Quoted:
I ONLY support gay marriage if BOTH chicks are hawt.  In order for this to be decided, there will be an arfcom poll.  Then, they will get their marriage license.


But if I can't have that then I say just ban fags, who gives a flying fuck about their marriage.  I just don't like THEM.

Quoted:


Marriage isn't a right. It's a Sacrament. I voted yes. It's the Fags that want to take our guns away.

Quoted:
Wow, kkk maybe. Lets just enslave the blacks because of color. Or enslave people who don't have a BS or higher because they are stupid.

Sounds like a good argument to me.

Maybe we should just let rape of little kids and women go unpunshised because they are not white males.

Quoted:
They should be able to have civil unions and share similar rights married couples do however I voted that gay couples should not be married as is defined under law.

No on marriage
Yes civil unions

Quoted:
This is a 100% states rights issue. The power of marriage belongs to the state, not the federal government and not the people.

With that said I would vote yes on Prop 8. Government should encourage a moral lifestyle. Banning gay marriage does this, and its not like it is preventing guys from taking it up the ass if they want to.

Quoted:
This is a 100% states rights issue. The power of marriage belongs to the state, not the federal government and not the people.

With that said I would vote yes on Prop 8. Government should encourage a moral lifestyle. Banning gay marriage does this, and its not like it is preventing guys from taking it up the ass if they want to.

Quoted:
This is a 100% states rights issue. The power of marriage belongs to the state, not the federal government and not the people.

With that said I would vote yes on Prop 8. Government should encourage a moral lifestyle. Banning gay marriage does this, and its not like it is preventing guys from taking it up the ass if they want to.



This issue isn't even CLOSE to what was done to people of 'color'. To even make that claim is retarded.

Quoted:



No offense, but its that kind of moral apathy that is contributing to the ruin of our great country.  

Quoted:
Lets ban divorce also since we're talking about how sacred marriage is... it shouldn't be something that 50% of folks end up breaking.

Quoted:


SO the PEOPLE have no say, and the government should just tell us what is moral.

Hmmm, HITLER said that about the jews.

You should think before you type.

Quoted:
[2nd question:  I can't believe this even has to addressed.  Homosexuality is bad for the nation, bad for communities, bad for individuals.  Maybe you'd have to live in CA to understand how the gay agenda is pushed in every aspect of life here.  

Quoted:


The people did have a say, and it was through their representatives in STATE government, along with a ballot at the polls.

maybe it is YOU who should think before they type.

Quoted:


I don't mind unions where you get the SAME benefits as marriage, just don't call it marriage.

Quoted:


YOU said it was not up to the people. Your last post says the opposite.

Quoted:




How so?  How is homosexuality bad for the nation?  Again, what effect does it have on you?

Quoted:
This is a 100% states rights issue. The power of marriage belongs to the state, not the federal government and not the people.

With that said I would vote yes on Prop 8. Government should encourage a moral lifestyle. Banning gay marriage does this, and its not like it is preventing guys from taking it up the ass if they want to.



This issue isn't even CLOSE to what was done to people of 'color'. To even make that claim is retarded.

Quoted:
If they don't like it, leave.  The people have spoken and said "DO NOT WANT!"  The world is a big place, Europe will probably take them in.  Maybe they could settle down in the Middle East somewhere...

Quoted:
WTF was your agrument clement, or you will just flip flop like obama.

Quoted:
I vote for the govt to butt out of people's personal lives.

Quoted:


Do you not understand the difference between powers of government, state, and people?

Because my argument can never make sense to someone who doesn't understand this basic issue.

If the power belongs to the people - this can never be restricted at any level of government (i.e. rights)

if the power belongs to the state - the federal government cannot control this issue, it must be done at a state or more local level through their elected officials (which can put measures on the ballot depending on state law for how things are ratified)

if the power belongs to the federal government - the feds can control this issue

If the power belongs to the state or federal government they obviously have a say, just through their elected officials, and measures at the polls

Quoted:


It's not a state issue when it comes to the 14th amendment.  

Virginia had a law that banned inter-racial marriages.  It didn't stop black people from marrying, they just couldn't marry white people.  That law was struck down in 1967 as a violation of civil rights.  

Notice the important parts, it was a state law (Virginia) and it didn't deny blacks the "right" to marry, just legislated who they could marry.  Struck down by the Federal court.

Quoted:


Damn straight, we should all be worrying about how others live their lives, its what made America great!



I thought the whole point of America was that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect me, and I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't effect you?

Quoted:
Ban Gay Marriage.

Quoted:


Wrong.
Where do you stand on NAMBLA? Doesn't hurt you right?

Quoted:


Wrong.
Where do you stand on NAMBLA? Doesn't hurt you right?

Quoted:


I have seen only one argument that was bad IMO and it was about adoption. No other agrument has been presented.

As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.

Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

And then there's the case of a wedding photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"

Willock filed a complaint, and at the hearing she explained how she felt.

"A variety of emotions," she said, holding back tears. "There was a shock and anger and fear. ... We were planning a very happy day for us, and we're being met with hatred. That's how it felt."

Willock declined to be interviewed, as did the owners of Elane Photography. At the hearing, Jonathan Huguenin said that when he and his wife formed the company two years ago, they made it company policy not to shoot same-sex ceremonies, because the ceremonies conflicted with their Christian beliefs.

"We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs," he said.

The defendants' attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he's gay. But it's different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don't believe, he says.

"It's a very different situation when we're talking about promoting a message," Lorence says. "When it's 'We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,' that for me is a very different deal. It's compelled speech. You're using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you."

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock's more than $6,600 attorneys' fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

In the meantime, they wonder whether all the hassle is worth it and whether they should get out of the photography business altogether.

Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum says it is a compelling case of what happens in a moment of culture clash. Feldblum, who is an active proponent of gay rights, says the culture and state laws are shifting irrevocably to recognize same-sex unions. And while she knows it's hard for some to hear, she says companies and religious groups that serve the public need to recognize that their customers will be gay couples.

"They need to start thinking now, proactively, how they want to address that. Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."

And as one legal expert puts it, the gay couples "would win in a walk."

Quoted:
I would vote to ban. I would also give money and campaign against it. I don't care about marriage being sacred or what ancient books say, it is because homosexuality disgusts me and I believe with the marriage would come a lot of extra garbage that I don't want to see

Gays haven't lost any rights by the way they have always been able to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like I have

By the way the whole "government should stay out of a person's life" is a a great argument in theory but those days are long gone. Government is huge and will always be in the individual's life whether you like it or not.

Quoted:


That's the spirit.

Quoted:
There are plenty of examples for you.  See the part in red.  That's the gay agenda.  

Prop 8 boiled down to whether religious liberties or gay rights trumps the other.  Prop 8 wasn't about whether gays can legally get together and practice homosexuality in peace.  It was about whether gays can legally shove their ideology down the throats of anyone who disagrees with their view on homosexuality.

They don't want to be equal.  They want to be right.  They want homosexuality to be accepted and acknowledged by EVERYONE as being normal and good.  They're willing to force that view on everyone else, First Amendment rights and religious liberties be damned!

The hatred, vandalism and mockery of the "gay rights" demonstrators over the past couple weeks shows their true colors.  They claim to be the tolerant ones, but they are not at all tolerant of opposing viewpoints.  Their hypocrisy seemingly knows no bounds.  That should be readily apparent to everyone.  If I was sympathetic to them before, I certainly wouldn't be now.

Quoted:
Lots of tolerance here, and from a persecuted group, no less.  How very, very interesting.

Long as they're not coming after you, huh?

Quoted:


Sexual orientation is not a protected class (at the federal level) though, race is.

Quoted:
no, but don't much give a shit really, probably wouldn't have voted on that