time, not by judicial fiat as happened in CA before this proposition.
I’m not speaking in terms for nor against gay marriage… nor looking to get dragged into this right/wrong debate… just trying to clarify the concerns presented in this aspect.
AniMEL, I appreciate your civility, but your statement is a bit disingenuous.
The APA has not stood firm on an any age of consent. They have never defined the word “child.”
But you do agree that chronological age is irrelevant when presented with a subject whose “mental capacities” differ greatly from the norm.
I assume this means you would be ok lowering the age of consent for a subject which possesses much greater “mental capacities” (for example, a six sigma outlier)? If not, then your asymmetrical application of a mental capacity criterion seems quite arbitrary.
Can you please explain the foundation of your doubts that the APA will not “change that position?” I’m sure your familiar with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. To make matters worse, they quickly reversed their language in IV thereby changing their “position” when politically pressured – NOT as a result of research.
You might want to reconsider hitching your wagon to the APA train. You might not like the direction it takes in the future.
AniMel, I’m so glad you recognize most here are not anti-gay, and the issue we are arguing is also not anti-gay. In fact, I think the gay community would best serve their agenda by advocating that all states recognize civil unions for those gays in a committed relationship, viz-a-viz gaining health benefits that married couples enjoy, visiting sick partners in the hospital,etc. I would hazard a guess that there are not many straight people out there that would deny gay couples these simple humanities. To me, this is a win win situation, the gay community have the validity of their union recognized and the straight couples get to keep their definition of marriage intact.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, AniMEL. Yup, it sounds as if we would disagree on the sin-nature of homosexuality. But I think it is a thematic constant throught Scripture. And, like you, I believe I am quite well versed on the topic.
If you are talking about just the tendency to be inclined or drawn to one particular sin – or sin in general – as opposed to an active, unrepentant involvment in it, that’s another thing. All have sinned and all are tempted to sin, even after they have found saving grace – and sometimes they fall. That’s part and parcel of the human condition.
The flaw with your arguement, as I see it, is you’re saying that Criteria A is wrong, and should be removed. I’m saying that it’s society that would decide to change that criteria, over time they may. By relying on a minority (the courts, in the case of CA, CT, and MA) to remove criteria A, they remove any defense of NOT removing criteria B and C for whatever reason.
I take it from your reply, that you agree that the arguement ‘everyone except gays can do it’ is incorrect?
In CA, the majority of the people have said that critera A needs to be retained. I’m not saying it’s good or bad that this decision has been made, just that it has, 30 seperate times.
Now my opinion? It is opposed to yours. Marriage means a union between one man and one woman. Gay Marriage is best achieved through making a legislative equivalent. Call it what you want, call it Fred for all I care. It’s not marriage in the traditional sense, so why co-op the name?
I have, with your own words. Choosing not to reply to my statements makes them none the less valid.
Let’s face it, purplepeep. You don’t have too look very hard to find active, unrepentant involvement in many types of transgressions. I’d certainly hate to think of it as an automatic disqualifier, but you make a good point.
Indeed, it’s not very hard to find any kind of sin in this world, Corkie!
Some Christians struggle to let go of a “besetting sin” and it’s difficult to break a habit. I know of churches that have substituted grape juice for wine for communion because a believer came out alcoholism and the wine would be a stumbling block to him/her.
We all would rather God overlook the sins of which we are particularly fond and with which we are comfortable. You quite likely know of the rich young man who came to Jesus and who had done “all the right things”, as far as he knew. Jesus said he lacked only one thing – to sell all that he had and then to follow Jesus. Unwilling to let go of his wealth, the young man had to walk away from Jesus.
Can we clone AniMEL to have debates on this issue? Omu and DigDug have ignored her the whole 700+ thread because they hate seeing someone from the gay community not agree with their agenda.
I’ve already asked if AniMel could clone herself, so far, no takers.
I really really don’t care who you sleep with but the radical gays are destroying any tolerance they have may have earned with their extremist demands.
I dunno, guys…ask my parents, you might not want another one o’ me runnin’ around.
I hear you, Corkie, I use the APA because on many issues they have been pretty consistent. Every psychologist I know says the same thing: no child is really capable of understanding the depth of sexual contact and are often severely damaged mentally by being exposed to it too early. As for six sigmas, yes, it’s entirely possible they would be able to meet age of consent criteria, depending on their understanding of the real world.
FamilyMan, I have to agree with you. I just watched live footage of a crowd in Palm Springs attacking an elderly woman and it made me so mad I’m about ready to spit nails. Those guys make the rest of us rational folk less likely to be taken seriously, and it’s infuriating.
LGBTs are human beings and as such are entitled to the same rights as other human beings. Society also benefits when people form stable long term relationships. In my mind, domestic partnerships fill the bill for the above.
I wouldn’t even care if it was called marriage, except for one thing. I am afraid that there will be discrimination lawsuits against the churches for refusing to marry LGBTs. Therefore, I do not support “gay marriage” per se, unless there is a guarantee that religious institutions can keep their convictions without the threat of bankrupting lawsuits.
Reading through the comments in this thread would make you wonder if that’s true or not …
It’s always a nice compliment when somebody asks something along the line of “Are there any more at home like you?”.
I had nine siblings, so I’d have to shrug my shoulders and go “eh, yeah.” (And, no, my family wasn’t Catholic, lol.)
The thugs who attacked a 75-year old woman also stomped on a cross.
The white sheet has been replaced by the rainbow banner.
In that vein, a couple things that may be of interest to you, corona:
“The Pink Swastika”
Also, in the 1980s an agenda was penned by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill – they called it “The Overhauling Of Straight America” which pretty much laid out the homosexual plan of attack.
On reading it, you’ll see the propaganda/manifesto/agenda has been carried out to the letter. (Marshall Kirk would later, in the 90s, expand and expound on the attack plan in a book titled “After The Ball”.)
If you google “The Overhauling Of Straight America”, you should find the text online somewhere.
for all those that saying “there is no slippery slope”… .just epxlain why we are where we are now. Once upon a time they told us we would never have to worry about this question.
Here it is. You can’t tell it won’t go to the other. I don’t care about your stupid goofy arguements about Taxes. What taxes? It hought only those making 250000 would be rich enough to pay it (yeah I know)
You just don’t answer any of the questions as to why not. TAxes is not enough when someone is screaming “civil rights”. You can’t even define what those are, and why you have to have marriage to have yours filled.
Purplepeep, I’ve read parts of what you’ve mentioned and it’s garbage. Yes, a large part of the vocal and visible gay community goes by that. There are plenty of us out there, though, that have enough common sense to know better.
Sidana, you forgot about Obama lowering that number. Hell, I’M in his upper-echelon tax bracket now!