California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

This veto of the equal marriage law is a prime example of liberty being attacked by radical religious fanaticism. These religious zealots never think of the cost in human suffrage only the blind religious edict of their two testament god..

What is next prayer back in schools? Slaughtering lambs and no servile work on Sunday or is it Saturday? Let's force those gays again to pray on their knees to our intolerant hateful spaghetti monster god! (cynical)

This marriage law might very well have protected MANY homosexuals from promiscuous acts. It could have cemented homosexual relationships, made them more stable providing a balanced monogamous living environment.

Then many homosexuals would no longer be searching for this kind of idyllic life though endless sexual encounters for something that is deprived from them by a simple protective law.

So homosexuals can by law live promiscuously but then they cannot by law be sanctioned by marriage to live virtuously.

Thus we will see more homosexuals living the precarious lifestyle because they have AGAIN been deprived of marriage. These homosexuals and their promiscuity then become a danger to society and themselves. So what next, line unrepentant gays and lesbians up and shoot them?

Without marriage in the core of homosexual life then we see the anomalies that the denial of this social structure creates.

This setback is going to mean more hardship, more aids, more excessive drinking, more sexual deviations, more testing the limits of sexuality just to fulfill what is being deprived from the get-go from homosexuals. More lesbian bikers more S and M bars, leather chaps boot licking and wacky social parades. If society wants a band of marauding homosexuals roving the countryside like vagabond pirates the church can certainly push the homosexual part of society to the brink of rebellion. Religious bigotry has been persecuting homosexuals for many unforgivable generations. ...OR the law could let homosexuals marry.

It is this lack of marriage and social acceptance that is the scourge of the homosexual community and this is the reason why the homosexual community is often dysfunctional and less harmonious to culture.

Without the possibility of marriage then many homosexuals give up and simply fall into promiscuity and from there the roulette table decides fate.

This veto for marriage in Maine just told the homosexual Maine teens that promiscuity is the only path for young gays… These same teens in a few years when they have contracted aids and are hooked on methadone will knock on the death’s door of catholic charities.

3 Replies

@RexRed,

Or, it could just be that in a year when the only elections are local, most people didn't get out and vote at all. It continually chagrins me when major legislation is offered for votes during years when there is neither a Presidential nor a Congressional election. It means you end up with laws passed by maybe 30% of the people.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

So now you are guilty of the same type of ridiculous panic and fearmongering that those who opposed gay marriage are guilty of.

You are saying that it is not possible for a gay couple to have a committed relationship unless they can get married.
You are saying that not being allowed to marry will destroy the gay community, because gays cant control themselves unless they get married.

You need to realize that this vote will not destroy the gay community anymore then the opposite result would have destroyed the straight community.

You do yourself no favors by trying to spread panic and fear about what will happen, because you now sound like the anti gay marriage idiots.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

got to agree with MM, pretty weak argument, we can't control our desires because we can't get married

lots of straights can't control their desires and they get married

0 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

This veto of the equal marriage law is a prime example of liberty being attacked by radical religious fanaticism. These religious zealots never think of the cost in human suffrage ....

Human suffrage? Why, who else could be voting in all 31 out of 31 referenda nationwide in each and every one of which homosexual marriage was turned down by the voters?! Your statement, absurd as it is, at least isn't outright Stalinist, as heard last night on CNN around 2am EST - Jesse Ventura, former MN governor speaking: "You can't put such questions to the voters - if you ask the voters, you'll hear they want to bring back slavery" (sic).

Suffrage be damned, as per Mr. Ventura. Incredible but true.

1 Reply

@jespah,

jespah wrote:

Or, it could just be that in a year when the only elections are local, most people didn't get out and vote at all. It continually chagrins me when major legislation is offered for votes during years when there is neither a Presidential nor a Congressional election. It means you end up with laws passed by maybe 30% of the people.

And was 30% the voter turnout in all 31 elections in which homosexual marriage was on the ballot? Even if it were - and it was not - then where do you find a basis for a quorum required in psephology? At least you, Jespah, must know the meaning of the word "suffrage" - or do you advocate suspending the electoral process altogether along the Jesse Ventura school of constitutional law?! These statements are incredible!

0 Replies

@High Seas,

yeah and to think I scoffed at Jesse and all this time he was right. Laughing

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

No kidding, Dys - you actually agree with this incredible statements?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/03/lkl.02.html

Quote:

VENTURA: Well, it just shows a great example that there's not a separation of church and state, is there?

I mean my position is this. You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials who have courage, Larry, to make the right decisions.

Reform Party: The legislature did pass this. VENTURA: Exactly. But now they're putting it up to the vote of the people. I've got news for you, if you put it up to a vote of the people, we'd have slavery again, depending on how you worded it.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Ventura is absolutely correct.

1 Reply

Yeah, you can't let those damn people meddle in the government!

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Ventura is absolutely correct.

In the immortal phrase of Theodore Roosevelt, Ventura's "mental arteries have not long since hardened". Aren't you a bit young for this, Joe, and do you and Jespah truly advocate trampling the rights of "we the people"?
the majority may sthttp://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1125

Quote:

First, there are the "initiative and referendum," which are so framed that if the legislatures obey the command of some special interest, and obstinately refuse the will of the majority, step in and legislate directly. No man would say that it was best to conduct all legislation by direct vote of the people- it would mean the loss of deliberation, of patient consideration but, on the other hand, no one whose mental arteries have not long since hardened can doubt that the proposed changes are needed when the legislatures refuse to carry out the will of the people.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

correction : due to hasty cut-and-paste on tiny screen quoted phrase of Theodore Roosevelt should have been edited to place the "not" in brackets as it applies to Ventura. Obvious correction but possibly necessary to forestall criticism by readers of bad faith, sadly numerous on this site Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

corrected link, too:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1126

0 Replies

lol

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Aren't you a bit young for this, Joe, and do you and Jespah truly advocate trampling the rights of "we the people"?

I don't presume to speak for Jespah, but I personally am opposed to trampling on the rights of the people, and that includes those times when the majority would trample on the rights of the minority. We have a representative democracy and a written constitution because the founders quite rightly distrusted the unruly passions of the people, and they knew that the great mass of the public was often less zealous in protecting its own rights than in denying the rights of others.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I don't presume to speak for Jespah, but I personally am opposed to trampling on the rights of the people, and that includes those times when the majority would trample on the rights of the minority. We have a representative democracy and a written constitution because the founders quite rightly distrusted the unruly passions of the people, and they knew that the great mass of the public was often less zealous in protecting its own rights than in denying the rights of others

YOu have it all wrong, the system was supposed to work to put the brakes on passion, to give the people time to reconsider. It was never supposed to overrule the will of the people. The courts have run amuck, and need desperately to be reformed, the conservatives are completely correct about this.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

YOu have it all wrong, the system was supposed to work to put the brakes on passion, to give the people time to reconsider. It was never supposed to overrule the will of the people. The courts have run amuck, and need desperately to be reformed, the conservatives are completely correct about this.

On the contrary, the will of the people is thwarted by the system all the time. That is what the system was designed to do. Your right to free speech, for instance, is not subject to a majority vote, no matter how many people might disagree with you -- and for you, that certainly should be a concern. Our system puts a legislature, executive, and judiciary between the will of the people and the law precisely because the people can't be trusted to pass the best laws for their own good.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Aren't you a bit young for this, Joe, and do you and Jespah truly advocate trampling the rights of "we the people"?

I don't presume to speak for Jespah, but I personally am opposed to trampling on the rights of the people, and that includes those times when the majority would trample on the rights of the minority. We have a representative democracy and a written constitution because the founders quite rightly distrusted the unruly passions of the people, and they knew that the great mass of the public was often less zealous in protecting its own rights than in denying the rights of others.

How the hell did I get roped into this?

2 Replies

@jespah,

jespah wrote:

How the hell did I get roped into this?

Expertly?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Once the traditional marriage is safe

False choice. Traditional marriage is safe. Gay marriage does nothing to abolish it.

2 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know