Thousands rally nationwide for marriage equality.
By on Nov 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Thousands rally nationwide for marriage equality.
LGBT rights advocates, organized by Join the Impact, turned out in eight countries, 50 states, and 300 cities today in support of marriage equality, with thousands gathering across California to specifically protest the recent passage of Prop. 8. Signs read “Are you better off now that I can’t marry?” and “The same Bible was used to justify slavery,” referencing the ban’s heavy support from the Mormon church. Some pictures from today’s events:
Currently, just Massachusetts and Connecticut allow same-sex marriage; all 30 states that have voted on gay marriage have enacted bans. More photos from SFist, Pam’s House Blend, and Good As You.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
72 Responses to “Thousands rally nationwide for marriage equality.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
one would think the LAST group of people you'd be taking advice from on the sanctity of marriage would be the mormon considering their rich tradition of polygamy.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pmWow, look at all the log cabin republicans in those pics!
November 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pmI hope that every caring person in this Country feels the same sense of optimism that flows with each event and announcement that becomes public knowledge about the upcoming Administration. In my 75 years I have never experienced a sense of hope as I do now. I was born in the Great Depression and would have made the grade for a Grapes of Wrath role except that my Dear Departed Daddy left Missouri on the Atchison,Topeka,and Santa Fe railroad followed some months later by my mother and four siblings. We were poor. We were poor (equate to bigoted "Redneck" dirt farmers if you must) for years but through a lot of sacrifice on the part of my Father and Mother my siblings and I became, if not successsful, at least comfortable. This is America, AGAIN, it is 1933 again. That was a good year for me then and I can see this is a good year for we true Americans now. I am proud to be here, I am proud to have the opportunity, ability, and priviledge to express my opinion in this way at this time. Although I am an agnostic I will, for the benefit of those who believe, offer a simple prayer: May God bless President Obama and this great Country. And if I have any chits left, Damn George WTF and his sycophants.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:56 pmIt's wonderful to see people standing up to mean-spirited bigotry.
Doesn't our Constitution champion and defend, "the pursuit of Happiness"?
Who can be happy alone? Aloneness is what prop 8 cruelly condemns gay people to, with extreme prejudice.
So why does vindictive legislation like Prop 8 single out some Americans to be forever alone, their relationships and lives they build together scorned and unacknowledged, disrespected? Why has the rights and dignity of gay peoples' relationships been up to a popular vote, a ballot measure driven by the people who hate them?
All people have needs and rights. The right of gay people in America to love who they love, and formalize that commitment to care for each other.. it is intense cruelty to deny gay people alone that right, to form their own family out of love for each other. It is a basic human need to be loved, and Prop 8 is an assault not only on gay people, but their straight friends and family as well.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pmTime to take this nationwide majority and mandate and tell Obama to get an amendment protecting the right of same-sex couples to marry.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pmI rarely post, but always visit to read and learn. I love Think Progress. Had to post on this one, because any further oppressive agenda's, by any group or anyone will 'not' be tolerated.
http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/
Shout out to Dale J. in LA! You are one of the most loving Dad's that I know of and I hope you have the 'Freedom' to legally marry soon.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pmThis is a quasi-historical look at the birth of the gay rights movement and how it could still teach us lessons in the age of Proposition 8. I'm very proud of this article, if I must say so, because I feel so powerfully about the oppression of the gay community.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pmDeschanel and 00mpp00,
I could not agree more! It is time for the Government to do what the Constitution requires the Government to do: protect the individual citizen regardless of religion, creed, color, sex, or any other classification that infers a "them" vs. "Us". The Constitution prohibits Governmental action on the basis of any religious belief. The questions of Gay/Lesbian Marriage, Abortion, and a myriad of other religious/sociological questions are not for the Government to decide EXCEPT to deny any religious connotation in the law. It is time the Government protected the citizens from the greatest predator of this day and age, namely, corporate and political GREED. Don't close Gitmo! Just replace the inmates. Starting with Bush, Cheney, Paulson, on and on through the Republican ranks as deep as necessary to rid our politics of the corrupt individuals and influence.
November 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pmIt seems downright strange that in California, raising any taxes, whether statewide or local, requires a 2/3 majority vote but amending the constitution by initiative, whether wisely or unwisely, takes only a simple majority.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pmSalt Lake City has erupted in some of the biggest protests ever seen, 3,000 people a week ago and 3,000 again today. A police officer told a reporter in amazement that these rallies are just the beginning: "Salt Lake City has learned how to protest."
November 15th, 2008 at 11:22 pmGuys you should check out "Milk" when it's released. They've been showing trailers of it on IFC all month, looks promising. Sean Penn is a badass.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:40 pmhttp://www.ifc.com/film/indie-eye/2008/09/trailering-8.php
November 15th, 2008 at 11:40 pmI loved Saturday Night Live's take on it tonight
November 16th, 2008 at 1:38 amHey, Van Susteren's got a crush on Palin--pass it on ;>
November 16th, 2008 at 1:55 amIgualdade, Fraternidade e Liberdade!
November 16th, 2008 at 3:21 amChildren of the future age,
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love, was thought a crime.
--William Blake
November 16th, 2008 at 5:57 amAs a bisexual man, I applaud these protesters for preaching the truth: marriage is a social function that the church has no dictation over. Considering their history of polygamy, which violates the traditional view of marriage, who are the Mormons to control our private lives? Did Thomas Jefferson not encourage the pursuit of happiness? Is our love less passionate than heterosexual love?
Sadly, the religious rightists circulated false information about same-sex marriage. It would NOT alter the language for marriage in any sex ed class, and parents could certainly opt their children out. Unfortunately, same-sex couples can't "opt out" of the ridiculous amount of control that Prop 8 will exercise over their personal lives.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:34 amHowever, we must also insist on restraint. We must protest peacefully and with a clear, resounding message: the Mormon Church spread misinformation and lies to allow the church to interfere with purely state matters. A majority cannot deny a minority the rights of marriage and life that they are absolutely due. Unfortunately, it's my belief that some Californians were misled by the right-wingers.
I encourage any progressive to create a sign and take to the streets. We may fall, but we rise as brothers in a cause that will result in a nation of tolerance. Aren't we the leaders of the Free World? Well, if we're talking about freedom of marriage, dozens of countries knock us out of the arena with shocking ease.
November 16th, 2008 at 7:45 amIt has always seemed to me that any honest reading of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and/or with the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, would guarantee marriage equality for anyone who wanted it...
November 16th, 2008 at 11:00 amWhy anyone is surprised at the Mormon church's interference in this issue is beyond me. They are, after all, the church that denied blacks (as the race of Cain) full membership in their churches until June of 1978.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:04 amThe problem w/Mormons & Baptists, Catholics, and their craptacular associates, is that there are no DISINCENTIVES to their continued popular bigotry.
I leave it to y'all to imagine what might work in that cause...
November 16th, 2008 at 11:10 amIt's so typical of the left and right in the Marxist playbook that the FIRST thing you do to those who disagree is DEMONIZE them and cast their legitimate argumentsin terms of hatred and "bigotry."
THEN you don't have to argue the merits! Cowards. Thye left in this countr are ALWAYS cowardly in their speech.
MARRIAGE has NEVER been a "right." It is a social institution that only society as a whole has a right to define. It is not going to be re-defined by un-elected judges in response to a bunch of activists acting on their own set of grievances.
Period.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:26 amGot news for you homosexual activists - it WASN'T the Mormon church that got Prop 8 passed in California!!!
You can thank all the Obama voters. Blacks and Hispanics voted in very high numbers this election. After they pulled that lever for Obama, they voted their CONSERVATIVE social convictions AGAINST re-defining marriage!
So get off it.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:29 amGay couples haven't been denied ANY rights. They can live together in a committed relationship and take care of any legal issues quite simply.
It's just a myth that somehow there are all these "rights" being denied them. They don't have one right, that's for sure - the right to re-define marriage any way they see fit!
November 16th, 2008 at 11:32 amHi Tim Vaculik:
November 16th, 2008 at 11:35 amAre you making stuff up again like that bullshit you tried to sell on the last climate related thread? Do I have to call bullshit yet again?
HI Tim Vacuous.
Question: couldn't calling ones opponents "Marxists" and "cowards" be seen as "demonizing"?
Another question: why do you think we have a system that relies on "unelected judges" to see that justice is administered properly according to our Constitution?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:39 amTim Vacuous, do you think that relying on "unelected judges" in the administration of justice is a bad thing?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:39 amSo, dbadass... no Daryll? No bitblt?
What gives?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:42 amWhat the heck, it's Sunday so what if it is OT. Let's talk climate science. Right Tim Vaculik....
"3. Al Gore’s movie was so full of innacuracies and outright falsehoods that it was banned from being taught in school. (Btitish I think)
Anyone care to tacke the above?"
Sure, shall we start with defining of Btitish. I also continue to be perplexed by how a cyber nobody might possibly understand more about this issue than the UN, the US conressional standing committees, the US Military, the international scientific community, the insurance industry, both high and low latitudinal indigenous populations and so on. Do tell Tim, whereby did you come by your shear genius?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:47 amHi ralph, you toy with the fools you have, not the fools you wish to have...
November 16th, 2008 at 11:48 amdbadass,
Go check the other thread...
I'm just expressing an opinion like you. Your "bullshit" isn't any better than anyone elses.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:52 amralph,
"Question: couldn’t calling ones opponents “Marxists” and “cowards” be seen as “demonizing”?"
Well, no. Here's why.
I respect their right to have an opinion. I don't "demonize" them personally fot having an opinion different then mine.
The label "Marxist" is used to describe the political philosophy. Cowards are those that aren't up for a real debate. They hide behind epithets directed at people's character. People like me they don't even know.
I have NOTHING against Gay's personally. It's simply cowardly to call me a "bigot" or a "homophobe". I laugh in their face!
November 16th, 2008 at 11:56 amSee, the thing you fail to recognize, Timmeh, is that opinions that are informed by accurate information generally prove to be more useful than opinions informed by superstition, partisan myth and wishful thinking.
In other words, not all opinions are equally valid.
In my experience, dbadass demonstrates a consistently high level of awareness and reason, not to mention quality snark. You demonstrate a consistently high level of absurdity and misinformation.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:57 amSee the difference is that I never proclaimed anything, you did. I based my opinion on the collective knowledge generated by those actually engaged in the subject. You however did something different. Thus there is no equivalency
November 16th, 2008 at 11:59 amralph,
I have no problem with judges upholding the law. I have no problem with judges upholding our Constitution.
I DO take great exception to judges legislating from the bench and intruding into areas reserved for the people.
The subject of marriage is a question for society. Society has the ultimate say in how it is defined. We express this through our legislative process generally, but when activist judges overstep their rightful authority, we can always amend the Constitution.
The people of California have spoken.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pmdbadass,
Nice try. You expressed an opinion counter to mine based upon sources you deem credible.
That's all I did.
Your's is just an opinion, so good for you!
November 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pmTimmeh, the arguments you use to defend your demonizing language can be equally well employed to defend those who accuse Prop 8 supporters of bigotry.
Except, of course, for your defense of the term "Marxist" since you're not describing anyone's political philosophy; you're describing tactics, and you're doing it in the most stinging and demonizing way possible for your limited imagination.
And in the same way that you claim "Cowards are those that aren’t up for a real debate" (a very dodgy definition, by the way) one may make the equally valid claim that "bigots are those that aren't capable of a real debate" and thus you and those you seek to characterize are demonizing each other equally.
So your argument doesn't hold up.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:05 pmralph,
See, that's the thing about opinions. Everyone has one and everyone thinks theirs is the right one!
Then you have those that think their opinion is better! Ha.
What I bring to the table is an informed opinion. I base my opinions on many things, but myths aren't in the mix. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't make your opinion on a particular subject "valid" and mine not!
Get real, folks.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pmTim,
November 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pmIf you bother to read me more closely you will note that I did nothing of the sort. Show me the place where I did what you suggest. What I did do is challenge you to defend yourself and your expressed ideas and opinions. It is sort of a warped Socratic thing...
Presumably, you believe that the judges who upheld the right of gay Californians to marry were "legislating from the bench", right?
Please explain how this is so.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pmAnother interesting observation. I just marvel at people who express opinions based upon only ONE SIDE of an issue without considering all available information.
I'm always open to changing my opinion when new/better/more credible information and facts present themselves. I seek them out.
What I don't do is jump on the "conventional wisdom" bandwagon every time it comes up the street. Healthy skepticism is a good thing.
I bet few of you here remember the global COOLING scare do you?
November 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pmralph,
Your use of circular logic is impressive!
November 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pmTim Vaculik:
November 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pmI have two climbing the walls waiting for an adventure so I will be out for a few. I am mostly interested in hearing an clearer articulation of how you come to all of these informed nonmyth based opinions. I really mean no disrespect but it seems that you just make them up as you go along. I never see any strong supporting evidences nor consistency of thought/logic over time
dbadass,
I wasn't pointing at you in particular.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pmThe conventional wisdom is that the economy is sort of f ucked. What does Tim Vaculik think? The conventional wisdom on the street is that gay couples pose no threat to nongay couples. What does Tim Vaculik think?
November 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pmI can give you a myth on which you base your opinion just in the past five minutes: the right-wing myth of "unelected judges legislating from the bench".
Anyone who understands the law and read the decision that opened the doors for gay Californians to marry recognizes that the Court (mostly appointed by Republicans, by the way) was applying the tenets of the state Constitution to the particular situation before them, and decided that, according to that document, the right of marriage could not be legally denied gay citizens.
That is NOT legislating from the bench. It seems that "legislating from the bench" has become right-wing code for "any decision that we don't like".
Thus, your "informed opinion" displays a good deal more ignorance than you suppose.
It is a virtual certainty that, had the rights of blacks and whites to intermarry been put to a vote of the people in Virginia in 1967, the measure would have been overwhelmingly defeated. It was a decision of the US Supreme Court that struck down those laws. If you follow the logic (such as it is) that you employ to justify your criticism of the California Supreme Court in this case, you must believe that Loving V. Virginia was decided in error, no?
November 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pmYes Tim we remember... Why is it that you don't get the idea that you are not the adult in the room? Remember the WMD's?
November 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pmralph,
I read the entire opinion of the CA Supreme Court when the ruling came down and it was very enlightening.
To be fair, they didn't technically legislate from the bench, but it had the same effect. The fascinating thing is the foundation for their ruling was CA's domestic partnership law!
In effect, they ruled that since CA allows people to have the "form" of marriage, it's unconstitutional to deny them the full benefit of calling it a marriage. In other words, had CA not had the domestic partnership law, the court would not have ruled on the issue!
This should be a lesson to those in society that want to codify domestic partnership into law.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pmTim, I don't think you really understand what "circular logic" means.
It certainly doesn't mean demonstrating a logical equivalence between two competing arguments.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pmI just marvel at people who hold fast to their treasured beliefs with the tenacity of a barnacle, yet believe themselves to be the most open-minded folks around.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pmSo you have as much as admitted that you feel comfortable describing as "legislating from the bench" any decision that affects society and with which you disagree.
Thanks. It may have been inadvertent, but it was the most honesty I've seen from you in weeks.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pmI agree ralph, it is super impressive. I also really like the barnacle metaphor...
November 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pmRace is an immutable characteristic. It can't be equated to a person's sexual orientation.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pmRalph,
Well, it's pretty obvious that judges can't WRITE legislation! Any 5th grader know this.
The term "legislating from the bench" has always referred to over-reaching by the judicial branch. When judges make interpretations that clearly intrude into areas that are the purview of the legislative branch, they are in effect legislating from the bench.
Judges are human and they can't help being influenced by their own prejudices, moral beliefs, political leanings, etc. Most of them do a great job in discharging their judicial duties, but some are clearly out of bounds in their interpretations of existing law and legal precedent.
Just look at the U.S. Supreme Cour't decision that allowed the taking of private property! Thank you judge Souter!
November 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pmSo Tim Vaculik. Can we assume that you are on record as to the 100% selective choice of gender identity with no nature component? It is all "nurture" right Tim? I look foward to getting back to this when I return. I think you may have just put your foot in it...
November 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pmYou' did not answer my question, and you're distracting from the point I'm making.
You said:
The subject of marriage is a question for society. Society has the ultimate say in how it is defined. We express this through our legislative process generally, but when activist judges overstep their rightful authority, we can always amend the Constitution.
Nowhere in there did you include any caveats about "immutable characteristics". You said quite clearly, The subject of marriage is a question for society. Society has the ultimate say in how it is defined. Thus, based on this principle, a reasonable observer could conclude that it's perfectly within society's rights to define marriage as only between a man and a woman of the same race, right? Thus you clearly must believe that Loving v. Virginia was decided in error, and the US Supreme Court, while not technically "legislating from the bench" had the same effect.
(But in any case, it's good to know that if sexual orientation could be shown to be an "immutable characteristic" your consistency of principle would dictate that you would support gay marriage.)
November 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pmBut the California Supreme Court did NOT "intrude into areas that are the purview of the legislative branch". It reviewed the constitutionality of a state-wide ban on gay marriage, and found it in violation of the provisions contained in the state's constitution.
That is exactly what a Supreme Court is supposed to do. It reviews laws and determines whether they conform to the constitutional principles that were set up to guide the process. In this case the California Supreme Court decided that the statewide ban on gay marriage violated that guiding document.
Exactly as it's supposed to work. Nothing intrusive about it at all.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pmTim...bulls***. Blacks, while voting 70% in favor of Prop 8, accounted for less than 7% of the vote. The vast, vast majority of the people voting FOR PROP 8 were old white people. Blame the Mormons for their enormous disinformation campaign, not for voting. Blame them for using their $$$ to influence elections. Then, blame old white bigots voting in an idiotic system (50% + 1 person to pass an Amendment, that's f***ing ludicrous, and begs for Tyranny of the Masses) for the actual vote. Blame California for having an idiotic voting system.
This is a civil rights issue. If this ever makes it before the Supreme Court, as with anti-miscegenation, this will not hold up. Separate but equal is not equal. IF marriage weren't a secular, government institution with tremendous legal implications, this wouldn't be jack or s***. However, the MOMENT it became a part of the legal framework, it ceased to be an institution defined by individual churches or groups.
Incidentally, this infringes on the rights of specific CHURCHES, such as the Unitarians, from marrying same-sex members of their congregation. If you cannot see just how wrong-headed, stupid, backwards, and insane the argument is against gay marriage, the SAME EXACT arguments, mind you, that were used to prevent interracial marriage, I don't know what to tell you. Stop being a bigot, and let the state acknowledge these contracts equally. Let each individual church determine for themselves whether or not they wish to conduct marriages between whichever partners they desire, not what society as a whole desires. If society as a whole were allowed to decide such civil rights issues, Barack Obama's parents would never have been allowed to marry, along with the parents of millions of other people.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pmTim Vaculik said, 'You can thank all the Obama voters. Blacks and Hispanics voted in very high numbers this election. After they pulled that lever for Obama...'
Nonsense. You have to look at the age demographics to fully see what segment of the voting population made the proposition pass. It was OLDER votes who made this possible.
Nate Silver over at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com dispells this nonsense Tim was spouting.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
"But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage."
November 16th, 2008 at 1:55 pmTim Vaculik said, 'Race is an immutable characteristic. It can’t be equated to a person’s sexual orientation.'
Oh come on now. I suppose you can flip your sexual orientation at will.
This is something the right wing folks try and postulate all the time. The implication is that 'we're better because we chose not to flip our sexual orientation, while homosexuals are weak and wrong and sick because they don't'.
It's beyond stupid. Sexual identity and orientation is biologically determined.
Now religious belief and church going and bible thumping on the other hand is a CHOSEN LIFESTYLE.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pmDenied "one right"?
Can't serve openly in the military. I had to listen to all the straight people shove their sexuality in my face as they talked about who they slept with, who they've got the hots for, and the children they squeezed out. Every single day.
Talk about "in your face" sexuality. . .
If straight people had to "keep it to themsleves" as much as they want gay people to "not bring it up" the military would be a very quiet place to work!
November 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm#54 - Tim Vaculik Says:
---------------------------------------------------------
"The term “legislating from the bench” has always referred to over-reaching by the judicial branch. When judges make interpretations that clearly intrude into areas that are the purview of the legislative branch, they are in effect legislating from the bench.
Judges are human and they can’t help being influenced by their own prejudices, moral beliefs, political leanings, etc. Most of them do a great job in discharging their judicial duties, but some are clearly out of bounds in their interpretations of existing law and legal precedent."
November 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Another is the Dred Scott decision. It took a while for it to be overturned when the majority of Americans realized that the proper moral decision was to outlaw slavery and approve equal rights for all regardless of race.
Eventually, Americans will realize that banning two people from marriage is a similar type of decision and approve eual rights for all, regardless of orientation.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pmTim Vaculik Says:
As usual Timmy you just parade your ignorance. I long for the day when people as stupid as you were ashamed of their ignorance instead you are proud of it.
It’s so typical of the left and right in the Marxist playbook that the FIRST thing you do to those who disagree is DEMONIZE them and cast their legitimate argumentsin terms of hatred and “bigotry.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually it is legitimate to cast arguments against bigotry AS bigotry. I have yet to hear a single argument against gay marriage that wasnt either about reproduction which is a non sequitur or a rerun of the arguments in support of miscegentation laws.
THEN you don’t have to argue the merits! Cowards. Thye left in this countr are ALWAYS cowardly in their speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No its just that the right in this country are always such MORONS when they speak you are a perfect example. You are stupid Tim you never know what you are talking about so you spew your ignorance in our direction based on the delusional fantasies you have made up in your head and whatever your Limborg master TOLD you to think
MARRIAGE has NEVER been a “right.” It is a social institution that only society as a whole has a right to define. It is not going to be re-defined by un-elected judges in response to a bunch of activists acting on their own set of grievances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here we go again. Timmeh showing just how ignorant he is in fact marriage IS a fundamental right ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
From the Supreme Court decision Loving v Virginia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Marriage has been redefined many times. It used to be about property and a man could have as many wives as he wanted in more ancient times in other countries like Asia gay marriage happened Native Americans didnt do marriage per say but they had joining ceremonies that included gay unions. In the US marriage USED to be only between people of the same race. Bottom line here Timmeh you are a complete moron who never knows what you are talking about. You spew your hivemind programming at us like the brainwashed cell of the Limborg you are. YOU being incredibly stupid doesnt make US cowards.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:55 pmTim Vaculik<
November 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pmHow do you feel about those kooky pharmacists legislating from the work place or just looking like total d-bags?
Tim Vaculik Says:
Got news for you homosexual activists - it WASN’T the Mormon church that got Prop 8 passed in California!!!
You can thank all the Obama voters. Blacks and Hispanics voted in very high numbers this election. After they pulled that lever for Obama, they voted their CONSERVATIVE social convictions AGAINST re-defining marriage!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Got news for YOU Timmeh MORON exit polls showed that NEW VOTERS were against prop 8 by about 65% so your little fantasy doesnt really hold also it lost by about ten percentage points LESS than a similar amendment just four years ago. You will eventually lose this argument based on your bigotry and in your case BONE IGNORANCE.
So get off it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You are FAR to stupid to be telling anyone else what to do. Let me put it in terms someone of your limited intellectual skills might understand
Timmeh is moron. Timmeh not get to tell anyone what to do. Timmeh stupid, no ones boss. Timmeh can bite my bag
November 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pmTim Vaculik Says:
dbadass,
Go check the other thread…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually NO Timmeh you stupid twit. You have made statements of FACT like saying marriage ISNT a right. Of course you are flat out WRONG as you so often are but even someone as stupid as you OUGHT to know the difference between a fact and an opinion. You really arent very good at this Timmeh. Party because you are a moron and partly because you are brainwashed
November 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pmTim Vaculik Says:
The people of California have spoken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We dont vote on Rights if the PEOPLE of Mississippi could SPEAK miscegenation law would most likely still on the books.
Rights spoken of in the consitution are protected by the courts. Laws CANNOT be made that conflict with the Constitution. IF the courts say the 14th amendment applies then no initiative can over rule it. We get you are a moron and dont really EVER know what you are talking about but dont you get tired of embarassing yourself by constantly parading your ignorance around in such a public manner?
November 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Race is an immutable characteristic. It can’t be equated to a person’s sexual orientation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REALLY? Then you can PROVE that sexual orientation is NOR an immutable characterisic inherent in ones nature? Cough that proof up. Since the rightwing has been desperately looking for JUST such proof you will become a Wingnut hero. Good luck with that.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Ralph,
Well, it’s pretty obvious that judges can’t WRITE legislation! Any 5th grader know this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet you keep repeating the stupid meme that they legislate from the bench. Better get a fifth grader to explain it all to you.
The term “legislating from the bench” has always referred to over-reaching by the judicial branch. When judges make interpretations that clearly intrude into areas that are the purview of the legislative branch, they are in effect legislating from the bench.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So in other words they are interpreting the Constitutuions WHICH IS THEIR FUNCTION and when you disagree. YOU call it legislating from the bench which you already aknowleged is basically stupid. Good job. When they agree with YOU they are doing their job and when they DISAGREE with you then you just criticise them by using a meme which is ignorant. Ralph is right. You just call it legislating from the bench because YOU DISAGREE. We arent going to do away with the court system and just ask YOU what society ought to do.
Judges are human and they can’t help being influenced by their own prejudices, moral beliefs, political leanings, etc. Most of them do a great job in discharging their judicial duties, but some are clearly out of bounds in their interpretations of existing law and legal precedent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you got your degree in constitutional law WHERE again? Oh you dont have one? Imagine my suprise. You can show yourself out in disgrace. It isnt YOUR job to decide the courts are doing something WRONG just because they disagree with you.
Just look at the U.S. Supreme Cour’t decision that allowed the taking of private property! Thank you judge Souter!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A good example. I completely disagree with this ruling. Yet I didnt start demonizing the court and make up some stupid meme about legislating from the bench as if the country ought to do away with the Courts and let ME decide what the law should be. Trust me NO ONE IN THIER RIGHT MIND thinks YOU ought to be the one to make the calls either.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:26 pmRalph,
Your over-reaching at #56! I never said that.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:57 pmModeration,
Civilr rights as they are commonly defined are not subject to votes.
Therefore, if Marriage was a "civil right" it would never have been the subject of a vote by the people.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:59 pmChrisSea,
"It’s beyond stupid. Sexual identity and orientation is biologically determined."
Oh really? Care to provide some proof of that assertion?
Look, I'll keep an open mind. I am aware of recent scientific studies that seem to suggest a biological component, but the science is far, far from settled on this issue.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:01 pm