California voters oppose new vote on gay marriage, poll finds

[Roisia]

Basher wrote:

<quoted text>
How can the constitution be unconstitutional?

Where in the US constitution does it say homosexual marriage is illegal. In fact i can use it to prove that it should be legal.

[Rick in Kansas]

Basher wrote:

<quoted text>
How can the constitution be unconstitutional?

Simple, state constitutions cannot do anything which is unconstitutional according to the US Constitution. Here is an example: When the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional (the Loving case), it had the same invalidating effect on amendments to the Constitutions of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and a number of other states. While Virginia only had a law prohibiting miscegenation, these other states had put their prohibition into their Constitutions to make them safe from state challenges (sound familiar?) but in the end, they were trumped by the guarantee of equal protection found in the US Constitution... So if you imagine that your amendment is somehow safe, don't.

[WeTheSheeple]

fed up wrote:

<quoted text>
Well sheeple you may have thought it funny but it was in bad taste and reflects on you badly. Although I am sory for those who are bullied no matter who they are no I will not take responsibility for someone else's actions.We all have choices to make and making excuses for bad ones no matter how provoked is asinine.Should we call all bllied people to murder and justify it because they were bullied? No. I recentlyhad a friend brutally murdered and I don't find any excuse justifiable and we knew her killer. She was family.I have just sent weeks caring for several people suffering from swine flu with complications (all under 65) so no I don't find your comment remotely amusing.
The real question is with comments like yours, how are we supposed to know what it is you are really fighting for? Cause from my side it just looks like vengeance.

As I've stated over & over & over, I'm fighting for equal treatment for same-sex marriages.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

The map for prop 8 (second try!) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008elec...

Excellent map, thanks for providing the link.

[WeTheSheeple]

mrSteven wrote:

<quoted text>
it will be on ballot in 2010, 2012, 2014 and so on til we win.. IT WILL BE overturn by SCOTUS MY gut feelings as right now.. SCOTUS WILL rule banning same sex couples to get married is unconsitutional.. my feelings..

I have to disagree. I don't think the current court is anywhere near ruling that. A much more likely scenario is they will rule that current legal same-sex marriages can't be discriminated against under federal law. That in essence solves the problem without having to get them to actually find a right to marry in the constitution.

[nhjeff]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to disagree. I don't think the current court is anywhere near ruling that. A much more likely scenario is they will rule that current legal same-sex marriages can't be discriminated against under federal law. That in essence solves the problem without having to get them to actually find a right to marry in the constitution.

I tend to think the process will be more piecemeal: First, the GLAD suit will prevail, establishing that SOME aspects of our unions must be treated equally by the federal government. But the states' authority to make their own decisions will be the last surviving vestige of DOMA. When enough states allow same-sex marriages, SCOTUS will topple that. At the same time, they will convert all civil whatchamacallits into marriages.

[daytimedrama]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
As I've stated over & over & over, I'm fighting for equal treatment for same-sex marriages.

W/E. It was a horrible comment. How about this then?

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY. IT DOES NOT REFLECT HOW I FEEL.

Our best chance to change the results of a vote next year is to hope for a really bad aids outbreak that kills off a lot of gays this year.

Sounds really bad doesn't it... That's what I got from your statement. Sounds hateful. Sorry but it was a terrible move.

[WeTheSheeple]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I tend to think the process will be more piecemeal: First, the GLAD suit will prevail, establishing that SOME aspects of our unions must be treated equally by the federal government. But the states' authority to make their own decisions will be the last surviving vestige of DOMA. When enough states allow same-sex marriages, SCOTUS will topple that. At the same time, they will convert all civil whatchamacallits into marriages.

Agreed. I simply mean that MOST of the benefits of marriage come from the federal govt, so even if a state refuses to marry same-sex couples, those same couples can still get all the federal benefits by simply getting married in states where it IS allowed.

[WeTheSheeple]

daytimedrama wrote:

<quoted text>
W/E. It was a horrible comment. How about this then?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY. IT DOES NOT REFLECT HOW I FEEL.
Our best chance to change the results of a vote next year is to hope for a really bad aids outbreak that kills off a lot of gays this year.
Sounds really bad doesn't it... That's what I got from your statement. Sounds hateful. Sorry but it was a terrible move.

You've pretty much summed up the anti-gay attitude in a nutshell! See, sometimes it takes an obvious exaggeration to drive the point home.

[daytimedrama]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
You've pretty much summed up the anti-gay attitude in a nutshell! See, sometimes it takes an obvious exaggeration to drive the point home.

Well at least you said after that you kinda didnt mean it unless your against what I think is right then it applies. I think this summed up you....

[fed up]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
As I've stated over & over & over, I'm fighting for equal treatment for same-sex marriages.

By hoping for death to those who oppose you. HMMMM
Why are you unable to admit your comment was in poor tatse?Could it be becuase you meant it and it wasn't really a joke?HMMMM

[Chicago Hope and Change]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
Where in the US constitution does it say homosexual marriage is illegal. In fact i can use it to prove that it should be legal.

Plus Homosexual marriage should be encouraged to help save the environment. Homosexual's have very few children and often they do have are adopted from those who are not responsible.
If only 1/3 of all people could be encouraged to accept and embrace a homosexual relationship for themselves in just two generations the reduction in populace would have a major positive effect on CO2 emissions.
Next time you see a gay marriage referendum on the ballot vote for it to help save the planet.
Think gay for a better tomorrow.

Here are also a couple good articles and ideas for those who still resist change:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_s...
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_s...

[nhjeff]

Chicago Hope and Change wrote:

<quoted text>
Plus Homosexual marriage should be encouraged to help save the environment. Homosexual's have very few children and often they do have are adopted from those who are not responsible.
If only 1/3 of all people could be encouraged to accept and embrace a homosexual relationship for themselves in just two generations the reduction in populace would have a major positive effect on CO2 emissions.
Next time you see a gay marriage referendum on the ballot vote for it to help save the planet.
Think gay for a better tomorrow.
Here are also a couple good articles and ideas for those who still resist change:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_s...
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_s...

As popular as the idea that the earth is overpopulated may be, and no matter how strongly we believe that mankind has a responsibility to lessen its impact on the environment, the fact remains that the quality of life is better than it has ever been for nearly all inhabitants of the earth. Population reduction is not a good way to enhance the quality of life nor the quality of the environment. Innovating new ways to make more with less--as man has done very well since the advent of the industrial revolution--is the key to the survival of both man and the planet.

[Will Phillips]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Then can I marry your daughter?

I dont think any parent would want you to marry thier daughter.

[Hesed]

Will Phillips wrote:

<quoted text>
I dont think any parent would want you to marry their daughter.

Most parents probably wouldn't want him to be seen in public by their children either.

[nhjeff]

Will Phillips wrote:

<quoted text>
I dont think any parent would want you to marry thier daughter.

And that is exactly the point. What parent would want their daughter involved in a sham marriage? Fortunately, my husband's family loves and accepts me, and my family feels the same about him.

[Chicago Hope and Change]

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
As popular as the idea that the earth is overpopulated may be, and no matter how strongly we believe that mankind has a responsibility to lessen its impact on the environment, the fact remains that the quality of life is better than it has ever been for nearly all inhabitants of the earth. Population reduction is not a good way to enhance the quality of life nor the quality of the environment. Innovating new ways to make more with less--as man has done very well since the advent of the industrial revolution--is the key to the survival of both man and the planet.

Your fossil capitalist dogma has come to an end.
Give it up.
There have been many studies that show a drastic reduction in the population would have substantive positive impact on the environment.
If just one in four people 30 years old and younger were sterilized that global CO2 reductions in the next 20 years would drop by over 30% and then increase from there due to snowball effect.
CHANGE is here.
Don’t be a denier.

[War Party]

Chicago Hope and Change wrote:

<quoted text>
Your fossil capitalist dogma has come to an end.
Give it up.
There have been many studies that show a drastic reduction in the population would have substantive positive impact on the environment.
If just one in four people 30 years old and younger were sterilized that global CO2 reductions in the next 20 years would drop by over 30% and then increase from there due to snowball effect.
CHANGE is here.
Don’t be a denier.

Shoot yourself and reduce the surplus population.

[Keep_Focused]

Rose wrote:

Bet you the smarter/more educated a person is, the more likely they are to be in favor of gay marriage.

I'm a biracial male (half black/half white). I'm a died in the wool Democrat. I hold a Master's degree from the University of Redlands and I am currently working on a doctoral degree. And I'm in favor of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

There just comes a time when values and morals trumps what is popular.

Can we please stop comparing the plight of samesex couples to marry to that of the Civil Rights Movement. I guarantee if the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, we wouldn't be down with this.

[Rick A Hyatt]

occono wrote:

So, wow, people still lie in Polls.

Look, if I want to marry my rabbit, or my dog, I should be allowed to do so. We should all be allowed full medical and social benefits like any other PETA People. Now, if my dog decides to divorce me and marry my rabbit, then I should be free to shoot them both and have dinner according to my own recipe, don't you think?
I mean, how long will it be before the CHICOMS and The Great 0 force "Soylent Green" upon us all, anyway?
I would have went on a vegetarian diet, based upon the PETA people's advise, long ago, but when I checked into it, they don't issue such hunting licences, and most of them seem to live out of state in California, in any event.
Do you know any other good Vegetarian recipes, by any chance? "The thigh bone is connected to leg bone, the leg bone is connectedness to the foot bone..."
Garlic, always garlic...