Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on November 17, 2008, 08:29:22 PM
-
LAPD Treat Gay Marriage Protests With Kid Gloves
Posted By Jack Dunphy
November 17, 2008
pamajasmedia.com (http://pamajasmedia.com)
The first paragraph of the [1] Law Enforcement Code of Ethics reads as follows: “As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.”
These are noble ideals, but here in Los Angeles we have seen once again that noble ideals can be trumped by the demands of politics, which are often not so noble.
Witness the furor that has erupted following the November 4 passage of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that amended the state’s constitution so as to read that “- nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In approving the proposition, the voters of California affirmed the meaning of marriage as it had been understood for millennia until May of this year, when four members of the California Supreme Court rummaged through all those emanations and penumbras that only liberals can claim to detect in written documents, miraculously finding therein the right for same-sex couples to marry.
Angered by this expression of the will of the voters and the repudiation of an activist court, advocates for same-sex marriage have taken to the streets in Los Angeles, venting their outrage at what they describe as “hate” on the part of those who voted in favor of the proposition.
The protests thus far have come in the form of impromptu marches down various thoroughfares, disrupting traffic and raising a minor ruckus here and there. Los Angeles Police Department officers have arrested a handful of protesters, but most of the marchers have been voicing their opinions loudly but peacefully nearly every day since the election.
But even peaceful demonstrations can be disruptive to a community, and it’s been disheartening to witness the lengths to which the management of the LAPD has acquiesced to the disorder engendered by these protests.
Police officers have requested that marchers not block traffic, but when these requests have been ignored, police commanders prohibited officers from taking any action to restore order. Thus in parts of Hollywood and West Los Angeles, where afternoon commutes can be hellish on the best of days, drivers unfortunate enough to be caught in any of these protests have found themselves helplessly delayed as marchers flooded into the streets, even as dozens of LAPD officers looked on from nearby waiting for orders that never came.
Had the protesters organized a march and sought the proper permits, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LAPD chief William Bratton, the city council, the police commission, indeed the entire municipal apparatus, nearly all of whose members are left-leaning and sympathetic to the same-sex marriage cause, would have moved heaven and earth to accommodate them, bringing large sections of the city to a halt if necessary, just as they have done to facilitate large-scale marches on behalf of another politically favored group, illegal aliens.
It’s interesting to note that the Los Angeles protests have been confined to such liberal enclaves as Hollywood and the West Side, where Proposition 8 was [2] roundly rejected by the voters. If the marchers were intent on truly facing their opposition, they might take their activities to the, shall we say, grittier neighborhoods of South Central and East L.A., where it passed by wide margins. I suspect that drivers in those neighborhoods would not be so impassive upon finding their cars surrounded by people shrieking at them for being “hateful,” and that the marchers would welcome the LAPD’s assistance in escaping to the more hospitable zip codes whence they came.
The judicial creation of same-sex marriage has thus far been rejected by every American electorate to have considered the issue, but public opinion, at least in California, has been shifting. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, which enacted a state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That initiative passed by a landslide, with a 61-39 margin. Proposition 8 passed by only a 52-48 margin, but the continuing antics of the protesters are doing little to change hearts and minds.
The dispute now returns predictably to the courts; three [3] lawsuits have been filed in the hope of seeing the measure invalidated. The governments of both the city and county of Los Angeles have endorsed this effort, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Catholic who twice vetoed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage, has demonstrated what is, even for him, an astonishing elasticity of conviction by [4] voicing his support for those hoping to see Proposition 8 overturned.
Until the matter is resolved (isn’t that what the election was for?), be careful where you drive in Los Angeles. And if you should find yourself impeded in your travels by same-sex marriage advocates roaming willy-nilly in the streets, don’t expect the police to do anything about it.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lapd-treating-prop-8-protests-with-kid-gloves/
URLs in this post:
[1] Law Enforcement Code of Ethics: http://iacp.org/documents/index.cfm?document_id=95&document_type_id=1&fuseaction=document
[2] roundly rejected: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/prop-8-backers.html
[3] lawsuits: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story
[4] voicing his support: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop815-2008nov15,0,897834.story
-
Hear hear.
-
Serious Question
Who's rights should we take away next?
I'm thinking Muslim
No one can deny that being Muslim is a choice
who's with me?
-
Serious Question
Who's rights should we take away next?
I'm thinking Muslim
No one can deny that being Muslim is a choice
who's with me?
Oh fuck, here we go again....
Gays did not have tights taken away.
They retain the same rights as everyone else.
-
Serious Question
Who's rights should we take away next?
I'm thinking Muslim
No one can deny that being Muslim is a choice
who's with me?
I'd like to take away the illegal aliens rights, so we can send them back instead of putting water troughs in the middle of the desert so they don't gehydrate. ::)
-
Illegals have no rights once they cross that border.
-
Oh fuck, here we go again....
Gays did not have tights taken away.
They retain the same rights as everyone else.
gays have the same statutory rights as heterosexual couples?
so you agree with the CA Supreme Court Ruling on Prop 22?
-
I don't understand why they won't settle for their own kind of civil union? ???
-
I don't understand why they won't settle for their own kind of civil union? ???
equal but separate
or vice versa
-
equal but separate
Sounds good to me, and apparently the majority of Californians. :)
-
Sounds good to me, and apparently the majority of Californians. :)
like I said
who's rights should we take away next?
I vote for people who choose to be Muslim
do you agree or disagree?
-
like I said
who's rights should we take away next
I vote for people who choose to be Muslim
do you agree or disagree?
I voted for illegal aliens.
Muslims can wait until the illegals are dealt with.
-
like I said
who's rights should we take away next
I vote for people who choose to be Muslim
do you agree or disagree?
A majority of Americans consider Marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. It's that simple, homosexual couples deserve all the rights traditional married couples are awarded, but they need to come up with their own union. Not "Marriage"
-
If they described it as "Ooblinage" and had some Earth ceremony would they be granted all the traditional rights married couples have or would the same group of people go after them on that?
HAHA, you got me ;D
-
If they described it as "Ooblinage" and had some Earth ceremony would they be granted all the traditional rights married couples have or would the same group of people go after them on that?
Honestly, I don't think people would mind.
I think the majority of people just don't want them to be "married".
http://www.hulu.com/watch/43974/the-colbert-report-proposition-8-protests---dan-savage
-
people who choose to be Muslim are making a choice that can only lead to eternal suffering and we (as a country) legitimize their choice by pretending it's equal to the 80/90% of this country (according to some people here) who know that accepting jesus as your personal saviour is the one and only true release from being to condemned to an eternity of unimaginable torture
it's also an insult to jesus and we should not allow it to exist in our country
it really is our duty to vote away the rights of people to choose to be muslim and stop pretending it's equal to our understanding of god and the ultimate mystery of reality
-
I've said it before, they'll just keep whining and whining until they get what they want, that's how it works. Bitch, piss, moan until the government steps in (again) and tells them it's OK, regardless of what the majority of the voters want.
Besides, if I were to organize a "straight white male pride" parade, I would be a racist and a bigot.......but blacks can organize "million man marches" and gays have their parades every other weekend, flaunting their sexuality.
But it's all OK, the straight white man is suppose to keep his mouth shut because it's "equal".......
-
I've said it before, they'll just keep whining and whining until they get what they want, that's how it works. Bitch, piss, moan until the government steps in (again) and tells them it's OK, regardless of what the majority of the voters want.
Besides, if I were to organize a "straight white male pride" parade, I would be a racist and a bigot.......but blacks can organize "million man marches" and gays have their parades every other weekend, flaunting their sexuality.
But it's all OK, the straight white man is suppose to keep his mouth shut because it's "equal".......
dude, I agree with you
who is next in line?
surely there must be some minority group whose rights should subject to the will of a majority vote
we are NOT all equal
how about the jews?
or maybe just those people who choose to convert to Judaism?
-
Poster on a body building forum railing against gay rights - almost oxymoronic :P
-
dude, I agree with you
who is next in line?
surely there must be some minority group whose rights should subject to the will of a majority vote
we are NOT all equal
how about the jews?
or maybe just those people who choose to convert to Judaism?
WTF, how many times do I have to tell you?
ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NEXT ON THE LIST!!!
-
WTF, how many times do I have to tell you?
ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NEXT ON THE LIST!!!
so what do illegal aliens (human beings who reside in our country illegally) have in common with legal residents also happen to be gay and want to exercise their right to get married
do illegal aliens have all the same rights as legal citizens?
if so, then we should definitely vote to take away those rights
I see your point
tell me more
-
so what do illegal aliens (human beings who reside in our country illegally) have in common with legal residents also happen to be gay and want to exercise their right to get married
do illegal aliens have all the same rights as legal citizens?
if so, then we should definitely vote to take away those rights
I see your point
tell me more
No dipshit....
I already told you, illegals have NO rights once they cross that border.
-
No dipshit....
I already told you, illegals have NO rights once they cross that border.
so then we can't actually vote their rights away like we did with gay people
right dipshit?
-
No, actually since illegals don't have any inherant rights, anytime we vote on them, we are actually voting to grant them SPECIAL rights,
much like we are always voting for with the gays.
-
At first I thought this was about the election.
-
No, actually since illegals don't have any inherant rights, anytime we vote on them, we are actually voting to grant them SPECIAL rights,
much like we are always voting for with the gays.
Illegal aliens are covered by the Bill of Rights just like you and I.
-
I just think now that we have a precedent of voting away rights we ought to start looking for more targets.
Why not?
-
Apparently you have not been paying attention.....
-
putting aside your focus on illegal aliens
Can you think of any other group of US Citizens with existing rights that are offensive to you
How about the handicapped with their damn ramps and excellent parking spaces?
-
Newt Gingrich Warns of ‘Gay Fascism’
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:21 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich warns that a “gay and secular fascism” in the U.S. is prepared to use violence to impose its will on the rest of the country.
Appearing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Nov. 14, Gingrich and host Bill O’Reilly discussed the recently passed California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
O’Reilly cited the protests by gay activists that broke out after the vote and troubling incidents associated with them, including a woman who had a cross knocked out of her hand and a Michigan church invaded by gay activists.
Gingrich responded: “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.”
He went on: “For that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite of what you're taught in Sunday school.”
The Georgia Republican, who left the House in January 1999, added: “I think when the left, when the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land. You've watched them, for example, in Massachusetts, basically drive the Catholic Church out of running adoption services, drive Catholic hospitals out of offering any services, because [the radicals] impose secular rules that are fundamentally … sinful from the standpoint” of the church.”
Gingrich had released a video urging Californians to vote for Proposition 8, which overrode a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in the state.
The Proposition passed by a vote of 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gingrich_Gay_Fascism/2008/11/18/152539.html
-
Newt Gingrich Warns of ‘Gay Fascism’
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:21 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich warns that a “gay and secular fascism” in the U.S. is prepared to use violence to impose its will on the rest of the country.
Appearing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Nov. 14, Gingrich and host Bill O’Reilly discussed the recently passed California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
O’Reilly cited the protests by gay activists that broke out after the vote and troubling incidents associated with them, including a woman who had a cross knocked out of her hand and a Michigan church invaded by gay activists.
Gingrich responded: “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.”
He went on: “For that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite of what you're taught in Sunday school.”
The Georgia Republican, who left the House in January 1999, added: “I think when the left, when the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land. You've watched them, for example, in Massachusetts, basically drive the Catholic Church out of running adoption services, drive Catholic hospitals out of offering any services, because [the radicals] impose secular rules that are fundamentally … sinful from the standpoint” of the church.”
Gingrich had released a video urging Californians to vote for Proposition 8, which overrode a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in the state.
The Proposition passed by a vote of 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gingrich_Gay_Fascism/2008/11/18/152539.html
Bahahahaha.....what a drama queen!!!!
what you have is a minority group that is protesting because their constitutional rights have been taken away.
Some people are engaging in vandalism which is not a good thing
I've seen worse damage from crowds after sporting events
-
Newt Gingrich Warns of ‘Gay Fascism’
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:21 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich warns that a “gay and secular fascism” in the U.S. is prepared to use violence to impose its will on the rest of the country.
Appearing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Nov. 14, Gingrich and host Bill O’Reilly discussed the recently passed California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
O’Reilly cited the protests by gay activists that broke out after the vote and troubling incidents associated with them, including a woman who had a cross knocked out of her hand and a Michigan church invaded by gay activists.
Gingrich responded: “I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.”
He went on: “For that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite of what you're taught in Sunday school.”
The Georgia Republican, who left the House in January 1999, added: “I think when the left, when the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land. You've watched them, for example, in Massachusetts, basically drive the Catholic Church out of running adoption services, drive Catholic hospitals out of offering any services, because [the radicals] impose secular rules that are fundamentally … sinful from the standpoint” of the church.”
Gingrich had released a video urging Californians to vote for Proposition 8, which overrode a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in the state.
The Proposition passed by a vote of 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gingrich_Gay_Fascism/2008/11/18/152539.html
Christians are the true fascists - all these people want is the same rights as everyone else - they aren't trying to shove anything down anyone's throat (PUN not intended).
-
Newt Gingrich Warns of ‘Gay Fascism’
He went on: “For that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite of what you're taught in Sunday school.”
Doesn't the historic version of Islam and Judaism include polygamy?
In the historic version of Islam and Judaism marriage is more of a business transaction than some kind of holy sacrament
-
newt is very smart.
he knows this rhetoric is extremist and possibly silly.
but it sits very well with the far-right religious nuts who watch FOX news and stayed home during the 2008 election, as well as the angry palin fans.
He'll ramp this up over the next 4 years to position himself to win those Iowa religious hacks that gave Huckabee the win... then he'll move to center. He already said he'll seek national office in 2012.
-
putting aside your focus on illegal aliens
Can you think of any other group of US Citizens with existing rights that are offensive to you
How about the handicapped with their damn ramps and excellent parking spaces?
What makes it their "rights" to get married? And how do you figure they are "existing", since they've been voted down?
-
What makes it their "rights" to get married? And how do you figure they are "existing", since they've been voted down?
the CA Supreme Court
-
the CA Supreme Court
The one that overrode the publics vote against it the first time?
And now, once again, the people have spoken. Why is this so difficult for some Sore Losers to understand?
-
Can you imagine if the gays had won and people against gay marriage were protesting? The gays would be shouting from the top of their lungs "the people have spoken!!!"
-
Can you imagine if the gays had won and people against gay marriage were protesting? The gays would be shouting from the top of their lungs "the people have spoken!!!"
this point is a good one.
some groups didn't like the outcome of the vote, so they're trying to change what is now law.
If they HAD won, it'd be their biggest tool in defense of it.
Since they lost, they're minimizing its meaning.
I'd do the same if I was trying to win such an argument. But it's flimsy at best. You'd think they would have done some polling before pushing this bill, which is now another tool agians their cause, even though it was probably designed and pushed by pro-gay marriage groups.
-
this point is a good one.
some groups didn't like the outcome of the vote, so they're trying to change what is now law.
If they HAD won, it'd be their biggest tool in defense of it.
Since they lost, they're minimizing its meaning.
I'd do the same if I was trying to win such an argument. But it's flimsy at best. You'd think they would have done some polling before pushing this bill, which is now another tool agians their cause, even though it was probably designed and pushed by pro-gay marriage groups.
It really boils down to the fact that most people aren't ready for gay marriage. We all know society become more liberal as time goes on, so eventually it will happen. When, I don't know. I do believe that the protests aren't helping their cause though.
-
It really boils down to the fact that most people aren't ready for gay marriage. We all know society become more liberal as time goes on, so eventually it will happen. When, I don't know. I do believe that the protests aren't helping their cause though.
there were a lot of Obama voters who said NO to gay marriage. It's that simple.
I have no problem with two men having the same right/paperwork/tax benefits as married couple.
But do I want my kid's 3rd grade teacher Mr Johnson having a hubby at home ALSO named Mr Johnson, and talking about the great movie and picnic they had the night before? No, I'm not comfy with that.
-
The one that overrode the publics vote against it the first time?
And now, once again, the people have spoken. Why is this so difficult for some Sore Losers to understand?
you mean by doing their job and ruling the that the law violated the CA Constitution?
Don't worry you'll soon get to show us all how to be a gracious loser when the court strikes down Prop 8
-
LAPD Treat Gay Marriage Protests With Kid Gloves
Posted By Jack Dunphy
November 17, 2008
pamajasmedia.com (http://pamajasmedia.com)
The first paragraph of the [1] Law Enforcement Code of Ethics reads as follows: “As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice.”
These are noble ideals, but here in Los Angeles we have seen once again that noble ideals can be trumped by the demands of politics, which are often not so noble.
Witness the furor that has erupted following the November 4 passage of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that amended the state’s constitution so as to read that “- nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In approving the proposition, the voters of California affirmed the meaning of marriage as it had been understood for millennia until May of this year, when four members of the California Supreme Court rummaged through all those emanations and penumbras that only liberals can claim to detect in written documents, miraculously finding therein the right for same-sex couples to marry.
Angered by this expression of the will of the voters and the repudiation of an activist court, advocates for same-sex marriage have taken to the streets in Los Angeles, venting their outrage at what they describe as “hate” on the part of those who voted in favor of the proposition.
The protests thus far have come in the form of impromptu marches down various thoroughfares, disrupting traffic and raising a minor ruckus here and there. Los Angeles Police Department officers have arrested a handful of protesters, but most of the marchers have been voicing their opinions loudly but peacefully nearly every day since the election.
But even peaceful demonstrations can be disruptive to a community, and it’s been disheartening to witness the lengths to which the management of the LAPD has acquiesced to the disorder engendered by these protests.
Police officers have requested that marchers not block traffic, but when these requests have been ignored, police commanders prohibited officers from taking any action to restore order. Thus in parts of Hollywood and West Los Angeles, where afternoon commutes can be hellish on the best of days, drivers unfortunate enough to be caught in any of these protests have found themselves helplessly delayed as marchers flooded into the streets, even as dozens of LAPD officers looked on from nearby waiting for orders that never came.
Had the protesters organized a march and sought the proper permits, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LAPD chief William Bratton, the city council, the police commission, indeed the entire municipal apparatus, nearly all of whose members are left-leaning and sympathetic to the same-sex marriage cause, would have moved heaven and earth to accommodate them, bringing large sections of the city to a halt if necessary, just as they have done to facilitate large-scale marches on behalf of another politically favored group, illegal aliens.
It’s interesting to note that the Los Angeles protests have been confined to such liberal enclaves as Hollywood and the West Side, where Proposition 8 was [2] roundly rejected by the voters. If the marchers were intent on truly facing their opposition, they might take their activities to the, shall we say, grittier neighborhoods of South Central and East L.A., where it passed by wide margins. I suspect that drivers in those neighborhoods would not be so impassive upon finding their cars surrounded by people shrieking at them for being “hateful,” and that the marchers would welcome the LAPD’s assistance in escaping to the more hospitable zip codes whence they came.
The judicial creation of same-sex marriage has thus far been rejected by every American electorate to have considered the issue, but public opinion, at least in California, has been shifting. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, which enacted a state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That initiative passed by a landslide, with a 61-39 margin. Proposition 8 passed by only a 52-48 margin, but the continuing antics of the protesters are doing little to change hearts and minds.
The dispute now returns predictably to the courts; three [3] lawsuits have been filed in the hope of seeing the measure invalidated. The governments of both the city and county of Los Angeles have endorsed this effort, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Catholic who twice vetoed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage, has demonstrated what is, even for him, an astonishing elasticity of conviction by [4] voicing his support for those hoping to see Proposition 8 overturned.
Until the matter is resolved (isn’t that what the election was for?), be careful where you drive in Los Angeles. And if you should find yourself impeded in your travels by same-sex marriage advocates roaming willy-nilly in the streets, don’t expect the police to do anything about it.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lapd-treating-prop-8-protests-with-kid-gloves/
URLs in this post:
[1] Law Enforcement Code of Ethics: http://iacp.org/documents/index.cfm?document_id=95&document_type_id=1&fuseaction=document
[2] roundly rejected: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/prop-8-backers.html
[3] lawsuits: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story
[4] voicing his support: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop815-2008nov15,0,897834.story
so is it safe to call you a neocon
-
so is it safe to call you a neocon
How do you define "neocon"?
-
Illegals have no rights once they cross that border.
But if you murder an illegal, you'll end up in prison just the same as if you had murdered a citizen.
-
you mean by doing their job and ruling the that the law violated the CA Constitution?
Don't worry you'll soon get to show us all how to be a gracious loser when the court strikes down Prop 8
You mean the law four douchebags in dresses enacted after the people voted it down?
It's alot easier for gays to convince four judges they have certain rights, than it is the entire state...... ;)
-
there were a lot of Obama voters who said NO to gay marriage. It's that simple.
I have no problem with two men having the same right/paperwork/tax benefits as married couple.
But do I want my kid's 3rd grade teacher Mr Johnson having a hubby at home ALSO named Mr Johnson, and talking about the great movie and picnic they had the night before? No, I'm not comfy with that.
`Like it or not. That's the way things are.
-
You mean the law four douchebags in dresses enacted after the people voted it down?
It's alot easier for gays to convince four judges they have certain rights, than it is the entire state...... ;)
Do you even understand the role of the court?
-
All I understand is 52 % is bigger than 48%
-
Do you even understand the role of the court?
Do you understand the role of the voters?
The court shouldn't even be involved. Basically you have the gays trying to "sue" the people in the state that voted against gay marraige, to get what they consider their rights.
So where do you draw the line? Do you stop at gay marraige or keep going into polygamy, gay polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia? Where does it end, after your group gets what it wants, or the next group? Every group will use the same excuse, "It's our right!!!"
-
Do you understand the role of the voters?
The court shouldn't even be involved. Basically you have the gays trying to "sue" the people in the state that voted against gay marraige, to get what they consider their rights.
So where do you draw the line? Do you stop at gay marraige or keep going into polygamy, gay polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia? Where does it end, after your group gets what it wants, or the next group? Every group will use the same excuse, "It's our right!!!"
No need to be a drama queen - we are talking about the rights of two consenting adults.
-
No need to be a drama queen - we are talking about the rights of two consenting adults.
So polygamy is no problem for you? 3-4-5+ consenting adults.
-
Do you understand the role of the voters?
The court shouldn't even be involved. Basically you have the gays trying to "sue" the people in the state that voted against gay marraige, to get what they consider their rights.
So where do you draw the line? Do you stop at gay marraige or keep going into polygamy, gay polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia? Where does it end, after your group gets what it wants, or the next group? Every group will use the same excuse, "It's our right!!!"
Are you just going to keep repeating the same tired fallacious arguments.
The court did it's job by rendering a decision on whether a law voted on by the people violated the constitution. That's their job. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or disagree. It doesn't change reality. In reality that is their role.
-
Are you just going to keep repeating the same tired fallacious arguments.
The court did it's job by rendering a decision on whether a law voted on by the people violated the constitution. That's their job. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or disagree. It doesn't change reality. In reality that is their role.
Where in the constitution does it say gays have the right to marry?
-
Where in the constitution does it say gays have the right to marry?
where does it say anything about marriage?
-
where does it say anything about marriage?
Are you gay?
-
Are you gay?
nope
are you?
-
nope
are you?
No.
What is your interest in promoting the gay agenda?
What reason(s) could you give to change my mind, that gay marraige should be legalized?
BTW, the whole "it's their right" is not going to work, think of something else.
-
No.
What is your interest in promoting the gay agenda?
What reason(s) could you give to change my mind, that gay marraige should be legalized?
BTW, the whole "it's their right" is not going to work, think of something else.
I'm not promoting
I'm indifferent
I don't care at all whether gays can marry
It doesn't bother me at all
why do you care?
-
I'm not promoting
I'm indifferent
I don't care at all whether gays can marry
It doesn't bother me at all
why do you care?
Your first post in this thread indicates you think they had the right to marry and we took it away. You're showing alot of concern for someone who is "indifferent" and "doesn't care at all if gays can marry"
Serious Question
Who's rights should we take away next?
I'm thinking Muslim
No one can deny that being Muslim is a choice
who's with me?
The only thing I care about is that the people have spoken and voted time and again, the majority vote against gay marraige. Yet the gays keep throwing a fit, trying to force their sexual ways onto the general population. And convincing a single judge they have certain "rights" is alot easier than the public.
Hypothetical Q.......if Prop 8 had been rejected and the gays could marry and the streets filled with angry protestors, jumping on cop cars, beating Mormons, blocking traffic, calling for a ban on an entire religion and state........how would you feel about that group of people?
-
Your first post in this thread indicates you think they had the right to marry and we took it away. You're showing alot of concern for someone who is "indifferent" and "doesn't care at all if gays can marry"
it has nothing to do with what I think
If you knew me in real life you'd understand that I'm very lazy
I don't give a shit about almost everything
that includes not caring if gay people want to get married
-
So polygamy is no problem for you? 3-4-5+ consenting adults.
Their lives - they can do what they want.
-
Hypothetical Q.......if Prop 8 had been rejected and the gays could marry and the streets filled with angry protestors, jumping on cop cars, beating Mormons, blocking traffic, calling for a ban on an entire religion and state........how would you feel about that group of people?
Why, that would be horrendous hate crimes, of course.
-
Your first post in this thread indicates you think they had the right to marry and we took it away.
btw - you are aware that is exactly what happened right?
-
btw - you are aware that is exactly what happened right?
LOL, we're going round and round, you don't get it. Maybe Hereford could explain it to you, I don't have the patience any more. :)
-
Christians and Gays Behaving Badly
Posted By Elizabeth Scalia On November 20, 2008 @ 12:00 am In . Most Popular 03, . Positioning, Legal, Lifestyle, Politics, Religion, Sex, US News, World News | 169 Comments
There is [1] a video making the rounds that shows an angry mob of California gays confronting and intimidating Christians over the passage of Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in that state. Michelle Malkin has [2] a narrative of the event that sounds worse than the tape, which already sounds pretty bad.
Reportedly the Christians met once a week to pray and sing on the public corner. Whether they’re hoping to “straighten out” gays or simply trying to facilitate encounters with Christ is unclear, but their method is problematic; it’s not how Jesus would do it.
Jesus went to the people he wanted to meet and he ate with them — or served them. He fellowshipped and got to know the community in personal and intimate ways. He attracted them with his love and his stability. He didn’t stand around singing hymns and praying for them, which might have seemed both separatist and condescending — and therefore off-putting — to the very people he hoped to engage.
The Christians may have unintentionally come off as condescending. We may presume that they would not want a crowd of gays meeting on their curb each week to proselytize. As a Catholic I would take issue with other Christians, no matter how well-intentioned, standing at the curb praying for my redemption based solely upon their knowledge not of me, but of my habits or my religion. Their singing songs for my salvation would come off as sitting in judgment of me. Even if that’s not how they meant it.
That said, the gay community is being rather cowardly in going after praying Christians and the always placid Mormons. People of faith have certainly made their share of public missteps and that gives some people a sense of justified loathing. But [3] analysis has shown that Proposition 8 passed largely thanks to the Hispanic and African-American voters who turned out for Barack Obama and who, generally, do not support gay marriage. The gay activists — ever politically correct — [4] are not targeting those communities; they’re targeting the churches.
Or, more correctly, those parts of the faith community easiest to hammer, not the storefront churches in disadvantaged neighborhoods and not the mosques.
So, yes, these demonstrations and maneuvers are a bit cowardly, the outrage a bit selective.
Well, alright. In a secular culture, it is easier to browbeat the already despised, and Christ said Christians would be hated, so it comes with the gig — and no whining. But the gay community needs to realize that [5] harassing businesses into paying graft or [6] intimidating a guy into quitting his job because he dares to think differently smacks not of liberality of thought, but of narrow thuggery.
A willingness to disregard established freedoms of expression and worship in pursuit of new freedoms will ultimately destroy more than it creates. Or, as Pope Leo the Great wrote, “Those who are not good to others are bad to themselves.”
That sounds simplistic, but it is also correct. Tearing others down does not build up. Instead of bullying the electorate, the gay community needs to calmly make their case, ask for support, and bring it to a vote as many times as it takes. If the Christians are wrong to proselytize without actually getting to know their neighbors, well, the gays are also wrong to browbeat, intimidate, or ruin others, instead of working within the democratic process.
The Christians at Castro need to remember that Jesus joined others in community. Excusing nothing, he loved others, even in all their faults and — only when asked to — he healed them. He never just said, “Hey, I’m going to whip a little faith on you, whether you want it or not.”
Meanwhile, the churches should reconsider their roles in authenticating marriage. Governments issue birth certificates; churches issue baptismal certificates. Governments issue death certificates; churches pray the funerals. Governments issue divorces; Churches annul. Both work within their separate and necessary spheres, serving the corporeal and the spiritual. It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/christians-and-gays-behaving-badly/
URLs in this post:
[1] a video making the rounds:
[2] a narrative of the event: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/17/anti-prop-8-mob-watch-san-franciscos-castro-district/
[3] analysis has shown: http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1387029.html
[4] are not targeting those communities: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/lapd-treating-prop-8-protests-with-kid-gloves/
[5] harassing businesses: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/17/restaurant-bullied-by-anti-prop-8-mob-offers-up-payment/
[6] intimidating a guy into quitting his job: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/770039.html
-
LOL, we're going round and round, you don't get it. Maybe Hereford could explain it to you, I don't have the patience any more. :)
gay people had the right to marry
your first clue would be all those gay marriages
-
gay people had the right to marry
your first clue would be all those gay marriages
They were given that right AFTER the people voted it down, by four judges.
Like I said, easier to convince four than it is the general public.
Like I said, going in circles with you.
-
They were given that right AFTER the people voted it down, by four judges.
Like I said, easier to convince four than it is the general public.
Like I said, going in circles with you.
ok - I assume you're actually aware of all the facts so let me just ask, do you think the CA Supreme Court should even hear cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws?
If not, what should their role be (in your mind)
-
ok - I assume you're actually aware of all the facts so let me just ask, do you think the CA Supreme Court should even hear cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws?
If not, what should their role be (in your mind)
No they should not, they should enforce the existing laws voted on by the people. They should be there to make the decision of whether or not the existing laws were broken, not whether they should be changed. The people should decide whether or not change is necessary, not a court.
-
No they should not, they should enforce the existing laws voted on by the people. They should be there to make the decision of whether or not the existing laws were broken, not whether they should be changed. The people should decide whether or not change is necessary, not a court.
Wow. Just wow. So basically you think the Founders were wrong to set up the Supreme Court to work as it does??? You'd prefer the tyranny of the majority?? And what if the majority votes to take away YOUR rights??? Just where do you think you're going to turn???
Mind-boggling . . .. did you take ANY history in school???
-
Wow. Just wow. So basically you think the Founders were wrong to set up the Supreme Court to work as it does??? You'd prefer the tyranny of the majority?? And what if the majority votes to take away YOUR rights??? Just where do you think you're going to turn???
Mind-boggling . . .. did you take ANY history in school???
::)
-
Does that mean you're incapable of answering coherently?
-
::)
I don't know what you mean
can you explain your position in words rather than an emoticon
thanks
-
I don't know what you mean
can you explain your position in words rather than an emoticon
thanks
???
Did you miss my post on the last page?
-
???
Did you miss my post on the last page?
I've read all the posts on this thread
you seem confused or at the very least grossly under-informed
-
I've read all the posts on this thread
you seem confused or at the very least grossly under-informed
Why?
Inform me of your opinion.
-
Why?
Inform me of your opinion.
I think we need a constitution and judiciary
-
I think we need a constitution and judiciary
What do you think the supreme court should be for?
-
What do ou think the supreme court should be for?
to decide whether laws violate the constitution of the state or country
-
to decide whether laws violate the constitution of the state or country
Our opinions differ there.
I don't feel a few people should be able to dictate what the rest of us do because they cry the loudest.
-
Our opinions differ there.
I don't feel a few people should be able to dictate what the rest of us do because they cry the loudest.
our opinions do differ
the actual function of the court is not subject to our opinion
-
our opinions do differ
the actual function of the court is not subject to our opinion
Unfortunately. :)
-
So you know more than 2 or 3 hundred years worth of some of the greatest minds this country could produce, including Jefferson & Madison?!?!?!?
Yeah, right . . . . You are a prime example of WHY those men wanted a judiciary that protected minorities--to keep yahoos like you from running roughshod over everyone else.
Is, BTW, anyone dictating that YOU marry someone of the same sex?? Or, because you and a few other Californians are crying the loudest, are YOU dictating to gay people what they can and can't do? I do believe it's the latter.
-
I think the gays should just keep it to them selfs, if that's your lifestyle fine.
I myself don't believe in it but to each his own. And bringing kids into a gay family
is not fair to the child, but the gays are only thinking of them selfs. I sure a kid in a gay family setting
will put up with alot of shit from other kids and you know how kids could be, not so nice.
IMO a family is about a Man and Women and having children. Lets say we were all gay then it would be the end of Man kind, think about it. It takes a Man and Women to reproduce not Adam and Adam.
Keep on sucking!
-
So you know more than 2 or 3 hundred years worth of some of the greatest minds this country could produce, including Jefferson & Madison?!?!?!?
Yeah, right . . . . You are a prime example of WHY those men wanted a judiciary that protected minorities--to keep yahoos like you from running roughshod over everyone else.
Is, BTW, anyone dictating that YOU marry someone of the same sex?? Or, because you and a few other Californians are crying the loudest, are YOU dictating to gay people what they can and can't do? I do believe it's the latter.
You're an idiot, flat out, plain and simple, a moron.
I will not converse with you.
-
You're an idiot, flat out, plain and simple, a moron.
I will not converse with you.
Chaos,
When are people going to be honest and admit this issue has nothing to do with marriage?
-
Chaos,
When are people going to be honest and admit this issue has nothing to do with marriage?
Never. They are blinded by the rainbow banners.
-
Unfortunately. :)
well I'm glad to see at least you understand that your fantasy world is not how things actually are in REALITY
-
I think the gays should just keep it to them selfs, if that's your lifestyle fine.
I myself don't believe in it but to each his own. And bringing kids into a gay family
is not fair to the child, but the gays are only thinking of them selfs. I sure a kid in a gay family setting
will put up with alot of shit from other kids and you know how kids could be, not so nice.
IMO a family is about a Man and Women and having children. Lets say we were all gay then it would be the end of Man kind, think about it. It takes a Man and Women to reproduce not Adam and Adam.
Keep on sucking!
Do even know any kids of gay couples?
Kids take shit from other kids for all kinds of reason and the same things happen to adults too.
If anyone is harassing a kid who's parents are gay it's probably because they learned that behavour from their own moronic, bigoted parents.
-
well I'm glad to see at least you understand that your fantasy world is not how things actually are in REALITY
No, in reality we have four douchebags that can overturn whatever decision the majority chooses. :(
We both know that at some point soon they will win the battle and the right to "marraige".
50 years ago, this would never had happened. In another 50 years will it be the pedophiles rights we are taking away?
Before you get all angry, think about it, don't say it's ridiculous to think that, 50 years ago they would have said the same thing about gay marraige.
-
No, in reality we have four douchebags that can overturn whatever decision the majority chooses. :(
We both know that at some point soon they will win the battle and the right to "marraige".
50 years ago, this would never had happened. In another 50 years will it be the pedophiles rights we are taking away?
Before you get all angry, think about it, don't say it's ridiculous to think that, 50 years ago they would have said the same thing about gay marraige.
No we have a state supreme court that determined that a law violated the state constitution.
It's not too difficult to understand (or maybe it is for you)
BTW - conflating gay marriage (or homosexuality) to pedophilia is ridiculous. Do you really need this explained to you?
-
No we have a state supreme court that determined that a law violated the state constitution.
It's not too difficult to understand (or maybe it is for you)
BTW - conflating gay marriage (or homosexuality) to pedophilia is ridiculous. Do you really need this explained to you?
OK, let's back up, you're starting to act like an ass.
Gay marriage was not allowed in CA right? Then a bunch of queers started throwing fits and whining about it, they put it on a ballot, it was voted down, then the gays whined all the way to four guys in dresses to have them overturn the ban, now the people of CA have once again, voted it down.
Is this how it went? Or did I miss something in the gay loop you are so deeply embedded in?
Again, 50 years ago, the gays would have been laughed out of court, where will it end? Do we give privileges to every off kilter group that throws a fit about their "rights"?
-
OK, let's back up, you're starting to act like an ass.
Gay marriage was not allowed in CA right? Then a bunch of queers started throwing fits and whining about it, they put it on a ballot, it was voted down, then the gays whined all the way to four guys in dresses to have them overturn the ban, now the people of CA have once again, voted it down.
Is this how it went? Or did I miss something in the gay loop you are so deeply embedded in?
Again, 50 years ago, the gays would have been laughed out of court, where will it end? Do we give privileges to every off kilter group that throws a fit about their "rights"?
Prop 22 was voted on and put in the civil code
After various lawsuits it made it to the state supreme court who judged that the law violated the equal protection clause of the constitution and in fact gays did have the right to marry. This happened in May 2008. After that ruling you saw thousands of legal gay marriages.
Prop 8 was put on the ballot and passed and is an attempt to ammend the constitution.
One argument (among many) is that the court has already ruled that gays have the right to marry so this ammendment {Prop 8} is really a revision because it contradicts a previous judgement.
The CA Supreme Court will soon determine whether Prop 8 will be overturned or allowed to remain in effect
What part don't you get?
-
OK, let's back up, you're starting to act like an ass.
Gay marriage was not allowed in CA right? Then a bunch of queers started throwing fits and whining about it, they put it on a ballot, it was voted down, then the gays whined all the way to four guys in dresses to have them overturn the ban, now the people of CA have once again, voted it down.
Is this how it went? Or did I miss something in the gay loop you are so deeply embedded in?
Again, 50 years ago, the gays would have been laughed out of court, where will it end? Do we give privileges to every off kilter group that throws a fit about their "rights"?
This might be the root of your issue
-
Prop 22 was voted on and put in the civil code
After various lawsuits it made it to the state supreme court who judged that the law violated the equal protection clause of the constitution and in fact gays did have the right to marry. This happened in May 2008. After that ruling you saw thousands of legal gay marriages.
Prop 8 was put on the ballot and passed and is an attempt to ammend the constitution.
One argument (among many) is that the court has already ruled that gays have the right to marry so this ammendment {Prop 8} is really a revision because it contradicts a previous judgement.
The CA Supreme Court will soon determine whether Prop 8 will be overturned or allowed to remain in effect
What part don't you get?
The part that allows four guys in dresses to overturn the majority of people votes.
Why vote if a few guys can overturn it based on their opinions?
-
The part that allows four guys in dresses to overturn the majority of people votes.
Why vote if a few guys can overturn it based on their opinions?
because that's how our government is set up.
If you don't like it then you must simply hate America
-
because that's how our government is set up.
If you don't like it then you must simply hate America
LOL
-
LOL
how else would you characterize your position?
You don't seem to understand (or simply disagree) with how our legal system is set up.
Here's a good article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/22/wittes/
All jokes aside, do yourself a favor and read it just to learn something about how our system works. It addresses your basic argument
-
how else would you characterize your position?
You don't seem to understand (or simply disagree) with how our legal system is set up.
Here's a good article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/22/wittes/
All jokes aside, do yourself a favor and read it just to learn something about how our system works. It addresses your basic argument
I can't disagree with how the system is set up?
So much for freedom of opinion, huh?
-
I can't disagree with how the system is set up?
So much for freedom of opinion, huh?
Sure you can disagree.
Who's stopping you?
Shit, go protest if you want to.
-
Sure you can disagree.
Who's stopping you?
Shit, go protest if you want to.
Too much energy to protest something I don't care about that much. :)
-
You're an idiot, flat out, plain and simple, a moron.
I will not converse with you.
That would be because you don't have the brains or the guts. You are a pathetic example of what the education system in this country produces: cretins who don't even know the first thing about how they're governed. Oh, and BTW, you have YET to actually respond intelligently to anything I've posted. That bit about me being a moron & an idiot: you've probably never heard of "projection", either. People stereotype bodybuilders as dumb, which I've always resented: too bad you fulfill every negative stereotype out there.
-
The part that allows four guys in dresses to overturn the majority of people votes.
Why vote if a few guys can overturn it based on their opinions?
It just boggles my mind that anyone can get out of high school without understanding how the US government works. Did you FINISH high school?????? And those "four guys in dresses" are more man than you'll ever be.