http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8court26-2009may26,0,4718659.story
QuoteReporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- What is being decided by the California Supreme Court?
The state's top court will rule on whether to uphold or strike down Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The justices will also decide whether the state will continue to recognize the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages carried out in 2008.
How did we get to this point?
After San Francisco officials began allowing same-sex couples to wed there in 2004, the courts intervened, invalidating the marriages on grounds that local officials had overstepped their authority.
But in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends to same-sex couples.
That made California the second state in the union, after Massachusetts, to permit same-sex marriage.
About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples married between June and November, when voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and woman.
Opponents of Proposition 8 appealed to the California Supreme Court to overturn the ballot measure. They contend that the proposition changed the tenets of the state Constitution and therefore amounted to a revision, which can only be placed on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature; Proposition 8 reached the ballot after a signature drive.
What do legal experts expect the court to do?
Based on comments the justices made at a hearing earlier this year, most legal experts expect the court to uphold Proposition 8 but continue to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples wed before the November election.
If the court upholds Proposition 8, what happens next?
State officials would continue to prohibit issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Supporters of same-sex marriage, however, are expected to go back to the ballot box as early as 2010 with a constitutional amendment recognizing same-sex marriage.
If Proposition 8 is upheld, would that affect the state's domestic partnership law, which gives same-sex couples the legal rights of marriage?
No. State law surrounding domestic partnerships is separate from the issue of allowing same-sex couples to marry. There is no dispute about the legality of domestic partnerships.
After the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that same-sex couples could marry, the state also began to recognize same-sex couples married out of state.
If Proposition 8 is upheld, would California continue to recognize those couples as married?
That's a question the California Supreme Court will decide.
How have other states handled same-sex marriage?
Most states do not recognize same-sex marriage, either by state law or constitutional amendment. The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. Some states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, offer same-sex couples civil unions or domestic partnerships, giving each partner some of the legal benefits granted to spouses, such as the ability to file joint income tax returns and receive spousal health insurance benefits from government agencies.
Five states now allow same-sex couples to marry: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine. In New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey, lawmakers are considering legalizing same-sex marriage. In Iowa and Maine, opponents of same-sex marriage say they plan to use the ballot box to overturn decisions to legalize same-sex marriage.
What are some tips for reading the state Supreme Court's decision?
The majority decision should be revealed in the first or second page of the ruling and reiterated in its last paragraph. Separate concurring and dissenting opinions would follow.
Counting votes may be tricky because the court is dealing with three different legal issues: whether Proposition 8 amounts to an impermissible revision of the state Constitution; the attorney general's challenge contending that marriage is an "inalienable" right that can't be taken away without compelling justification; and the fate of existing same-sex marriages.
The court's vote on the revision issue, for example, will probably differ from its vote on whether existing marriages should continue to be recognized by the state.
Justices who disagree with the majority file dissents. If they agree with only part of the majority decision, they file an opinion called a partial concurrence and dissent.
During oral argument in March, every justice expressed support for upholding existing marriages. Justice Carlos R. Moreno indicated that he believed Proposition 8 was an illegal revision, a sign that he could dissent on that question.
Moreno might be joined by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a former civil rights lawyer who stressed that the court was dealing with a novel legal question. Werdegar, however, did not join Moreno in voting to put the measure on hold pending the court's ruling.
I'm going to make sure my calendar is free. Given the expected ruling of the court, I think tomorrow will be a day for protesting. :( :swiss:
My thoughts are with my brothers and sistars in California. -_-
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2009, 01:01:57 AM
I'm going to make sure my calendar is free. Given the expected ruling of the court, I think tomorrow will be a day for protesting. :( :swiss:
Why don't you want the right to marry! :cry:
I have a question: How can a State Supreme court strike down an amendment to the State Constitution?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2009, 03:37:06 AM
I have a question: How can a State Supreme court strike down an amendment to the State Constitution?
Questioning the power of our judicial overlords?
The American Bar Association will now add you to their list for "reeducation".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2009, 03:37:06 AM
I have a question: How can a State Supreme court strike down an amendment to the State Constitution?
That question is answered inthe article: the challenge is to the procedures used for that type of amendement (the opponents claiming that this particular type of amendment needs to be initiated by the legislature, not petition).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2009, 03:37:06 AM
I have a question: How can a State Supreme court strike down an amendment to the State Constitution?
The same way any other court can: testing its constitutionality. They can't legislate from the bench, but they do have the authority to step in and say a certain law was illegal to create and should never have been codified.
I'm actually pretty annoyed about this. It looks like it's going to be heard as a voter's rights case. Bottom line: it's a cover for a gender equality case, and it's been accepted for a while now that we can't simply legislate away equal rights. Prop. 8 should have crashed and burned once somebody pointed that out.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 08:15:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2009, 03:37:06 AM
I have a question: How can a State Supreme court strike down an amendment to the State Constitution?
The same way any other court can: testing its constitutionality. They can't legislate from the bench, but they do have the authority to step in and say a certain law was illegal to create and should never have been codified.
I'm actually pretty annoyed about this. It looks like it's going to be heard as a voter's rights case. Bottom line: it's a cover for a gender equality case, and it's been accepted for a while now that we can't simply legislate away equal rights. Prop. 8 should have crashed and burned once somebody pointed that out.
Here's what I find interesting about the Court's outcome, which almost certainly be to uphold Prop 8. In their original ruling allowing gay marriage, the court basically viewed gays and lesbians as a minority group that had faced systematic discrimination and were being deprived of a fundamental right for an unjust reason. The court went on to describe the gay and lesbian community as essentially powerless and therefore easily oppressed; whether that's true or not is unclear,
but it does raise an interesting question. Is the Supreme Court of California going to state that there's nothing wrong with the majority stripping a minority of what it called a fundamental right, and if so, is the California Constitution mere verbiage?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 08:25:03 AM
Here's what I find interesting about the Court's outcome, which almost certainly be to uphold Prop 8. In their original ruling allowing gay marriage, the court basically viewed gays and lesbians as a minority group that had faced systematic discrimination and were being deprived of a fundamental right for an unjust reason. The court went on to describe the gay and lesbian community as essentially powerless and therefore easily oppressed; whether that's true or not is unclear, but it does raise an interesting question. Is the Supreme Court of California going to state that there's nothing wrong with the majority stripping a minority of what it called a fundamental right, and if so, is the California Constitution mere verbiage?
My prediction is California's Supreme Court going to try to vocab its way out of granting rights by saying that marriage is
not a fundamental right. I also predict it will be contested, and that it will eventually be heard by the USSC, mainly with these two arguments:
1) Marriage is not a fundamental right, but the ability to care for a household and its dependents is.
2) Refusing to recognize marriages based on the gender of the partners is gender discrimination, and might have its place in the church, but has no place in state or federal law.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 26, 2009, 05:02:32 AM
Questioning the power of our judicial overlords?
The American Bar Association will now add you to their list for "reeducation".
:lol:
Thanks Hans :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 08:31:34 AM
My prediction is California's Supreme Court going to try to vocab its way out of granting rights by saying that marriage is not a fundamental right. I also predict it will be contested, and that it will eventually be heard by the USSC, mainly with these two arguments:
1) Marriage is not a fundamental right, but the ability to care for a household and its dependents is.
2) Refusing to recognize marriages based on the gender of the partners is gender discrimination, and might have its place in the church, but has no place in state or federal law.
Okay, here's the problem I see with that. The Court will have to frankly backtrack, and say that it was wrong when it called marriage a fundamental right under the California Constitution in
In Re Marriage Cases. In essence, it will have to imply that the entire original case was wrongly decided, won't it? Gays and lesbians already had civil unions in California, which gave them the ability to care for "a household and its dependents."
Going back to the original opinion:
"Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a "right to marry," past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) ["The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.] . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article {Page 43 Cal.4th 810} I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of 'privacy' "]; Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 ["we have . . . recognized that '[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children"
http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm
Anyway, while I predict gay marriage will come before the SCOTUS, I think it'll be through one of the DoMA cases that are filtering about, and not through this.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 08:41:30 AM
Okay, here's the problem I see with that. The Court will have to frankly backtrack, and say that it was wrong when it called marriage a fundamental right under the California Constitution in In Re Marriage Cases. In essence, it will have to imply that the entire original case was wrongly decided, won't it? Gays and lesbians already had civil unions in California, which gave them the ability to care for "a household and its dependents."
Anyway, while I predict gay marriage will come before the SCOTUS, I think it'll be through one of the DoMA cases that are filtering about, and not through this.
Why would they have to backtrack? Gender discrimination is now enshrined in the Constitution, so their decision would not be based on the same law. The California Constitution of 2008 is not the same document as the California Constitution of 2009.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 08:44:00 AM
Why would they have to backtrack? Gender discrimination is now enshrined in the Constitution, so their decision would not be based on the same law. The California Constitution of 2008 is not the same document as the California Constitution of 2009.
Sure. But it seems odd to say in 2008 "Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a "right to marry," past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution," noting, "Although some California decisions in discussing suspect classifications have referred to a group's "political powerlessness" (see, e.g. Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners, supra, 7 Cal.3d 288, 292), our cases have not identified a group's current political powerlessness as a necessary prerequisite for treatment as a suspect class. fn. 62 ... our decisions make clear that the most important factors in deciding whether a characteristic should be considered a constitutionally suspect basis for classification are whether the class of persons who exhibit a certain characteristic historically has been subjected to invidious and prejudicial treatment, and whether society now recognizes that the characteristic in question generally bears no relationship to the individual's ability to perform or contribute to society.
In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution's equal protection clause. "
So my question is basically, will the Court acknowledge this makes discussion of suspected classes who have little political power irrelevent? It seems odd to say the courts have to protect politically powerless groups, and then say you can take away their rights more easily than you can pass a budget...
The court backtracking and deciding that a previous session was wrong is not without precedent. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decided that segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment. in 1954, the USSC overturned its own decision and decided that racial segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 09:20:59 AM
The court backtracking and deciding that a previous session was wrong is not without precedent. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decided that segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment. in 1954, the USSC overturned its own decision and decided that racial segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Sure. And even in California, the court which had held the death penalty to be a violation of fundamental human rights later acknowledged that, thanks to a referendum, it was now constitutional. I think the Court, mindful of precedent, will not go so far and reverse say its previous decision is wrong, but we'll see.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 09:20:59 AM
The court backtracking and deciding that a previous session was wrong is not without precedent. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court decided that segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment. in 1954, the USSC overturned its own decision and decided that racial segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Also, Lawrence v. Texas directly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.
Quote from: LawrenceBowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Sure. And evenn in California, the court which had held the death penalty to be a violation of fundamental human rights later acknowledged that, thanks to a referendum, it was now constitutional. I think the Court, mindful of precedent, will not go so far and reverse say its previous decision is wrong, but we'll see.
Apples and oranges. As I see it, the argument was simply that it was unconstitutional, not a violation of fundamental human rights, and even after reenacting the death penalty, they still modified it to be as humane as possible (gas chamber was banned after the law was reinstated and now lethal injection is the sole method of execution).
Anyway, the expectation for today is that the court's going to uphold the ban, but validate marriages performed before the law took effect.
Quote from: ulmont on May 26, 2009, 09:24:50 AM
Also, Lawrence v. Texas directly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.
Quote from: LawrenceBowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
Aha. Thanks for giving a state court precedent. :thumbsup:
You guys don't read so good.
The court is not going to strike down any legislation, since this isn't legislation, it is an amendment to the Constitution. You cannot strike down a COnstitutional Amendment as un-Constitutional. Duh.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
You guys don't read so good.
The court is not going to strike down any legislation, since this isn't legislation, it is an amendment to the Constitution. You cannot strike down a COnstitutional Amendment as un-Constitutional. Duh.
Thank you. I was starting to be confused.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
You guys don't read so good.
The court is not going to strike down any legislation, since this isn't legislation, it is an amendment to the Constitution. You cannot strike down a COnstitutional Amendment as un-Constitutional. Duh.
Actually, you can. If a
state constitution is in conflict with the
US Constitution, it is the state constitution that must be changed.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
You guys don't read so good.
The court is not going to strike down any legislation, since this isn't legislation, it is an amendment to the Constitution. You cannot strike down a COnstitutional Amendment as un-Constitutional. Duh.
Sure , but two questions have arisen in the course of this.
1) Is this an amendment to the California Constituion, or a revision? For the reasons I mentioned beforehand, it'll be interesting to see if the Court explains why it's a revision, but we will see.
2) And as the CA Attorney General somewhat lamely argued, does the california constitution encompass certain rights that are so fundamental that they cannot be taken away? I can't see how the Court can agree to this, but we'll see.
Quick explanation for the Canucks:
We have two types of constitutions: state and federal. The legal view is that the state has authority to put anything into its constitution that is not assigned to the US government or in conflict with the federal constitution.
My argument against Prop. 8 is that gender equality is guaranteed by the US Constitution, so an amendment to the California constitution that conflicts with that is invalid.
But that isn't an argument for the California State Supreme Court. And is a crappy argument anyway, since there is no way that argument is going to fly...yet.
Quote from: Berkut on May 26, 2009, 09:43:26 AM
But that isn't an argument for the California State Supreme Court. And is a crappy argument anyway, since there is no way that argument is going to fly...yet.
And how is it a "crappy argument?" The state decides whether or not to issue a legal document that helps determine dependency status based on the gender of the two participants. A homosexual breadwinner in California can only file their federal income taxes as "single" or "head of household." They do not qualify for "married filing jointly" or, and this is a stickier point, for "married filing separately."
Either the issuance of marriages is being used to reward couples with the "correct" gender spread, or it is being used to punish those with the "incorrect" spread. Either way, there is no quantitative definition being applied to marriage, so it is an improper application of law.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 09:35:38 AM
Actually, you can. If a state constitution is in conflict with the US Constitution, it is the state constitution that must be changed.
Correct me if I am wrong but can a state supreme court make that decision? It would seem to me the USSC would have to be the ones to strike down a state constitution.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 10:32:26 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but can a state supreme court make that decision? It would seem to me the USSC would have to be the ones to strike down a state constitution.
Hmm... guess it would, since the case would be
the State of California v. the State of California. :P
Either way, I think this is going to get taken to the top, and it's about bloody well time.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 10:38:59 AM
Either way, I think this is going to get taken to the top, and it's about bloody well time.
Incidentally, you were right.
QuoteNor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of thelaws.
By clarifying this essential point, we by no means diminish or minimize the significance that the official designation of "marriage" holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8; indeed, the importance of the marriage designation was a vital factor in the majority opinion's ultimate holding in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 845-846, 855. Nonetheless, it is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples'state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.
Okay, I'm still reading, but the court seems to be saying "We're not sure an amendment that takes away the right to civil unions would be an amendment and not a revision." Yet the Court in the original
In Re Marriage said that the lack of the term marriage was significant enough to make civil unions constitutionally inadequate.
I like that we now have the weird situation where gay marriage isn't illegal but we still have gay people with marriage licenses. Does that mean that California won't recognize said marriages / it'll just think of them as domestic partnerships?
To the streets! (where apparently people were already gathering when I left home this morning)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/BAT817R2QD.DTL&tsp=1
QuoteSame-sex marriage ruling draws a crowd
It wasn't totally unexpected, but for advocates of same-sex marriage, the blow hurt nonetheless.
As word of the California Supreme Court's decision upholding Proposition 8 filtered through the crowd of pro-gay demonstrators outside the courthouse in San Francisco, shouts of "Shame on you!" erupted from many, while others hoisted their protest signs and shook them.
Still others hugged to mourn the moment. A look of resigned sadness pervaded the gathering of several hundred, while about a dozen counter-protesters looked on, holding pro-Prop. 8 signs and quietly proclaiming their appreciation of their court victory.
After a few minutes of grieving, a portion of the pro-same sex marriage crowd marched to Van Ness Avenue and blocked the busy thoroughfare at Grove Street, chanting slogans.
"This is a serious blow on religious freedom, and it opens the door for discrimination against any minority," said Rick Schlosser of Sacramento, executive director of the California Council for Churches, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case to overturn Prop. 8.
Like many, Schlosser said the ruling did not surprise him.
"Nobody I talked to seemed to think the court would go against what it thought was the will of the people," he said.
The court's simultaneous ruling upholding the 18,000 gay and lesbian marriages performed before Prop. 8 passed did little to salve the wounds of those who support same-sex unions.
"It seems not only astounding but unjust that a simple majority can write discrimination into the Constitution," Schlosser said.
Not everyone outside the court was upset. Yana Kulinich was with a group of students from American River College in Sacramento who drove in to support Prop. 8.
"I'm really happy that Prop. 8 was upheld, but I was just told by somebody that she's going to harass me until the day I die," Kulinich said. "Now I'm really concerned for my safety.
"I didn't expect that," she said. "I'm shaking right now."
Advocates on both sides of the issue began milling about in McAllister Street in Civic Center Plaza about 9 a.m., an hour before the court released its ruling. More than 100 pro-gay protesters marched from a church in the Castro to City Hall, arriving at 9:45 a.m. carrying flags, flowers and signs.
Dolores Caruthers, 54, and her girlfriend Laura Espinosa, 44, of Novato, were among the first to show up outside the court at 8 a.m.
"This day is important to us," Espinosa said. "I want equality."
Jorge Riley, 31, of Sacramento also got up early to make the drive to San Francisco to hoist his sign reading, " 'Gay' = Pervert."
"I don't know how many times it's going to take for the judges to listen to the will of the people," Riley said.
I'm glad that Ms. Kulinich feels threatened. :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2009, 01:11:29 PM
I'm glad that Ms. Kulinich feels threatened. :bowler:
:facepalm: Indeed. And I'm glad Mr. Riley is so strongly convinced that his dislike of homosexuality is reason enough to legalize discrimination against it.
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2009, 01:11:29 PM
I'm glad that Ms. Kulinich feels threatened. :bowler:
I'm glad that the homo-haters won this round, and will win in the end.
Quote"I'm really happy that Prop. 8 was upheld, but I was just told by somebody that she's going to harass me until the day I die," Kulinich said. "Now I'm really concerned for my safety.
"I didn't expect that," she said. "I'm shaking right now."
Wait you went to San Francisco to oppose gays and you did not expect to be confronted with hostility?
I will go to your Klown Kristian Kollege and piss on Jesus not expecting any hostility at all and see where that gets me.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 01:48:43 PM
I'm glad that the homo-haters won this round, and will win in the end.
As if.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2009, 01:11:29 PM
I'm glad that Ms. Kulinich feels threatened. :bowler:
:facepalm: Indeed. And I'm glad Mr. Riley is so strongly convinced that his dislike of homosexuality is reason enough to legalize discrimination against it.
Why wouldn't one want to discrminate against evil?
I read an excerpt from a book where someone was decrying in the 40s or 50s about gays being allowed to congregate in SF. They said that if they didn't watch out, one day SF would be a place where being gay was tolerated and accepted.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 01:53:40 PM
Why wouldn't one want to discrminate against evil?
I've got no problem with that.
/me glares at Neil
Quote from: garbon on May 26, 2009, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 01:48:43 PM
I'm glad that the homo-haters won this round, and will win in the end.
As if.
Western civilization can't hold up forever. As soon as it cracks, things will go back to normal and people like Riley will be happy to throw homosexuals into ovens.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 01:56:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 01:53:40 PM
Why wouldn't one want to discrminate against evil?
I've got no problem with that.
/me glares at Neil
Your ideas about what is evil seem terribly skewed.
Quote from: Neil on May 26, 2009, 01:58:12 PM
Your ideas about what is evil seem terribly skewed.
Hmm... you're right. You're about as evil as a cat-5 hurricane. To be evil, you'd need to care.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2009, 02:11:51 PM
you'd need to care.
Whatever response you get, you made it way too easy.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
I will go to your Klown Kristian Kollege and piss on Jesus not expecting any hostility at all and see where that gets me.
If they're real Kristian's they'll just turn the other cheek. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 26, 2009, 02:25:35 PM
Whatever response you get, you made it way too easy.
Shh. If I get something about a Care Bear Stare, I'll bust him being a hypocrite. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Quote"I'm really happy that Prop. 8 was upheld, but I was just told by somebody that she's going to harass me until the day I die," Kulinich said. "Now I'm really concerned for my safety.
"I didn't expect that," she said. "I'm shaking right now."
Wait you went to San Francisco to oppose gays and you did not expect to be confronted with hostility?
I will go to your Klown Kristian Kollege and piss on Jesus not expecting any hostility at all and see where that gets me.
Dude, it's a community college. I make it my business to harass community college students by yelling things like, "Thanks for ruining America's educational system!" and "The world needs ditch-diggers, Danny!" as I drive by. Some of those poor stupid fucks come out of community college with debt load equal to what got me through law school. Suckers.
Quote from: Scipio on May 26, 2009, 07:02:42 PM
Dude, it's a community college. I make it my business to harass community college students by yelling things like, "Thanks for ruining America's educational system!" and "The world needs ditch-diggers, Danny!" as I drive by. Some of those poor stupid fucks come out of community college with debt load equal to what got me through law school. Suckers.
But then, going by this post, a law degree doesn't get you any farther.
Quote from: Scipio on May 26, 2009, 07:02:42 PM
Dude, it's a community college. I make it my business to harass community college students by yelling things like, "Thanks for ruining America's educational system!" and "The world needs ditch-diggers, Danny!" as I drive by. Some of those poor stupid fucks come out of community college with debt load equal to what got me through law school. Suckers.
Yeah it'd be better if they didn't try to get any education...
Well although a decent amount of people came out to protest yesterday, it was rather uninspired. We'd already expected the court's decision so there wasn't a lot of anger...more weariness than anything else.
Quote from: Scipio on May 26, 2009, 07:02:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Quote"I'm really happy that Prop. 8 was upheld, but I was just told by somebody that she's going to harass me until the day I die," Kulinich said. "Now I'm really concerned for my safety.
"I didn't expect that," she said. "I'm shaking right now."
Wait you went to San Francisco to oppose gays and you did not expect to be confronted with hostility?
I will go to your Klown Kristian Kollege and piss on Jesus not expecting any hostility at all and see where that gets me.
Dude, it's a community college. I make it my business to harass community college students by yelling things like, "Thanks for ruining America's educational system!" and "The world needs ditch-diggers, Danny!" as I drive by. Some of those poor stupid fucks come out of community college with debt load equal to what got me through law school. Suckers.
My sister is going to community college to learn how to be an X-Ray technician.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 27, 2009, 12:01:15 PM
My sister is going to community college to learn how to be an X-Ray technician.
Oddly, Princesca's cousin is going to Morehead State in the fall for the same reason, but it's a four year B.S. program. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 12:00:40 PM
Well although a decent amount of people came out to protest yesterday, it was rather uninspired. We'd already expected the court's decision so there wasn't a lot of anger...more weariness than anything else.
You should be celebrating the fact this was put to the vote. A few years ago there wouldn't even have been a referendum about it. There's been progress.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
You should be celebrating the fact this was put to the vote. A few years ago there wouldn't even have been a referendum about it. There's been progress.
G.
:tinfoil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 12:10:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
And what do you object to now ?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 07:57:22 PM
And what do you object to now ?
G.
Well we have a vote on it 8 years ago...and it was a proposition with the exact same text. Seems to me that refutes your statement that a few years ago we wouldn't have even had a referendum about it.
The only sign of progress is that about 10% fewer people voted for the ban last year. I suppose there is some solace that while still a majority, fewer people now hate gays.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 08:57:34 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 07:57:22 PM
And what do you object to now ?
G.
Well we have a vote on it 8 years ago...and it was a proposition with the exact same text. Seems to me that refutes your statement that a few years ago we wouldn't have even had a referendum about it.
The only sign of progress is that about 10% fewer people voted for the ban last year. I suppose there is some solace that while still a majority, fewer people now hate gays.
I'm going to start publicizing Martinus. Expect that to change.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 08:57:34 PM
Well we have a vote on it 8 years ago...and it was a proposition with the exact same text. Seems to me that refutes your statement that a few years ago we wouldn't have even had a referendum about it.
The World - or California - is older than 1990 boy... and change doesn't happpen overnight!
G.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2009, 09:10:15 PM
I'm going to start publicizing Martinus. Expect that to change.
If people can look upon Perez Hilton and not feel the urge to hate gays, they can handle Martinus.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 09:11:26 PM
The World - or California - is older than 1990 boy... and change doesn't happpen overnight!
G.
Oh so by a few years, you meant decades? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:21:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2009, 09:10:15 PM
I'm going to start publicizing Martinus. Expect that to change.
If people can look upon Perez Hilton and not feel the urge to hate gays, they can handle Martinus.
I am weak then :cry:
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:22:07 PM
Oh so by a few years, you meant decades? :unsure:
You are a member of Languish, aren't you supposed to be a history buff, at least in name ? Stop being facetious by the gods!
G.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:21:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2009, 09:10:15 PM
I'm going to start publicizing Martinus. Expect that to change.
If people can look upon Perez Hilton and not feel the urge to hate gays, they can handle Martinus.
Nobody knows who Perez Hilton is. Soon, everyone will know who Martinus is. And when that happens, gays will face the full force of persecution, like they've never felt it before.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 09:26:55 PM
You are a member of Languish, aren't you supposed to be a history buff, at least in name ? Stop being facetious by the gods!
G.
Pick up a dictionary sometime. It'll help facilitate communication.
Quote from: katmai on May 27, 2009, 09:26:17 PM
I am weak then :cry:
It's okay. Personally, I've found that it is best to simply not look at him. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:36:58 PM
Pick up a dictionary sometime. It'll help facilitate communication.
Why do I keep trying to educate you when I know it's futile ?! Curse my benevolent nature.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 09:43:16 PM
Why do I keep trying to educate you when I know it's futile ?! Curse my benevolent nature.
G.
I've found that when teaching people things, it is generally a good idea to know what you are talking about first.
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:47:33 PM
I've found that when teaching people things, it is generally a good idea to know what you are talking about first.
Emulating grumbler again ? :P
G.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 09:51:15 PM
Emulating grumbler again ? :P
G.
Hey if you want to be happy that liberal California voted twice in a ten year span to ban gay marriage, have fun.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2009, 09:32:05 PM
Nobody knows who Perez Hilton is. Soon, everyone will know who Martinus is. And when that happens, gays will face the full force of persecution, like they've never felt it before.
Nobody will ever know who Martinus is and fewer will care.
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:47:33 PM
I've found that when teaching people things, it is generally a good idea to know what you are talking about first.
Emulating grumbler again ? :P
G.
How can knowing what you're talking about be construed as emulating grumbler? :)
Quote from: Grallon on May 27, 2009, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 27, 2009, 09:47:33 PM
I've found that when teaching people things, it is generally a good idea to know what you are talking about first.
Emulating grumbler again ? :P
Ah, the old "I just got totally pwned after saying something stupid, so I will revert to the ad hominim attack" ploy. I am shocked that you would use this ploy, Gral. Shocked!
Quote from: dps on May 27, 2009, 10:38:43 PM
How can knowing what you're talking about be construed as emulating grumbler? :)
:lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 27, 2009, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2009, 09:32:05 PM
Nobody knows who Perez Hilton is. Soon, everyone will know who Martinus is. And when that happens, gays will face the full force of persecution, like they've never felt it before.
Nobody will ever know who Martinus is and fewer will care.
Once they get to know him, they'll demand that he be burned alive.