Prop 8?

Conservatives are good at myopia. Their battle cries are full of contradictions and misinformation.

Do you really expect any coherent answers from anyone whose mind is wrapped around right-wing despotism?

And also the richest, no doubt!

Ah, caught me in a rare typo -- much as I try not to repeat myself, I can fumble the ball. The richest person in Orange County is gay.

Just what have the city, county, state or federal governments done to "promote marriage?" So what is this "society," other than those who have a religious motive and are going to church every week, continuing to study the Bible? Answer: it's all anonymous opinion. There are no viable survey statistic to prove "society" promotes heterosexual couples to mate and have sex to produce babies. Stable? Stable like Octo Mom? How is "society" going to turn around the unstable condition of marriage -- half ending in divorce and of those left in a marriage, perhaps without children but those with children would be a high percentage, a good portion are still in unhappy marriages and hanging on "for the children." So the children, who don't really have a choice, will have divorced parents shuffling them back-and-forth between two people who can barely stand the sight of each other and the children pick up on that easily, or they can be stuck living with two people from "American Beauty," a home environment I wouldn't wish on a pig.

Sarah Palin has been outspoken about gay marriage and sex out of wedlock, her hypocrisy grows daily like Pinocchio's nose:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkJTWO6O5r_iPRbQOn6rw4rP0eCA

You're talking there LW as if the heterosexuality of marriage is the cause of the problems you mention. In actual fact it is the mental states of the partners in the heterosexual marriage which is the real cause and those are conditioned by factors which have no bearing on the heterosexuality itself. Such things as selfishness, self indulgence, control freakery and impatience.

It is the American heterosexual marriage you are referring to and even then only some of them. Your use of "good proportion" is both sneaky and an assumption you have made for your own purposes.

You actually sell the pass yourself by referring to "happy marriages". Happiness is not the function of marriage. It is a bonus. Children are the function of marriage and the stable environment of their upbringing. If selfishness, self indulgence, control freakery and impatience get in the way of that you should look into the causes of those characteristics in the socialisation process and not at the heterosexuality.

Once again you are solipsistically deriving general principles from your own narrow experiences. And your tendency to solipsism has just been demonstrated on the Challenges to Evolution thread. It is thus reasonable to assume that your defence of homosexual unions is subjective and, if it is, then your attack on religion, which condemns those sorts of unions, is both predictable and unscientific. It would also follow that your promotion of evolution theory, where those sorts of unions are non existent, is incomprehensible.

Once again you are trying to generalise from a specific case. It's a simple fact that the millions of American and British households, where such behaviour is not found, do not make the news bulletins for the obvious reason that they are "ordinary" and "common" and not "dramatic" and cannot be used to promote unusual ideas.

Your use of that individual case is, again, sneaky.

The troll always squeals twice. Step on its tail and it drops off. It grows a new tail by taking an enema.

March 11, 2009
Proposal to strike 'marriage' from California law
The Associated Press

California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

The proposal is in response to a voter-approved gay marriage ban that passed in November. The new measure would repeal the ban, and define domestic partnerships as unions between all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said Tuesday that supporters must gather nearly 700,000 signatures by early August to get the initiative on the ballot.

The measure is the grassroots effort of two heterosexual college student

A little more emphasis is okay. LOL

Yeah, well, he's also the most active philanthropist in OC, giving a lot of money to the Christopher Reeve Foundation and many others, also including the Orange Country Performing Arts Center, donating the enormous new organ to the new concert hall. No cracks from the peanut gallery about "enormous new organ," please.

Do you always start talking about unrelated subjects when you have no answers? It demonstrates that you can't defend your position and that is all it demonstrates.

Does it never enter your head that anybody can blurt out that sort of garbage about anybody else at any time? It's actually a compliment to my post.

Why do you use "gay" to denote "homosexual" and then go on to use "heterosexual" to denote "normal". By "normal" I mean as found without exception in the whole animal kingdom for all time.

You are indeed sneaky.

Professor Skinner M.A. Ph.D. Harvard wrote-



Is that why you came on A2K? To access targets for aggression. You obviously have no interest in being Abled to Know anything.

Read it and weep:

Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional
David K. Purdy/Associated Press


Article Tools Sponsored By
By MONICA DAVEY and LIZ ROBBINS
Published: April 3, 2009

DES MOINES " Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage on Friday, after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.

The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest " where no states had permitted same-sex marriage " was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

And later in the ruling, they said: “Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.”

In a hotel in Des Moines, several of the same-sex couples who were involved in the suit wept, teared up and embraced as they learned about the decision from their lawyers. “I’d like to introduce you to my fiancee,” said Kate Varnum, 34, reaching over to Trish Varnum. “Today I am proud to be a lifelong Iowan.”

“We are blessed to live in Iowa,” she added.

Opponents of same-sex marriage criticized the ruling.

“The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels," State Senator Paul McKinley, the Republican leader, said in a statement on The Des Moines Register’s Web site. "I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state."

He added: "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people."

Advocates of same-sex marriage said they did not believe opponents had any immediate way to overturn the decision. A constitutional amendment would require the state legislature to approve a ban on same-sex marriage in two consecutive sessions after which voters would have a chance to weigh in.

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.

Two states " Connecticut and Massachusetts " currently allow same-sex marriages. Several other states on the East coast allow civil unions, lawmakers in Vermont are considering gay marriage, and California allowed it until November’s election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative.

A change in Iowa’s take on marriage, advocates for gay marriage said before Friday’s ruling, would signal a broader shift in public thinking, even in the nation’s more conservative middle. Opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, had said any legal decision in support of same-sex marriage in Iowa would certainly trigger a prompt and sharp response among residents and, surely, state lawmakers.

The legal case here began in 2005, when six same-sex couples filed suit against the county recorder here in Polk County because he would not accept their marriage license applications.

Two years later, a local judge here, Robert B. Hanson, ruled in that case that a state law defining marriage as only between a man and woman was unconstitutional. The ruling, in 2007, set off a flurry of same-sex couples from all over the state, racing for the courthouse in Polk County.

The rush lasted less than a day in August of 2007. Although Judge Hanson had ruled against the state law, he quickly decided to delay any additional granting of licenses, saying that the Iowa Supreme Court should have an opportunity to weigh in first. In the end, about 20 couples applied before the stay was issued. Just one couple, Timothy McQuillan, then 21, and Sean Fritz, 24, managed to obtain their license and also to marry.

Wow, the IA SC specifically cited the Equal Protection Clause in their ruling. I'd like to see what legislation wants to go near that...

T
K
O

I wonder what the effect will be in Vermont?

T
K
O

I'm very pleased with the decision. On the other hand, I'm very disappointed in people who do not accept equal rights for others. Their opposition is based on bigotry. I believe it was former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, who recently defended the rights of gay people to be treated as equals in both our civil society and the military. He said that we should not carry the narrow-mindedness of the past into the future.

It is reassuring that the bigots cannot race to the ballot box to amend their constitution to sanction bigotry and discrimination. Because their constitutional amendment process requires due deliberation, the Iowa Court's ruling that upholds equal protection cannot be immediately cut down through the unbridled use of majoritarian oppression.

Do you think this ruling will effect Vermont's Legislation positively? Negatively? Not at all?

T
K
O

Religion and bigotry. Without religious teachings against homosexuality, there would be no issue - for most fair-minded folks.

Apparently, the governor of Vermont has promised to veto the bill legalizing same-sex marriage. I don't know if the legislature has enough votes to override a veto. One commentator predicted the following:

"Of course, the Iowa decision will set off a firestorm as conservatives and preening demagogues try to use the issue to work their supporters into a lather."

LINK

And, IMO, "conservative" politicians (who owe their success to stirring the pot of oppression and milking social issues for their own personal gain) and anti-gay bigots are the biggest foam-at-the-mouth latherers on earth.

Good point. In you opinion DL, when does this issue really find the nation stage?

T
K
O