BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 04:45 PM

Gnu....."John, writing on "The Frigging Loon" blog, said he was "heartbroken" about the split and that he hopes Pepper "finds another male penguin that is ten times hotter than Harry!"

Mr Peestok I presume?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM

And you, Ake, are no judge.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

ake, how about posting something further about schools disallowing children to run on their playgrounds? Are there schools other than the Thomas Deacon Academy that plan(ed) such a thing? According to the responses to the idea that I read online, there was an outcry regarding the plan.

You imply that there are others or perhaps, even that children in Scotland are not allowed to run in their playgrounds. I still don't believe that. Surely Scotland is not that ignorant or backward. (On the other hand, you are a Scot..? *g*)

As for Jade, unless I missed something writ large, I don't recall that she had information on the phenomenon but simply agreed with you that she "wouldn't be surprised" to hear it.

Sit up, mon.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:16 PM

Don F. - I would much prefer to think of yourself and I as equals rather than engage in fruitless attempts to establish who resides at a loftier position of intellectual grandeur...or who has acquired the more prestigious reading list in the last 50 years of his life. ;-)

As you said, "everyone is a philosopher in his or her own way". Correct. That's good enough. If a person is strongly interested in how people think, and why, and interested enough to spend some time on understanding it, and interested in self-observation too, then he's a philosopher in his or her own way. And that's what I am.

I've read plenty of fascinating books in the last 50 years. I am not going to start listing them, because I'm not even slightly interested in trying to outdo you or impress you. It doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:23 PM

to think of yourself and I as equals...

Nah, you're right--it doesn't matter...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 06:52 PM

speaking of taking people to court,do companies and things like that still ofer compensation or a good will gesture when someone has an accident?

as ebbie said ,i am not sure whether the trying to stop kids running around is true or whether it is one of those rumours that gets out of hand. what i do know is that the conker thing opens the floodgates to being able to take the school to court over the most innocent things. the same as any other public place really.

so really do take care out there... LOL

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 07:43 PM

Once again off the mark, Little Hawk. I have no desire to impress you. But you keep making grandious claims about your own intellectual prowess and how it gives you the license to comment on what others do and say, so I think it's perfectly fair to ask you for your qualifications to do so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 09 - 08:03 PM

Which is to say, Little Hawk, that this thread was an attempt (at least on the part of most people) to be a serious debate on a serious civil rights issue, but it got derailed when you put your oar in with irrelevant observations on how the debaters where conducting themselves. Now, had it been Joe Offer, that would have mattered. But from you, it was just your usual static.

You did successfully manage to drag the focus of the thread to you.

Now, once again, if there is anything more to say on the subject of the thread, I suggest we get back to it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 04:27 AM

If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the landuage you and others used to me very early on.
As it is, the issues have been aired and the discussion is in stalemate.   The important thing is that all views have been voiced and anyone reading this thread can form a reasoned opinion.

People must be made aware that to hold a contrary view of any issue does not necessarily make one a (bigot,homophobe, pervert, or any other term of abuse that can be used to scupper discussion).
That is indeed "Orwellian"


So you see Little Hawk's point was very relevant!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:24 AM

""Mark Twain was such a person, and his books are full of humorous jibes at the common failings of humanity...and I bet you respect Mark Twain, don't you? You probably would have been quite ticked off at him had you lived in his time, though, because he might have made fun of one of your sacred cows!""

So you see yourself as another Mark Twain!

I it weren't so tragic I'd be falling about laughing.

Not within a million miles mate. Just another wannabe, bigging himself up at everyone else's expense.

Come again when you have something to say which is germane to the topic........or any topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:35 AM

""If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the landuage you and others used to me very early on.""

Is that so?

Well,..... NO, actually!

Far from trying to silence you, virtually the whole thread (disregarding the input from our resident disruptive child) has been about the opposite; Namely, trying to get a straight answer from you that actually made any sense at all.

You would have made a fine addition to Gordon Brown's ministerial team, judging by the skill with which you managed to avoid giving any such answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:45 AM

""how about posting something further about schools disallowing children to run on their playgrounds?""

Sad but true, Ebbie.

For the last fifteen years I was caretaker/playground supervisor at a local primary school.

For about the last six years, conkers allowed only under supervision, no football on the playground, no hard balls of any description and no running or tag type games.

Basketball (shooting hoops only...no running
Hopscotch No stones allowed (safe markers only)

In summer on the grass playing field football allowed, but No cartwheels, headstands or somersaults ecept under close supervision.

The list goes on...and on...and...well you get the idea.

It is due to the fear of being sued.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:47 AM

That should read "for the last fifteen years of my working life".

I retired in 2006

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM

Getting back to the SUBJECT, folks, I would suggest if there is more to say about conkers on schoolgrounds it become a thread of its own; if there is more to say about how grandiloquent and Twainesque Little Hawk is or is not, it become a comic book somewhere.

If there are any further developments on the issues surrounding Proposition 8, or similar propositions in other states, I would love to be apprised of them here. For example, Don Firth mentioned reactionary efforts afoot in his state. New York's own equal-rights law was delayed by their endless procedural entanglements and congressional incompetence, but not on its merits.

On 17 July a Federal judge rejected pone action against prop 8: "In the July 17 ruling, U.S. District Judge David Carter removed the state of California as a defendant in the lawsuit against Prop 8 and DOMA. Only the U.S. government will remain a defendant when portions of the case will be heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.

Carter's ruling stated that because the gay couple who brought the challenge against DOMA in December 2008 were married during a short window of time when same-sex marriage was legal, they had no standing to challenge the measure. The California State Supreme Court already decided that marriages such as theirs would stay intact even after voters approved Prop 8. ".

It is ironic, to me, that the judge disqualified the action because the plaintiffs were legally married gays. Yet the right-wing factions announced this was a win for those in California who did not want gays to marry, as if other grounds had been cited when they were not. This is the sort of illogic that permeates partisan politics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 11:54 AM

sheesh I thought it is the US that is litigious.

What kind of childhood are children being given if for 7 or 8 hours of a work week they are not allowed to do the normal things of childhood! It would appear that every single person who signed on to this insanity has never seen the young of EVERY mammal at play- running and tumbling and chasing, in addition to expressing health by working off energy, teach coordination and cooperation and builds and strengthens muscle whether in the legs or the heart itself.

It seems clear that the 'auld' country is farther down the road to perdition than we in the new. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:22 PM

An op-ed by David Boies that runs in Monday's Wall Street Journal :

"When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.

Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens. In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote rejecting the notion that a history of discrimination might trump constitutional rights, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:56 PM

"Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."......And justice is not about "treating people equally, but treating people appropriately"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

Woah, Ake, you have grabbed an indefensible position for sure there, mate. "Appropriately"? According to....which subculture's definition? While I grant you that tempering the codes of justice with mercy and a due consideration of extenuating circumstances is a vital aspect of justice, the core framework absolutely has to be based on the notion that all men are equal under the law. There are no special exceptions by reason of status, wealth, etc. This is of critical importance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 12:59 PM

The Bishop also said "We want to be in your club, but we want to change all the rules".....a good example of "doublethink"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 09 - 08:32 PM

"If you and others like you had their way Don, this thread would not exist, I would have been intimidated by the language you and others used to me very early on."

As far as not wanting this thread to exist, Ake, I'm quite glad that Amos brought the Proposition 8 controversy to people's attention. I don't know where you get the idea that I "and others like" me, wouldn't want it to exist. The injustice of the issue needs to be called to peoples' attention and I'm happy that Amos started it.

As to your claim that I "and others like" me are trying to muzzle you: it's obvious to any thinking person (as you well know) that I "and others like" me have no way of doing that. No one save the moderators of this site can stop you from posting anything you want to say. So why don't you just get off that bus? You're not fooling anyone.

And as I mention in a couple of posts above, I have found some of your arguments quite valuable, because the battle is joined here in Washington State, and you gave me a pretty good idea of the kind of arguments the proponents of a proposition similar to the one in California will put forth, enabling me to analyze them, find their flaws, and be able to successfully refute them. Muzzle you? No. Thank you for the practice. I'm well prepared for what's to come.

As far as the language I have used, if you can't stand being called a "bigot" and a "homophobe" when things you have said and the tactics you have used (particularly doctoring statistics to make them appear to say what you want them to say when they clearly do not) indicate that you fit the dictionary definitions of those two words, then you apparently lack the courage of your own convictions, along with having a very thin skin.

Orwell has nothing to do with it. Rather than engaging in "doublespeak" as you claim, I am bluntly using the proper name for a person who holds a particular set of attitudes and prejudices. I have expressed liberal ideas. You have "accused" me of being a "liberal." Same thing, Ake.

"As it is, the issues have been aired and the discussion is in stalemate.   The important thing is that all views have been voiced and anyone reading this thread can form a reasoned opinion."

True indeed. There is no way I can convince you of my viewpoint and there is no way you can ever get me to change my mind if all you can do is present the arguments that you have presented so far. I am happy to have anyone read this thread who wants to and let them come to their own conclusions on the merits, or lack thereof, of the arguments.

Not to mention, hoping that readers will take note of who is and who is not willing to answer various questions put to them and figure out why the questions remain unanswered.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:32 AM

Two nights ago here in Seattle, two women were attacked in their bed at 3:00 a.m. One of them is dead and the other is in critical condition. It was known in their neighborhood that they were about to get married. We don't know, since the attacker is still at large, whether the impending marriage was the thing that set him off or not, but the timing makes it possible. In any event, it seems very likely that this was a hate crime.

Little Hawk: This isn't a game we're playing here.

Akenaton: This is what happens when people who are different than us are legally discriminated against, when our society thinks it's OK for us to hate "others". I know that you would never do anything like this, but I still lay part of the blame for it at your doorstep and at the doorstep of everyone else who behaves in a bigoted way toward homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 10:57 AM

john, that is awful!!! have they caught the bastard who did it yet?

i am not having a go at anyone but this is why we have to be careful, not about what we think but about the language we use sometimes. there are plenty of nutters out there who hear something then act without thinking and then blames something innocent. example: how many times have we heard about kids beating someone to a pulp and then blaming video games?

i admit that the two really long posts from amos i think, sorry if i have that wrong have intimidated me so i will have to get my few brain cells together and have a proper read.

until then take care all
love jade x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 04:59 PM

My God, John, that gave me a bit of a start!    Seattle Times article.

Barbara and I know two women who are getting married this coming weekend. Neighbors. Nice ladies, and they've been living together for several years now. For a moment, I was afraid it might have been them (because they did announce their marriage, but only to their friends and relatives), but—not so.

They share an apartment in a secured building. Still, I hope this puts them on their guard.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

Well, Ake, seems like hatred and discrimination don't make for societal perfection after all, do they. Hmmmmm. I know it is not hatred, as you have yourself made clear several times, that drives your attitude, but, ya know, sometimes we have to honor the consequences of our attitudes as well as their precedents.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:47 AM

Amos....Thank you, I know you are aware that I have no hatred towards homosexuals.
That particular scourge has no place in this discussion in my opinion and anyone introducing it to bolster the argument for homosexual "marriage" is simply being obstructive.
The people who commit hate crimes against any minority group should be dealt with severely by the courts.
We will unfortunately always have deranged people in our society.
I thought Mr peekstok had sunk as low as it was possible to in his accusations and insinuations....apparently I was wrong.

Getting back to justice, to be "appropriate" the rights granted to any behavioural minority group, should not be seen to have a retrograde effect on others, as in allowing one minority the right to redefine the rules of the game.

The last few posts are disgraceful...(on re-reading, I include you in that Amos), the accusations made against Little Hawk and myself, have no basis in reason!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:39 AM

ake, i do hope you know i was including myself in what i was saying in my last post?
i have been known to be inflamitory and knee jerk in my reactions. just wanted to let you know that i am as fallible as anyone, probably more so. please don't take it personally???

right back to sleep fo me!!
sweet dreams all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 AM

""The last few posts are disgraceful...(on re-reading, I include you in that Amos), the accusations made against Little Hawk and myself, have no basis in reason!""

Since you seem incapable of actually answering the questions posed by others, this is probably a forlorn hope, but let's give it a try anyway.

You are very keen to defend Little Hawk from a number of contributors, who are less than impressed with his nonsense, and I rather suspect that you are doing so to distract attention from the untenable nature of your own stance.

So would you like to tell us what, in your opinion, has been his contribution to discussion of the topic of this thread?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:09 PM

Actually, it doesn't make any difference if Akenaton hates gays or not, since the conclusion he reaches through non-hatred is exactly the same as the position of people who do hate gays.

Akenaton, Here's another question for you to refuse to answer:
I know you don't like being called a bigot, and have said several times that you are not bigoted. Can you explain how supporting legal discrimination against gay people is not a bigoted stance? I mean, really, if it's not bigotry, what is it? Bigotry is the only word I can think of right now that covers the territory.

Also, do you know that giving equal rights to black people and to women was one of the biggest things that stopped violence against them? The lynching of black folks pretty much stopped with the passage of civil rights laws, and domestic violence against women wasn't taken seriously by the police until we declared women to be full-fledged people.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:29 PM

"Full-fleged people"... 2278 posts... gosh...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:35 PM

Getting back to justice, to be "appropriate" the rights granted to any behavioural minority group, should not be seen to have a retrograde effect on others, as in allowing one minority the right to redefine the rules of the game.

OMG! A definitive statement from Akenaton! Will wonders never cease? He's totally incorrect, of course, but at least he's saying something real. Here's what's wrong:

Justice is never inappropriate. Gays are not a "behavioural" minority, and it wouldn't matter if they were, since religious folks (a real behavioral minority) are specifically granted the same rights as everyone else, and it's also illegal to discriminate against them. There is no evidence for and no sense in the statement that gay marriage will have any retrograde effect on others. How would that manifest? The reason we have a Constitution in this country, and whatever it is that the UK has that's similar, is so that the rights of minorities are not trampled. Redefining the rules would be changing the Constitution to allow discrimination against minorities. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history, and means different things in different places. There is a pressing legal and societal need for gay marriage now, and allowing gays to get married is less of a redefinition than our government telling two people who want to become a legal unit that they can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:41 PM

Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized humans. It's us.

We still have a way to go.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:42 PM

The rules of the game ? Well, did the purchase and sale of Africans, very well-established as the rule of the game, give the lie to the pretense of dignity and nobility and enlightenment that was pretended to by the dominant white clans? How about the discrimination and harassment of the Clans by the redcoats? Well within the rules of the game, no?

Dominance always brings with it a cheap set of rules established by agreement supported by force, as Matthew Shephard found to his dismay. It is much, much harder to evolve rules cleaving to justice and equality, because one has to overcome the crusty inertia and blackguard hostilities of individuated, small-minded people more interested in the status quo.

Perhaps you mean that heterosexuality is the "rule of the game"? Do you consider human homosexuality to be a recent development? The earliest civilizations we know about were rife with it.

Or do you believe that dominating the culture is a form of progress on the part of heterosexuals, a step into a better civilization, which the odball minority will just have to suffer with, because it is just naturally better? God-given, even?

Say, how DO you justify this notion of "the rules of the game", anyway? I am not quite getting it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:08 AM

Oh I see! we're back to equating this with the race issue, you really must be pissed off when you sling in all these obstructions.

As gnu implies, if my stance is so stupid and untenable, why have you invested so much of your time trying to refute it!

All the questions you ask have already been answered further up the thread and I have no intention of either responding to someone who thinks me a "pervert" or constantly repeating things.
Latest research on memory loss suggests strong coffee three times a day.

The posts on the Seattle murder are indeed disgraceful, on reading the various links it seems the police believe it to be "random", committed by a young homeless black man.....even if it had been a hate crime, there are murders committed by lunatics against all sorts of people all over the world every day. It doesn't mean that all black men are murderers, or that people who disagree with homosexual marriage encourage murder......fucking grow up!

Political correctness ensures that even in a murder investigation more obscure terminology has to be used in the official description!...the world has certainly gone mad!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM

Ake:

Cool off, there, sirrah! I did not equate "this" with a race issue. I point out that your argument about "retrogressing the rules of the game" is sieve-like, that's all, and offered several parallels to illustrate thepoint. Specifically, they illustrate "rules of the game" born from dominance without merit. Your argument is not a race issue, but it IS a plea for the continuation of a system of injustice through dominance.

And I notice, although my last had several questions in it, you did not answer them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Yes OK Amos, I wasn't addressing you on the race issue, I don't think you've ever mentioned it. As I've said before, we know one anothers position very well, I respect yours and you appear to understand mine, I don't think we are going to change our views after all this time.
I'm just in from work and if get time later I'll have another look at your posts.....Peace!....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM

Re: The break-in, assault, and murder in Seattle's South Park neighborhood.

The Seattle Police, so far, are being non-committal about whether or not they consider it to be a hate crime, but a number of the neighbors say they are sure it was. Among other things, according to news reports, nothing was stolen, so……? Motive?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 03:32 PM

you all know where i stand on this subject and i can't think of any different ways of saying the same things.    why am i posting?.. i just wanted to ask don to keep us informed if anything else comes to light about this possible hate crime? i would be grateful.

take care all

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM

Listen to THIS 86 year old gentleman/veteran. Makes me proud to be an American.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 10:36 AM

Kat, HE'S WONDERFUL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 11:19 AM

Dang, ma'a'm, thank you for posting that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 11:20 AM

"Tonight, President Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is 'unwavering.' He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change. But these remarks weren't just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where "no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit."

"And we heard unequivocally about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That is my commitment to you.'

"Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President: 'You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.'

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented."...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:33 PM

Update.

Twenty-three year old Isaiah Kalebu has been arrested and charged with the murder of one South Park Seattle woman and the attempted murder of her partner. He tortured and repeatedly raped the two women before he tried to kill them both.

Kalebu has a history of mental illness and repeated run-ins with the police. He as plead "not guilty," but the evidence, as I understand it, is overwhelming and the prosecutor has asked for the death penalty.

Kalebu has also been accused of setting a house fire in which his aunt died after she urged him to join a mental health program. And he also threatened to kill his mother for making the same suggestion.

Apparently he had been arrested a number of times, but had to be released because of failure of the complainants to follow through and press charges (I think there's a lesson there!).

Whether the gender orientation of the two women was a factor in the brutal assault has not been determined so far.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:00 PM

Reporting from San Francisco - A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, ruling that a trial was required to resolve legal and factual disputes over the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, ruling after nearly two hours of argument in San Francisco, rejected arguments by Proposition 8 proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure was permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Walker's decision means the case will proceed to trial as scheduled in January, unless appeals delay it.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May that Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of voters, did not violate the state Constitution. The suit before Walker says the measure violates the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

During the hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate "naturally."

Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate.

"Just last month," Walker said, "I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation."

Proposition 8 backers also argued that precedent required Walker to uphold the measure as constitutional. They cited a 1972 case involving a Minnesota law that limited marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge of that law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without issuing a full-blown opinion, declined to hear an appeal.

"We can't put much stock in that case, can we?" Walker told the lawyers. He described the case as "old," "very limited" and "not a considered decision of the Supreme Court."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:40 PM

The silent majority have spoken ....Prop 8, 31......."liberals" 0

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 10:28 PM

You are enshrouded in a cloud of delusion, pal. Having a bunch of far right activists prop up an idea with money does not make it a winning idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 11:23 PM

31 to 0...yeah, what does that stupid majority know???????

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 04:35 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The biggest U.S. gay rights battle next year is brewing in a California federal court as raucous fights over same-sex marriage in state legislatures and at state ballot boxes subside.

U.S.

In part, 2010 will reflect a growing move by same-sex marriage advocates to building support for their civil rights cause outside of the election process.

The federal challenge to California's ban may be the only conflict in clear sight after a mixed 2009 that saw Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire legalize gay marriage and Washington, D.C., vote for legalization, while there were setbacks in other states that had been expected to follow.

"The focus is very much on this one case," said Andy Pugno, a California lawyer who successfully defended California's ban in the state supreme court and is helping in the federal defense as well.

New York state legislators failed to back gay marriage and a New Jersey effort has hit snags and has a few weeks to act before a new governor who opposes such gay unions takes office. Maine voters rejected same-sex marriage by a thin margin similar to the California 2008 ban, which is being contested in the San Francisco federal court.

"We believed that this is something that needs to be vindicated at the federal constitutional level, and I think that that is reinforced by what's happened in Maine and what did not happen, for example in New Jersey, and what did not happen in New York," said David Boies, one of the lead lawyers in the federal case.

Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 and California had a summer of legalization in 2008 before voters banned it.

Trial is set to start January 11 in San Francisco. Boies and co-lead Ted Olson argue that marriage is a U.S. constitutional right too fundamental to limit and that gays and lesbians are a discriminated group that deserve special court protection.

Opposing attorney Charles Cooper says restricting marriage to a man and a woman reflects a reasonable government position that heterosexual couples are best for families. It is not a question of hate, and gays and lesbians have plenty of political power, making special court protection unnecessary....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 04:02 PM

Gosh, I can't find that post...refresh my memory....my father was NOT ever a homosexual....let me see if that post is even there...or show me.
(or someone used my name).....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

2300!....Jeez!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Leadfingers
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 09:07 AM

2300