proposition 8 Options

[mipadi]

It doesn't matter because the Military is backing up America's citizens, not the Government. There's so many things not being reported (duh... the revolution will not be televised) that many Americans aren't even aware as to what's coming.

I see hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem to be acting on behalf of the government, and not on the will of the American citizens.

I highly doubt a coup d'état is imminent.

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

I don't think this is a case of legislating from the bench. Even though I strongly disagree with Proposition 8, from a legal standpoint, the court made a correct decision: the people of California voted to amend their constitution, and did so in a completely legal way. The decision to amend the constitution is discriminatory in nature, but unfortunately they did so in a legal way. Had the court overturned a legal amendment, then it would have been "legislating from the bench". The court's job is to determine the legality of certain actions, not dictate laws.

That said, I think the people of California made a poor decision last fall.

Personally, I'm somewhat in agreement with Kryo on this: I don't think the government should have a say in marriage. I think the legal term -- for everyone -- should be civil union, and I think everyone should be entitled to joining in a civil union with anyone they wish. I do think that individual churches have the right to refuse to marry two homosexuals, since personal and religious rights are paramount here. But I think the government should grant a civil union to any couple, regardless of sexuality.

Or, better yet, I don't think the government should recognize unions at all. Tax benefits, etc., to married couples inherently discriminate against people who remain single.

[illriginal]

I see hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that seem to be acting on behalf of the government, and not on the will of the American citizens.

I highly doubt a coup d'état is imminent.

lol... you don't think if the Government started to force Americans into detention camps or declared war on any Americans that the American soldiers will not stand up for the American people and the Constitution?

Regardless... there's a few states who are making moves. We need more than half of the U.S. to stand up and kick Obama, the Congress (majority of them), and Obama's Administration out.

[mipadi]

lol... you don't think if the Government started to force Americans into detention camps or declared war on any Americans that the American soldiers will not stand up for the American people and the Constitution?

Nope. I really don't. Soldiers are highly trained to carry out orders without questioning them. Look at Nazi Germany: the government forced millions into concentration camps, and the military didn't do a damn thing about it. Different situation, I suppose, but if the government convinces everyone that those being forced into camps are "the enemy" or other undesirables (as happened in Germany in the 1930s), then I don't think the military would think twice about going along with the plan.

Furthermore, given our political situation and the economic climate, etc., people are prone to look for a scapegoat -- that's what happened in Germany, after all. The government could easily blame its problems on some group or another and have them detained in camps, and I'm sure most people would just follow along with it. Many Americans have already been trained to think of Middle Easterners and Muslims as "evil", after all, and military personnel especially are trained to think of, e.g., Iraqis (and by extension, any dark-skinned Middle Easterners or Muslims) as the enemy.

I'm not saying that coups don't happen -- they obviously do -- but I think the American government is stable enough, and has a big enough propaganda machine -- that it's unlikely to happen right now, in this specific situation. The only thing that might trigger instability is if people start to blame the government for the economic crisis, but they've already done a good job of turning that blame to banks and auto makers, so I think the government is on pretty safe ground here.

[illriginal]

You're f*ckin retarded. But thanks, I've gotta show some of the boys what you posted.


unsubbed

[DontStealMyNameI...]

I'm really disappointed with this too. Marriage may have originated from religion, but if the state is giving out "marriage licenses" to heterosexual couples, they should give the same treatment to homosexuals. I agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to do same-sex marriages if they don't want to, but just because a few gays have tried to sue them into doing so doesn't mean they should all be punished.

[brooklyneast05]

I agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to do same-sex marriages if they don't want to, but just because a few gays have tried to sue them into doing so doesn't mean they should all be punished.

i feel that way too. i think there's way more gay people who just wanna be married than wanna be married in churches.

[kryogenix]

i feel that way too. i think there's way more gay people who just wanna be married than wanna be married in churches.

You're missing the point.

The goal of the gay agenda is to have homosexual marriages viewed as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Read how the laws are worded. In the case of the lesbians that sued the methodist group in NJ, they absolutely had the grounds to sue that church group. I don't think the couple tried to overextend their case past the boundaries of the law at all.

The problem is, you can't have a 100% equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual
"marriages" and have freedom of religion at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive. And the absolute nature of the demands of both sides leaves no room for compromise. There is just simply no way for both sides to be content with any decision on this matter.

That's why I want a complete separation between the state and the concept of marriages. Both sides will be unhappy, I'm sure, but at least no one will be treated unfairly by the law, and no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

[brooklyneast05]

You're missing the point.

The goal of the gay agenda is to have homosexual marriages viewed as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Read how the laws are worded. In the case of the lesbians that sued the methodist group in NJ, they absolutely had the grounds to sue that church group. I don't think the couple tried to overextend their case past the boundaries of the law at all.

The problem is, you can't have a 100% equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual
"marriages" and have freedom of religion at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive. And the absolute nature of the demands of both sides leaves no room for compromise. There is just simply no way for both sides to be content with any decision on this matter.

That's why I want a complete separation between the state and the concept of marriages. Both sides will be unhappy, I'm sure, but at least no one will be treated unfairly by the law, and no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

hmmmm yeah true, i see what you mean that there's no way to be 100% equal or fair under the current system.

[kryogenix]

hahahaha how shitty is that... the only way for it to be fair is for both sides to be equally unhappy.

[dosomethin888]

Again, if religion has everything to do with marriage, why can atheists marry and religous gays cannot?

If the religion your talking about is christianity when you say "religious gays," Gays cannot be christian. It goes against the Bible, which is what Christians live their life by. God says in order to be a follower of Christ, you need to adhere to his guidelines laid out in the Bible and he says that homosexuality is an abomination, so gays are not and cannot be christian. Unless of course, they go back to being straight. That would be lovely if all the gays went back to being straight, we would have a much more sound society.

Anyways, I think I skipped ahead like 3 pages and I have no further interest in this thread so I will be leaving now. And I most likely will not be replying to any of your hateful comments. :) Have a lovely day.

[*reupONtrees*]

i miss you already

[kryogenix]

If the religion your talking about is christianity when you say "religious gays," Gays cannot be christian. It goes against the Bible, which is what Christians live their life by. God says in order to be a follower of Christ, you need to adhere to his guidelines laid out in the Bible and he says that homosexuality is an abomination, so gays are not and cannot be christian. Unless of course, they go back to being straight. That would be lovely if all the gays went back to being straight, we would have a much more sound society.

Anyways, I think I skipped ahead like 3 pages and I have no further interest in this thread so I will be leaving now. And I most likely will not be replying to any of your hateful comments. :) Have a lovely day.

What the heck? I know several gay Christians...