Anti-Prop. 8 mob watch: L.A. Film Festival director resigns over donations
This is such a shame. I mentioned the uproar in Hollywood over L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon’s contribution to the Yes on Proposition 8 traditional marriage initiative campaign last week (link). Well, the tolerance bullies have won. Raddon has resigned.
Via Variety (hat tip – Steve G.):
Under mounting pressure, LA Film Festival director Richard Raddon has ankled his post.
Raddon and Film Independent (FIND), the festival’s parent org, have faced a barrage of protests over Raddon’s contribution to the successful Yes on Prop 8 campaign that banned same-sex marriage in California.
After bloggers published his name, culled from public records of donors, Raddon tendered his first resignation on Nov. 13 to Film Independent’s board of directors, which was not accepted. Film Independent then released a statement saying, in part, “Our organization does not police the personal, religious, or political choices of any employee, member, or filmmaker.”
Yet Internet message boards and other published reports kept the issue at the center of a growing protest movement that has targeted “Yes on 8″ donors including the Mormon church and Cinemark Theaters, whose CEO was a contributor.
On Monday, Raddon submitted a second resignation. Those close to the org described Monday’s conference call with the board of directors as emotional. While Raddon’s contribution had caused some internal angst, he was well liked within the org.
On Tuesday, Film Independent issued a statement saying “With great reluctance, Film Independent has accepted Richard Raddon’s resignation. Rich’s service to the independent film community and to Film Independent has been nothing less than extraordinary. He has always shown complete commitment to our core principles of equality and diversity during his long tenure.”
Raddon, a devout Mormon who took the reins of the fest in 2000, said, “I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion, or sexual orientation are entitled to equal rights. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT community.”
Film Independent has not yet picked a replacement for Raddon.
Who will the witch hunters go after next?
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
- Neolibertarian at large
- Los Angeles Film Festival Director and California Proposition 8 Supporter Richard Raddon Resigns | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- Breitbart Nails Hollywood On Prop. 8 Hypocrisy
- Cheat Seeking Missiles » Gay Bigots’ Harassment Drives Film Exec From Job
- Gay “marriage”: Stop the Madness! « Mark’s Musings
- Steynian 290 « Free Canuckistan!
- Around the Blogosphere « The Pugnacious Irishman
- Gay McCarthyism (Explain the difference of techniques) « Zipline Conservative
- ANTI-PROP 8 BULLIES PRESSURE ANOTHER TO RESIGN « The Salty Pundit
- Same Sex Setback by Rolling Stone
- Moderate Blogger » Anti-Prop. 8 mob watch: L.A. Film Festival director resigns over donations
- The Naked Emperor, Pontificating on Fashion « The Pugnacious Irishman
- Linkapalooza Part II: My Favorite Blogs « The Pugnacious Irishman
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%
“Protect” a consenting person? What’s wrong with your brain?????
Are you seriously unable to look past some arbitrary stigma which exists in our society?
Societies throughout history have done just fine without marriage consent ages prescribed by law. Why do you wish to impose your random stigma-induced opinions on others?
Ah, typical neocon device. You just keep on distracting the issue, trying to snide and clever. You make this point every single time. If you actually think this childish approach is working, then you are a lost cause. Can I just remind you for the nth time that polygamy and gay marriage and not, actually, the same thing. Feel free to just ignore that piece of reality right there; I’m pretty sure your kind are more than used to doing that by this stage.
Why, because YOU say so? That is the same argument you are using on us.
Because in those instances, there is an aggrieved party, providing a NON-BIGOTED reason to oppose them. There is no aggrieved party in homosexual relationships, and the only reason to oppose them is BIGOTRY.
Of course they’re not the same thing (unimportant). Now, tell me again how you justify denying polygamists their rights?
I have yet to see a single arugment to stop at gay marriage because the same logic applies to all types of marriage. Why exactly do you oppose polygamy and support gay marriage???? What is your reasoning? Do you think these women are too stupid to think for themselves?
I ask again. Who is the supposed aggrieved party?
That is your opinion and hardly fact.
Red State Skeptic, you didn’t answer my other question.
Do you support polyandry?
Don’t evade the question.
So, basically, this is a social conservative (i.e. the most stupid kind of voter there is; someone who is too dim to understand fiscal issues and so just votes against anything different) views the constitution:
Social conservative: “Homosexuals are disgusting, filthy sodomites who should never have access to marriage”
Gays: “Nonsense, we are entitled to marriage and we’re going to fight for it”.
Social conservatives: “Why are you taking away my freedom of speech?”
Liberal logic about opposition to gay marriage = it’s bigotry because it’s bigotry.
Liberal logic about opposition to polygamy = it’s not bigotry because it’s not bigotry.
Just so we’re on the same page, you don’t think a ten year-old who consents to marry a forty year-old is aggrieved in any way. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
Omu: “Polygamists are disgusting, filthy deviants who should never have access to marriage”
Homosexuality is a choice. There is no scientific evidence to prove otherwise. To normal people same sex coupling is as disgusting as horse diarrhea. We do not wish to allow crap like behavior in our Constitution.
GET OVER IT.
Hmm, did you miss the part where this post of Mrs. Malkin’s was about gay marriage and not polygamy?
I don’t have to celebrate or condemn polygamy in order to justify my support for gay marriage. Where are you pulling this insane logic from?
Also, can I just inform you that polygamy existed in the US up until not so long ago. And that it existed in Biblical times. And still exists in certain parts of the world. Polygamy came before gay marriage, not after it. So you can just drop this inane point right about now.
I’m asking (and waiting for) you to make an argument.
I’m confused why you would think that my views affect your argument.
Why can’t you reiterate your answer? Is it because you’re starting to realize that your views are based on some arbitrary stigma and nothing more?
No. There are two aggrieved parties: the two men in the relationship. I have no problem with laws expressing condemnation of this relationship.
Maybe in the south, but I know that most people certainly don’t think like that in Houston (where I’m originally from) or Dallas or Austin (where I’ve spent a lot of time). In fact, I’m pretty sure everyone in Minnesota didn’t care all that much about the gay couple that strolled down the street in St. Paul when I was there last year. And you do know that majorities of people in New Jersey and Vermont support gay marriage, right?
Wow, grow up for crying out loud.
Hah, so you think you can just ignore my point about polygamy pre-dating gay marriage by millennia by repeating your same old tired nonsense? Pathetic.
The consenting male adults are aggrieved how exactly? What if they sign a grievance waiver?
What if I decided (as arbitrarily as you decided) that one of the spouses in a gay marriage is an aggrieved party? Would I be right in “expressing condemnation of this relationship[?]“
m e o w.
Hmmm, that’s funny…I thought I noted some subsequent posts.
And I want to say, Omu, “neocon” is so yesterday.
Missed.the.point.entirely.
I don’t know of anyone currently in the jail in the United States for sodomy. There are tens of thousands of people in jail in the United States for drug use. Both are lifestyle choices. Both can make arguments about nature vs. nurture, genetics, freedom to choose. Seems like gays in the United States have it pretty good, comparatively. Compared to drug users, seems like the gay marriage issue is much ado about little.
I’m not advocating drug use or legalization here, merely pointing out the disparity between two groups of citizens and their “rights.”
I may be a little late to the party, but this just begged for a lesson in the obvious.
Um, you see, Prop 8 actually modified the constitution, so that’s what the judges are supposed to go by now. Minor detail.
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that you wanted me to draw further attention to a statement which supports my argument.
Not true! A study released this summer showed that homosexual men’s brains are more similar to heterosexual women’s brains than they are to heterosexual men’s brains. Same for gay women/straight men.
Just wondering, how many close friends do you have who are gay? Because I can’t imagine that if you do have many gay friends you would draw the conclusion that it was their choice to be gay and not just who they were.
Exactly. That’s why you don’t want gay marriage, because you think it’s gross. That’s the only reason, and it is bigoted. Guess what? I think two men doing it is pretty nasty myself, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to take their rights away.
People are being polite.
GROW UP SPORT
So, if there were scientific proof, you’d support gay marriage? Because there’s a lot of scientific proof for man-made global warming, and most of you here seem to disregard that as well. I doubt that any evidence would make you reconsider your stance.
Omu – regarding “McCarthyism”, go and do some research on the VENONA FILES released and declassified(very quietly might i add) in 1995 with respects to the “innocents” brought in for a so called “witch hunt”.
This by no means absolves McCarthy of ANY wrong doing, but to label him and these hearings as a “witch hunt” is disingenuous. That would mean that there was no real threat, or no real factual evidence that communism was infiltrating and looking to overtake the US, which was categorically not the case.
After you are done with the VENONA FILES, check out the Manhattan Project.
Then ask yourself, how has my liberal public education served me?
And if I did not have ANY clue about the Venona Files (or the Pumpkin Files, OR Whittacker Chambers OR Alger Hiss…OR)…then could I be running around calling people BIGOTS based on using emotion to push through an ideology by the same people who are misinforming me about half of what I’ve learned in life?
Is this how you truly see the discourse: Gays, calmly stating their point, with the conservatives ranting?
What fairytale have you been reading, Foo, because I’ve been reading the real-life news where gays are storming churches, stomping on old ladies and demanding opponents of their agenda be fired from their jobs.
You mean other than the fact that global temperatures have been decreasing since 1998?
There are public policy/legal reasons for making polygamy illegal that do not concern gay marriage.
The most obvious is that all of our marriage laws were written for two people. Would all partners receive social security benefits from all the other partners or would only one? Who inherets property? The list goes on and on. These concerns do not exist for gay marriage.
More fundamentally, a restriction on polygamy is a restriction on the quantity of people who may enter into marriage, not the qualities of those people.
A ban on gay marriage places restrictions on a quality of the people invovled – their sex.
Basically, there are many important legal distinctions between gay marriage and polygamy. Allowing gay marriage would not open the door to polygamy.
There’s nothing arbitrary about condemning polygamous and man-boy relationships. In each case, there is one or more parties being taken advantage of. I don’t believe that it is possible for the women in a polygamous relationship to receive the care and attention they deserve and would get in a two-partner relationship. I don’t believe they would enter into that relationship without being coerced by the society they belong to. Similarly, I don’t believe a twelve year-old can be in a relationship with someone two or three times his/her age without being unfairly taken advantage of.
Now tell me, for exactly what reason do you oppose 1) gay marriage, 2) polygamy, and 3) consensual pedophilia.
assuming you do oppose them.
Two words: twin studies. If homosexuality were genetic, don’t you think studies would show more than 50% results where both identical twins are gay where one is gay?
HA! That’s a laugh! Are you actually claiming that “all of our marriage laws” have ANYTHING to do with this issue???
Are you actually justifying your trampling of rights just because a few new case precedents will be required?
Please don’t try to hide your bigotry behind such a pathetic excuse. Just admit it.
I mean the notion that opposition to gay marriage, by and large, is based on the idea that it is “a choice” isn’t rooted in reality. Were a landmark scientific study to unveil inarguable findings and data identifying neurological differences between gays and straights, for example, it wouldn’t sway those who oppose gay marriage. I just think it’s duplicitous to suggest as much. Most people who are anti gay marriage do so based on their own definitions of what’s moral and what isn’t. If you don’t agree with gay marriage, you’re entitled to your opinion, obviously, but stop pretending that you’re just waiting for the scientific method to prove you wrong and change your way of thinking.
Even if you think that being gay is not a choice, that you’re born that way, you still choose to live the lifestyle. Your CHOICE is to be gay. Therefore, your CHOICE to marry another person who thinks they’re gay is not a protected right. It’s simply a choice made. And as for girls marrying right after puberty, I believe that was back when they died in their 30s and 40s. Not 70s and 80s like today.
Societies throughout history have done quite well without state interference with marriage. It is only when the state gets involved that people can exert political influence over the state to get them to re-define marriage.
If the state were not involved, and people were permitted to do what they want with regards to marriage, 99% of the people would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. If a few non-conventional couples decided to marry one another, that would not influence the opinion of those 99%.
It is only when the coercive power of the state is involved that marriage can be re-defined to something other than the societal norm.
The barbarians are at the gates. Will Americans resist or will they go the way of Rome.
Also, the fact that a homosexual brain performs in a manner similar to a woman’s brain is more a confirmation of some type of mistake in behavioral patterning than something genetic. What would prove a genetic link is an examinations of babies’ brains and then trace those particular brains to homosexuality — and that would require a huge multi-decade study. If there is a clear genetic link, then you can bet there will be a lot of abortions similar to the 90% abortion rates of Down’s Syndrome babies.
Your brain, like a lot of things, can change in subtle ways. I don’t think sexual orientation is genetic, but I do think it is very fundamental to your being and developed at a very early age. For instance, unfortunately, if a boy is molested by a man early in life, he will more than likely grow up to be homosexual. That’s not the only way to be homosexual of course, but it does illustrate how the brain is formed while a juvenile.
My post was intended to highlight the differences between polygamy and gay marriage, not to take a position on either.
In response to your snark, these are not just a few case precedents. There is a lot of law related to marriage/families. It would be quite a process to rewrite it all.
Actually, unlike you, I’m not a bigot, and I don’t argue against any of these. I challenge you to find a single comment in which I do.
1. Just because you state that one party is taking advantage of another doesn’t make it so regardless of the number of times you repeat yourself.
2. Does this mean that you think that all marriages should be illegal if one party is taking advantage of the other? Does this include marriages between two adults of differing economic profiles?
Society??? What society? Does this mean it’s ok for a group outside of a polygamist society to enter into a polygamist marriage???
Does this mean that you’re ok with thirteen-year-olds?
Just to help you out, Red State Skeptic. Use the fingerprint example. (Twins don’t have the same fingerprint.)
So, your suggestion is, if sexuality is determined at birth, and if you are born gay, you should simply suppress it?
Thank you for verifying my point. You think that even if homosexuality is an inherent trait, gays should ignore it — because society is overwhelmingly straight. You don’t care about the root causes of homosexuality, but only that it differs with what you consider “normal” — and therefore, “right.” That’s my point exactly. Most people here oppose gay marriage because they oppose homosexuality itself. The end.
1. Great. Sorry folks! We can’t give you your rights because it would be a “process” to rewrite the law. Ha!
2. No it wouldn’t.
3. It was quite a process to end slavery in this country (you know, that whole Civil War thing). It doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the right “process.”
I’m not waiting. It’s already proved it.
Good grief. This ignorance is astounding. There were several states that had abolished slavery pre-civil war. Slavery was ended by the Civil war, but the Civil War was not the “Process” for doing so. Freeing slaves benefited the Union because Slaves would be guaranteed to ally with the Union army. It was used as a way to win the war which was NOT fought to end slavery.
Also, the Dredd Scott decision, if you care to read about it was a decision made by a court interpreting the constitution.
Where are we going here Forkie…???
Many countries ended slavery without a war…many. I would submit, it is not the reason the Civil War was fought.
Remember, many commenters on this board don’t care about the root cause of hetersexuality outside the covenant of marriage (despite it being quite normal), but they still oppose it. So, I’m not sure you can use the “normal” argument.
I had’t realized how much gay pride is like an intoxicating beverage.
I really can’t tell if you are so libertarian as to oppose government intervention into a grown man’s “consensual” relationship with an eight year-old, or so intellectually cowardly as to oppose all of the above without taking a real position on them. If you are in favor of gay marriage, say so.
Ohhhh, the DRAMMMAAAA
Most trolls on this website have a completely poor grasp on issues and history.
On November 25th, 2008 at 7:02 pm, feebiebabe said:
Sorry, allow me to correct my statement.
The process to end slavery in all the states in this country included the Civil War. This statement is true.
There are about 1,000 federal rights conferred upon married couples. There are even more rights confered by the states. It would be a tremendous political undertaking to rewrite these to include more than two partners. You obviously do not think it’s a compelling argument. That’s fine.
Do you also disregard the quantity vs. quality distinction?
So then how on earth does this fit in with your argument?
BINGO!!!!
I’ll tell you what I oppose. I oppose disgusting hypocrisy – something you’ve demonstrated during this thread. You continue to produce weak arguments to cover-up your artificially created societal stigma induced reasons for opposing many forms of marriage between consenting individuals.
Kinda like saying the Civil War was to free slaves…based on non-facts and emotions. Hmmmmmmmm
????
Um… I think you just made a case FOR polygamy and AGAINST gay marriage. lol
Forkie, I don’t care for religions telling governments what to do as much as i dont like governments telling religions what to do.
Its the perfect ideological model of Islam.
Does that make me a bigot?
I know you asked someone else, but I’d like to chime in on the consensual pedophilia. I think it’s an easy question.
Chidren, by their very nature, are not capable of entering into consensual sexual relationships (with adults). Therefore the relationship is not consensual.
Gotcha, you’re a coward. Thanks for making that clear.
Sorry folks. No rights for you. It’s not politically expedient.
It’s a good thing Lincoln didn’t share your views.
Do you care to explain?
Says who? The law???? Ha? Just deem the laws unconstitutional – problem solved!
I’m a coward for opposing hypocrisy? You really have to explain that one.
sonofdy #94:
The problem here is that Senator McCarthy didn’t do anything wrong. What McCarthy did was to investigate Soviet infiltration in the US government, particularly the US Army.
What the gays are doing isn’t even in the same universe as to what Senator McCarthy did.
How do you define normal? would you consider any behavior that is followed by 95% of the people to be normal? Therefore, homosexuality is not normal, being practiced by only 5% of the population.
The process to end slavery included the Civil War. This is a fact.
(I have no misconceptions about this. I certainly understand the state’s rights reasons and justifications for succession, etc. But the fact remains that the southern states would not have ended slavery until forced. Slavery would have continued in the Confederacy. Do you deny this?)
I’m with Red_state on this one. What are you trying to argue?
I think the law reflects the developmental/social/politcal differences between adults and children. I suppose you are willing to overlook these differences when it comes to consensual relationships?
You’re a coward for not taking a stand on what you do support. There’s just no way to equate a consensual adult relationship with a “consensual” adult-juvenile relationship. There are reasons we outlaw pedophilia which have nothing to do with the fact that we think it’s disgusting — whereas there is no reason to suppress homosexuality besides the fact that it’s icky.
The very thought of straight people getting it on is as disgusting to me as horse diarrhea. So what? What’s gross to me is normal to you. Now, the fact that I’m a lesbian means I can’t procreate, and in fact I have no desire to. There are plenty of straight people who feel the same way, does that make them bad? No.
And Red State Skeptic is right…there have been numerous reports that suggest homosexuality is a genetic thing for most people. Yes, there are some who play around with it just to see what it’s like; I think that’s equally disgusting. I can’t date a girl who also likes guys. Ew.
My question is a tough one, though. I’m undecided about the idea of “judicial activism.” If a judge makes a decision based completely outside the law, then yes, he should be disbarred. But while I support the right of the people to make such a decision, how can I honestly say that a judge who strikes said decision down isn’t interpreting the Constitution correctly by calling it unconstitutional? We all walk a fine line by saying it’s judicial activism just because we don’t like the outcome. The same arguments have been made by the gay community, and I rarely agree with them, either.
And yes, I believe it is horrible that the gay community has chased this guy out of his job. All of them should be shamed.
1. What political issues? Because more than 50% of the people oppose it? That’s not good enough.
2. What social issues? Because society doesn’t think it’s normal? Nope.
3. What developmental issues? We’re talking about marriage here – not random sexual activity. Age of consent studies and psychological opinions differ greatly on this issue.
4. How are you defining a child? Are you falling into the mistake of using random chronological age?
I’ve never had a judge or a jury ask me for my personal stand on any issue that I argue for my client. I’m not sure why it’s so strangely vital to you.
Your reasons are weak and you’re in denial.
You either have a very tiny brain or you aren’t progressive enough. Which is it?
My feeling is if you’re in the minority, and the majority objects to you having basic civil rights, and they vote to perpetuate the discrimination, you’re in a BAD spot. That’s obviously why racial discrimination continued for so long: if you’re in the majority, you can do anything you want to oppress the minority because it’s a democracy, and that’s why it took the Federal Government to end segregation.
Similarly, the gay community is powerless to change the laws until the old people die and young progressives outnumber the old bigots. In the meantime, all they can do is effectively organize a coalition of the 48% that will not stand for patronizing those who gave money to the cause they oppose. Good for them!
Correct, SaS. “Being gay” is a Owellian euphemism for one’s preference to be involved in homosexual acts, i.e. sodomy. Without that underlying fact, the “gay” euphemism is totally meaningless.
AniMel, I respect your thoughtful and honest analysis. But how can a constitution be considered unconstitutional? If a constitution is amended in accordance with the constitution, then the amendment is part of such constitution.
The bigoted, puerile, thuggish homosexual activists are wrong. Period. Falsely and indiscriminately spewing epithets is simply a classic case of projection. It is the schoolyard bullying homosexual mafia that is trampling on the rights of citizens not the other way around.
The case is made far more eloquently than I ever could in a column in today’s WSJ. And if those of you who lost the Prop 8 battle do not read this column yet continue to ‘debate’ this issue I can only conclude that you’re a member of the latter half of one of my favorite sayings: “Ignorance is congenital but stupid is a choice”.
As the article incontrovertibly points out, there’s nothing to debate here. Case closed. The citizens of California have made their case.
Here’s another question, though, Corkie…what if the amendment proposed is found to be out of line with the rest of the Constitution? I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just that I’m not sure we really know the difference between judicial activism and upholding the Constitution.
The truth is that both sides complain about “activism” on the bench, yet I still think that a lot of the time we’re really just upset that our particular view has been dissed somehow. I could be wrong, but the question remains. I mean, if the people overwhelmingly decided that euthanasia was mandatory at a certain age, would that make it Constitutional, or would the other rules that provide for our rights regardless of our race, status, age and health nullify it?
Corki-
1. Political differences are differences in power dynamics between adults and children. (not political in the republican/democrat sense)
2. Social diffences are the social roles society gives to adults and children.
3. Developmental differences are both emotial and biological.
4. I’m using the legal definiton of child.
I think most people would agree that a seven year old does not have the emotional development to enter into a legal contract. Perhaps a seventeen year old does. Our child protection laws eer on the side of caution.
There is no right to marriage. Constitutional or otherwise. Society has the right to decide what behavior is suitable. Freedom is not free and you cannot behave as you wish. If they come around me they will sorry. I am armed and will defend both my life and my way of life. If I want to contribute to a cause I support, no body is going to tell me not to. Those people are facist.
Keep going folks!
I just know we are two or three posts away from cracking this nut and finally and incontrovertibly resolving this controversy for all time!
I agree with your sentiment, but I think you stated it backwards. Ignorance is curable, unless you’re talking about liberals, but stupidity is forever. Especially for liberals. Especially for the libs who are engaged in the current thread.
You win, chappy.
Too bad the left doesn’t feel the same way about abortion.
Yup, and after that we’ll finally pin down perpetual motion machines and what’s on the other side of black holes.
Most people agreed in California, too. Please, please, please explain how “most people agree” is relevant???
So does this mean that you oppose the the current laws in states which allow people younger than 17 to enter into marriage?
Should we make all marriage illegal if difference in power dynamic exist? Pretty stupid criteria for legality if you ask me.
Again with the society argument???? You simply aren’t progressive enough. You’re obviously stuck in the
1950’s1990s with the rest of society.Please see my argument against #3 above. It remains germane – you didn’t attempt to counter it.
Again with the legal definition? How can you be this simple? The law is meaningless – it can be changed.
And what causes gravity.
If the homosexual community would calm down, go back to the ballot and convince the people that they do not plan to indocrtinate children in school and mean it, gay marriage would probably pass. It is their in your face tactics that made it a Constitutional issue now, and they may have over played their hand.
It amazes me that the gays, as LaShawn Barber put it, are not in Compton or South Central protesting at their churches. They are much braver going after the Mormons, who are not in thug crazy neighborhoods, huh?
A buddy of mine goes to Community College here, he was telling me that in class the anti prop 8 people are loud and boisterous over this subject. The other day in class they were again talking about the vote and an African American female stood up and said very matter of factly, I voted for Prop 8, moving her head from side to side and actually looking like she wanted someone to say something. My friend said you could hear a pin drop as the once brave souls of “anti-hate” sat in silence. So Brave!!!! This issue is becoming laughable, Terrorists are waiting to knock our dicks into the dirt. We look so immoral and fragmented, how easy it is going to be.
Homosexuality is a choice. The human brain changes configuration as its grows and modifies its patterns according to it’s environment. Neurons change patterns according to behavior and humans are always growing new cells.
Do your research and GROW UP SPORT.
Omu wrote:
This is not a question of “justification,” it’s a question of consistency.
You are already of the opinion that the state has no right to say that adults of the same sex cannot marry. What is your opinion on the question of whether an adult has the right to marry more than one person?
Don’t act as if the question itself is out of bounds of reasonable debate, because it was the California Supreme Court’s Perez v. Sharp decision in 1948 that was the basis of the In re Marriage Cases decision that Proposition 8 invalidated. Nobody in 1948 would have been taken seriously if they had suggested legalizing marriage between a Mexican-American woman and an African-American man would be the top of a slippery slope leading to a decision sixty years later saying men had the right to marry men and women could marry women. If anyone DID make such a suggestion, they probably would have been met with the type of sarcasm and insults that you’ve liberally doled out in your posts.
But, in fact, it was.
Let’s see if you can manage to 1) Answer my question, and 2) Do so without ad hominem remarks. Don’t chicken out.
Actually, this particular nut has already been cracked by Americans many times over now, Chappy, most recently in CA. It’s not as if people have not already settled it. The only problem is there are a few “cracked nuts” who can’t accept that reality.
What’s wrong with using legal definitons? We’re taking about a legal right aferall.
As to me not adressing your point, I think I did when I said a 7 year old was not capable (developmentally) of entering into a legal contract (marriage). Do you need scientific studies?
More generally, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.Is it that there are no good reasons to outlaw same sex/polygamous/under age marriages?
It doesn’t matter. It’s still a part of the constitution. Who’s to say that the other part of the constitution is unconstitutional for being out of line? Additionally, this amendment creates very little ambiguity.
Precisely. The left is waving the law in your faces when it is something they agree with, then dismissing it when they don’t. Of course, the right does the same thing, but we have logic on our side. Fact is, when you rely on the state to define everything for you as the left does, you have to live with the results. The right, in general, has other sources to determine right and wrong, and is therefore more likely than the left to disagree with what they consider intrusive acts of the state. To put it another way, liberals see the Constitution as guaranteeing rights. Conservatives see it as (intended to) restricting government intrusion on otherwise established rights (e.g. “that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights……”).
Since the state has chosen to recognize and reward marriage , and since you accept that, then you must also accept that the state has the right to limit that recognition as it sees fit. The problem is, of course, with the concept of “marriage”, which is basically religious in nature. The state, if it was to involve itself at all, should have stuck with the concept of “unions” and left the concept of marriage where it belonged – in church. But of course until very recently, the distinction never came up.
If you care to argue that the state has a bona fide purpose in supporting marriage, then it follows that it should only support marriages that fulfill that purpose, which is the continuation of the population – production and rearing of children. Gays, exit stage left.
Gays don’t really care about rights. They want normal people to accept them as normal.
I might be ok using legal definitions. Are you? Would you be ok if a child was legally defined as anyone younger than 10 – thereby making a 10 year old an adult? If that was the law, then would you be ok with 10 year-olds marrying 35 year-olds? Or would you suddenly have a problem with the legal definition?
Sigh. I’ll repeat. “Age of consent studies and psychological opinions differ greatly on this issue.” Don’t bother looking for psychological or psychiatric opinions or studies to support your position. I’ve already done the research. I can produce support for either side.
Your hypocrisy.
Oh that’s easy. Darwin.