BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
A protester sits during a protest after Prop 8 passes in the November 4th election (more photos here)
A long awaited decision announced at 10 a.m. on Prop 8 and 18,000 already-married couples proved mostly a loss for the gay community. In a 6-1 vote, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was indeed an amendment and therefore remains law, meaning gay marriage in the state is illegal. However, as expected by many, the 18,000 couples who married during the Rainbow Window last year will remain legally married (the full ruling is embedded below).
Five states, Maine, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont, have already have approved gay marriage. A draft proposition is already in the works to undue California's Prop 8 on a future election ballot.
It was just over a year ago when the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, saying the state's constitution protects the fundamental "right to marry," including gay couples. But opponents, already prepared for that ruling, had already begun a campaign to put a gay marriage ban proposition on the 2008 November Ballot to change the state's constitution. That became Proposition 8 and a long battle of advertisements and debates ensued until it was passed by voters, pulling ahead by nearly 5 points. Three challenges against Prop 8 were brought forth and in March, the Supreme Court Justices heard arguments from both sides. Today was the outcome of that hearing and the deliberations made behind closed doors.
Today, thousands of people will gather around the country today to protest the decision and on Saturday, Fresno will become ground center for those rallies.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm actually really glad that AT LEAST those 18,000 marriages are still legal. You can't retroactively make something that happened legally, illegal. Well, you could, but it would be shitty. However, now this creates a separate class of those who are legally married and those who are not and cannot be legally married (as if having a separate class of those who can marry and those who are gay wasn't enough for these folks *eyeroll*). This might lead to a future overturning of the law or rewriting of the amendment. (Some are pushing for the CA constitution to be rewritten anyway - mainly based on budgetary issues and the ballot initiative process.)
It's baloney. Same-sex marriage is illegal, except when it isn't. Makes no sense to anybody.
Uh oh! We better not accurately refer to supporters of Pop 8 as bigots, or they'll throw a massive hissy fit poopy pants tantrum and accuse us of being the TRUE bigots.
This decision is as inconsistent as it is cowardly and intellectually bankrupt. Fuck the demonstrations though, what's the plan for repealing this amendment?
This decision is as inconsistent as it is cowardly and intellectually bankrupt.
Exactly. I fail to see how writing an amendment into the constitution which promotes, nay, legalizes and institutionalizes discrimination can NOT be considered a revision when the rest of the constitution is pretty encouraging of equality.
I was thinking more about how the court, following their "logic", should have also invalidated the marriages that now could not be legally conducted. It makes no sense how they can simultaneously declare such marriages to be illegal, but that those already conducted are valid. We don't recognize SSMs performed in other states, so how does this work?
Cake; eating it too; trying to have.
Obviously though, this just underscores what a wasteful, poorly designed license to pitch insane, right wing hissy fits the CA constitution really is. In every single instance of this state being completly and totally fucked (from budgetary problems to equal marriage rights), it's the ridiculous ballot initiative process that made it happen. And in each of these instances it was a group petulant, selfish pricks (read; conservatives; Christians) who did the work.
No wait, I'm sorry, it's not fair to accurately point out that assholes act like assholes. That's the True Bigotry.
It's just too bad our Constitution seems designed to ensure that there's literally nothing that can stop assholes from ruining the state for everyone else.
"This decision is as inconsistent as it is cowardly and intellectually bankrupt."
Yep, looks like the recall blackmail worked. Strange how those who consider themselves to be morally superior to the No on Prop 8 crowd, can somehow justify blackmail as OK with their personal morals.
"rainbow window"? really?
so some people can have rights, but others can't.
how is that equal protection or equal treatment?
the california supreme court has just created a second class of second-class citizen. because THAT'S a reasonable solution. nice job.
f*ck. and i always thought the law was supposed to be legal.
this isn't surprising. but it still sucks!! :( boo CA!!!
but i only hope that everyone doesn't give up the fight. CA will have same sex marriage legal in the future. if it wasn't for prop 8, no states today would have gay marriage legal. we can't let this bring us down! t
the pro prop 8 people want us to give up. f*ck the yes on prop 8 people!! we can't go down that easy. yay for all the H8 protest happening tonight! fight the power!
Hatred is not the answer. It never will be. So fight with all your might and even if you win, you lose, because it was motivated by hatred.
Wise words forever. Perhaps you should preach them to the people on your side of this issue.
i'm not filled with hate at all forever. you're only ignorant.
Forever, do you want to compare the level of hate?
http://www.feministing.com/archives/012865.html
I haven't heard of any Yes on Prop 8 people being kidnapped, beaten, and raped. Or have I missed something?
Don't worry JRB, you will, soon enough..
Of course, mysteriously no evidence or proof for these supposed "attacks" on Prop H8 supporters will be available, and mysteriouslyer, not a single report will be made or charge filed, but the fact that you'd actually expect that claims to the existence of horrble crimes should be easily verifiable is just proof that you're a meaney, jerk intolerant jerkface grouchy sinner who doesn't repsect other people's right to not respect other people's rights.
The idea that 18,000 marriages are legal, but no future marriages are allowed is so logically dissonant that I don't know how it can stand for an extended period of time. It is absurd that our government is still in the business of denying certain citizens access to certain civil laws (which is all marriage is as far as the government is concerned).
The idea that 18,000 marriages are legal, but no future marriages are allowed is so logically dissonant that I don't know how it can stand for an extended period of time.
My point exactly. It's great for those 18,000, but soon most people will realize that this is really, really messed up and not acceptable at all.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm getting at. Does not compute, even for a second.
Oh, turns out I'm full of fail. From the US constitution:
"Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
The lack of specific language invalidating marriages performed prior to Prop H8's passage means that a somewhat convincing, though I think inconsistent, argument can be made that ruling to invalidate the marriages would be equivalent to an ex post facto law. I haven't had the chance to read the decision yet. I plan to do so later today.
Ugh. Swimming backwards against the tide.
I find it upsetting that I'm relying on heteros to allow me access to their civil rights.
This country's history has shown civil right battles end up favoring the rights of the minority. I believe this issue will end the same. Unfortunately the fight will be longer than I'd hope.
You can watch live footage of this as it unfolds on http://randomtv.com .. Gives you a different view than the big news channels.
It is a good day for California as the judges have determined that what is natural and right, the hope and promise for life, marriage between man and women, that is as ancient as the days has been upheld.
We need to be thankful not because someone or group was denied something, but that we can keep the future generations from recognizing, while everyone has a right to choose their path in life, it does not mean that those choices do not have consequences.
For those that have chosen homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, no one should condemn you, but for you to impose what is not natural or right on the balance of the population has been judged - correctly.
My hope would be that you would live in peace, accepting yourself and lifestyle - just as you want to be accepted.
"For those that have chosen homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, no one should condemn you, but for you to impose what is not natural or right on the balance of the population has been judged - correctly."
It's not a choice forever!!! You're just a delusional as the CA Supreme Court. The end.
Once science determines that homosexuality is genetic like the color of one's skin, then this debate will be put to rest. Maybe the GLBT community should make strategical adjustment and focus on the "choice" issue to prove to the majority of people that this "lifestyle choice" isn't a choice afterall.
The reason the majority of people are against this breakdown of traditional values is because the faces of the GLBT segment are the violent protesters or the depraved Hollywood-types instead of the wholesome people like my neighbors who have been together for 20+ years. At a time like this, when the minority is trying to make progress, it needs to put its best foot forward. Tolerance has already been achieved, but to gain acceptance, there has to examples of why the GLBT community deserves acceptance rather than forced-inclusion. The public outrage and outbursts of the past year have been counterproductive as it only reinforced the negative images A LOT of people have of the GLBT community. There are so many upstanding examples of the gay community, but they get lost because of the vocal minority within the minority.
"for you to impose what is not natural or right on the balance of the population has been judged - correctly"
who are YOU to say it's not natural or right? according to what/whom?? you do NOT have the right to dictate to someone else what rights they should have or not have. what is the imposition, exactly? do i have the right to say interracial marriage is not natural or right simply because i'm offended by it, personally? no. i do not. and for the record, i couldn't give two shits who wants to marry whom as long as they are two consenting adults.
i'm guessing you are religious...christian, i'm guessing? well, if i'm right, then i'd like to point out something from the bible that you seem to have forgotten..."judge not, lest ye be judged."
The bible also condemns menstrating women to exile during their period, and advocates the execution of disobedient children. And lest you think I'm focusing on the old T, the New t states repeatedly and unambiguously that all non believers will spend eternity in hell.
Point is, the bible is not, nor should it be considered, a source for anyone seeking an internally consistent or humane morality. And those who cite the Bible as their source for moral guidance should themselves be disregarded as dangerously deluded people.
Churches should have the right to marry whom they want without government interference. Likewise, governments should neutrally apply the law to all citizens without interference from religion. This is the basis of church/government separation. Both are protected from each other.
To Caleb's earlier point, however -- anti-Prop 8 folks should realize they are fighting a doomed battle. Every day, people are becoming more tolerant of alternative lifestyles. This will continue into the future, and gay marriage will inevitably become part of our culture. It's just a shame that this justice is being delayed.
I think you meant "Prop 8" folks (supporters), Josh.
Yes. You are correct!
Gay is natural, it has been observed as a minority behavior in hundreds of animals - including humans.
If being gay isn't nature, what is it? Is being gay supernatural? Everything you see is natural, not just the things you agree with.
Another lazy mind who actually thinks gays "choose" being gay.
The only reason lazy minds lean on believing that gays "choose" being gay is because they can't figure out who to blame then when they admit that gays are born gay.
Women don't choose to be women, and blacks don't choose to be blacks, so enough of this mental laziness concerning the "choice" of homosexuality.
It's probably hard for homophobes not to run to every website and gloat. It's lame. But they're on the wrong side of history; their grandchildren will likely talk about their beliefs with shame.
I am for Prop 8. To label all supporters of Prop 8 as H8ers and bigots is a broad generalization that does not apply to a large group of Prop 8 supporters. Of course, on both sides, there are H8ers and bigots, and non-H8ers and non-bigots. My reasoning for upholding Prop 8 is not driven out of any H8 and any bigotry; I love, appreciate, and support all people in their own right to worship and live how, where, or what they want.
Unfortunately, and many people forget, when one "right" or "freedom" is given, it is often at the sacrifice of other "rights" or "freedoms". Using an example of something I would never do, let me illustrate: A person's "right" to hit someone with their fist out of frustration is trumped by the other person's "right" to be safe and free from physical offense. In the case of Prop 8, one of my greatest reasons for supporting it lies in a very specific reason: in other States where the heterosexual definition of marriage is not recognized, people in executing their private businesses have been forced by the courts to act against their own conscience. For example, a private, Catholic adoption agency was shut down because it refused to adopt to same sex couples. A private photography studio was fined because they declined a customer because photographing a same-sex wedding conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Whether you or I agree with these beliefs or not, we all lose when the right to act according to our beliefs and conscience are taken away. As it was clear to me that defining marriage as equal for all and still protecting others to live their lives according to their religious beliefs was not compatible, I feel it obvious to people of good conscious that choosing to side with protecting religious freedom and freedom of conscious over broadening the definition of Marriage and allowing Marriage certificates be issued to any couple is the best course for all.
I believe the foregoing argument stands on its own, and is compelling enough to logically be the "right" choice; however, I feel compelled to add, on a personal note, due to my deep religious beliefs, I believe re-defining what was instituted by God from the beginning is the wrong thing to do, and, as with removing more important rights for less important rights will ultimately affect society in a negative way, so will ignoring the virtues and tenants of God, whether we acknowledge him as our God or not.
Thank you for the opportunity of posting my opinion.
"I believe re-defining what was instituted by God from the beginning is the wrong thing to do..."
So who's interpretation do we go by DJ? Is your interpretation of god's words the only one that counts? I've met gay and lesbian couples who are Christians. Would Jesus deny a same sex couple who loved each other the right to marry?
JRB,
As I said, what rights are lost and what rights are gained need to be weighed. I believe people of good conscious choose the path where the most beneficial rights are preserved. In my opinion, the loss of freedom of worship would have a much more negative impact to society as a whole than the loss of having a valid Marriage certificate would be.
What would Christ do? Deny the right to practice the very religion he taught so that others could have a marriage license?
I have to disagree with you and say that the bible, (yes even the Christian one), is quite open to interpretation.
You co a google on gay friendly churches and you will find 686 in California that are gay friendly and would preform a gay or lesbian marriage ceremony. So the question is not, will YOUR church be forced to preform a gay or lesbian marriage, the question is whether a same sex marriage preformed at a gay friendly church would be recognized in the state of California.
So whose religious freedoms are being compromised?
JRB,
My point was that all religious freedoms are at risk - not just the ones that some may view as less popular or common or not currently mainstream. Just because only a subset of beliefs are under attack now and others seem safe, who knows what the mainstream will target tomorrow - and if we attack and limit the freedoms of any religious subsets now, tomorrow, the fight will be harder for the next.
This is not an either/or proposition. Despite widespread belief, churches would not be FORCED to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or any other such nonsense, if they are a denomination that demonizes homosexuals (which most do, but not all).
msmerymac,
I never said religions would be forced to perform same-sex marriages. However, this is not the only way people practice their religion. I have given two examples above of where religious beliefs were denied practice in peoples' private lives and there are many, many more examples of this happening where the traditional definition of marriage is not upheld (you are free to do your own research on this as I have done). Learning from history, we know that, using a traditional metaphor, once the camel gets his nose in the tent, the camel will eventually work its way completely into the tent. If we compromise at this level religious freedom, no one can say how many more freedoms will be compromised tomorrow, but history has shown it rarely improves without a great event for change, and it most often degrades and worsens over time.
I have given two examples above of where religious beliefs were denied practice in peoples' private lives and there are many, many more examples of this happening where the traditional definition of marriage is not upheld (you are free to do your own research on this as I have done).
Organizations and businesses that must submit to legal requirements... must submit to legal requirements. Gays are not a protected class in every state, but in states where they are, it is already illegal to discriminate against them. For example, if that photography company wanted to hire another employee, they would not be allowed to discriminate against a qualified candidate for being gay. Legalized gay marriage doesn't change that. If they simply didn't want to photograph a gay wedding and said as much, then they are just stupid. Unfortunately, like being denied employment, it's not always easy to tell WHY someone is refused. Telling the gay couple, "sorry, we are booked that weekend" would have absolved them of their "requirement" to work a ceremony which they didn't want.
First of all, Love your usage of Holmes' hypothetical, DJ, but you failed to actually provide a single fucking example of a right that will be taken away from you if the right to marry is extended to other people.
Second of all, love your lies and misrepresentaions and all, but that HORRIBLE Catholic closure, turns out things happened the precise opposite of what you claim:
“In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.” - Boston Globe, March 11, 2006.
Golly! Why one might even think you, gasp!, deliberately misrepresented this situation to make a point! But even so, it's immaterial. We are not a theocracy, and everyone has to obey the law. Just because you claim your business is imbued with magical powers thanks to your worship of a bronze age cult god doesn't mean it's true. We all put our pants on one leg at a time and we're all subject to the law.
Speaking of, that wedding photographer? They were a private business, not a ministry, not a church, a private business like Wal Mart and Target. Subject to the same laws every other private business is subject too.
Hate to break it to you, but just because you're a whiny little baby doesn't mean your position is actually reasonable. The law is the law, as we've been forced to accept with today's ruling.
But your blatant misrepresentaions and whiny crybabying aside, just how are you losing a right if people get to marry? How? Name one goddamned example. Just one.
Difficuly: you are not allowed to lie, or act like a whiny little baby.
Ross,
I think I missed your point on the adoption agency - what you quote supports exactly what I said, it was shut down because the State did not allow them to practice their religion.
I also miss your point regarding businesses. As I said, I don't think the law should force a private business to go against their conscience. After all, a business is just another name for individual people with rights and conscience.
I know what you think you said about the law. And I agree. That's why I believe that people opposed to interracial dating should be allowed to refuse service to interracial couples. After all, those couples just chose to be together, right? And it's why I also believe that business owners who believe Islam is evil should be allowed to refuse service to muslims. After all, you can choose to be Muslim, right? and it's why an atheist photographer who believes Chritianity is wrong should be allowed to refuse service to Christians. After all, it's just a choice.
Glad to know!
As for the Adoption agency: here's a hint - they didn't get shut down. They closed, voluntarily, rather than comply with the law. Which was their right to do. No one forced them to close their doors. So no oppression actually happened.
And you failed to provide an example of how you will lose rights if gay people can marry. Care to try again?
Ross,
Let me be even more clear regarding the shutting down of the adoption agency:
1) The courts ruled the agency needed to comply by adopting to same-sex couples.
2) This position is against the Archbishop's religious beliefs and the general mission of the Catholic agency.
3) If the agency had refused to comply with the law based on religious beliefs, the State would shut them down.
4) The State put the agency in a two choice position: a) deny their religion and comply (which all know is not an option as it would then cease to be a Catholic agency), or b) close down, either by the State forcing them for non-compliance, or by doing so "voluntarily".
5) Either way - the *cause* of the closing of the agency was the State's law.
This logic is a very simple application of cause-and-effect. Hope that helps.
This, to me, is a very clear example of losing of religious rights, as is the example of the photography studio, and, as I have pointed out earlier, there are many, many other examples of this same trend. If you still fail to see how this is the loss of rights, I would re-evaluate whether you are applying objectivity to your examination of the facts.
For the last goddamned time you obstinent, mendacious prick: Give us one, just one example of how you personally are going to be deprived of a right once the right to marriage is restored to same sex couples. Just 1. That's all I ask. One.
"A person's "right" to hit someone with their fist out of frustration is trumped by the other person's "right" to be safe and free from physical offense."
Here you are equating gay marriage to an act of physical violence.
"For example, a private, Catholic adoption agency was shut down because it refused to adopt to same sex couples. Whether you or I agree with these beliefs or not, we all lose when the right to act according to our beliefs and conscience are taken away."
Catholic adoption agencies receive public funding. Are you suggesting that all Americans should be required to support religious bigotry? Bigotry is Bigotry whether or not its religious - and this is obvious bigotry. I will protect the rights of those who have opposing views as mine - but it these views can't be funded by government grants. The Boy Scouts also get public funding, but have denied and kicked out non-religious members for only that reason. If it was in fact a totally privately funded organization, that would be fine - it isn't - so its not.
"I feel it obvious to people of good conscious that choosing to side with protecting religious freedom and freedom of conscious"
Did I miss something? No one is forcing religious people to be gay, no one is forcing them to change their views on gay people. The Adoption clinic was funded publicly, and was breaking the law. Are you saying that religious groups should be above the law?
Also "good conscience" is subjective, and this whole statement is a sweeping generalization. You are accusing anyone who supports gay marriage of being without "good conscience". Now, lets remember your opening statement:
"I am for Prop 8. To label all supporters of Prop 8 as H8ers and bigots is a broad generalization that does not apply to a large group of Prop 8 supporters."
This, my friend, is hypocrisy. Onward..
"I believe re-defining what was instituted by God from the beginning is the wrong thing to do, and, as with removing more important rights for less important rights will ultimately affect society in a negative way, so will ignoring the virtues and tenants of God, whether we acknowledge him as our God or not."
So you have a set of beliefs, and you think that everyone should have the same beliefs as you? This is precisely why the constitution exists, to protect the rights of minorities who would be run over by a majority at every vote. Imagine if your christian religion was a measly 5% of the population, and someone decided "you know, in the great book of pasta the flying spaghetti monster never deemed marriage between Christian's to be okay, so lets make it illegal". It would be ridiculous, and preposterous - and this is exactly what you are condoning right now.
You are using your majority to Bully the little guy, and Jesus would be proud.
NaturelsGay,
More accurately, I was equating all rights to the dichotomy of violence and protection from violence; there was no disparaging of the right for same-sex marriages or any other right for that matter.
Regarding your comments on public funding, let me point out that if public funding were only supplied to purposes on the grounds that the funding would only be applied to purposes that were completely in accord with the views of those that provided the funding, then there would never be any funding for any purpose. Yours and my taxes are being applied all the time to areas we disagree with. It was never implied nor ever guaranteed that our taxes would not be spent in this way.
Secondly, you are implying that when the Government sends funding to an entity, the entity is obliged to only act in accord with the views of the Government (which, in itself, is an impossible task because "Government views" are never consistent). This position is very disconcerting at best, is highly socialistic, and is most certainly contrary to the spirit of much of the founding American ideals. Taking your own logic, public funds are just that, in support of the public - and the public is free to disagree with you and me, and we should not be biased against them using public funds, to which they also contribute, for whatever they deem within their rights to do. You are not forced to contribute your privately owned funds for their practice, but for you to attempt to dictate what they will do with public pool funds just because it is your opinion it is not the presiding public opinion is a blatant attack on the exercise of freedom.
Regarding my broad statement of good conscience, I was and still hold that when people objectively weigh the loss of religious freedom vs. the right of same-sex couples to hold a marriage certificate (and this is *all* the Prop 8 amendment denies - it does not deny any other rights already afforded same-sex couples under the CA constitution - which is basically as broad as heterosexual couples already), that "good conscience", which all may tap into and exercise, would clearly dictate that it is more important to preserve religious freedom than hold a piece of paper. I was not implying that those that were against Prop 8 did not have a good conscience, rather, it was a plea and request that they tap into their good conscience and stand back and be objective.
As an example, if someone decides to burn money instead of wood for warmth, I feel comfortable generally saying that that person was not applying "good sense". Now, the *reasons* why they were not applying "good sense" may be diverse and varied - it could be depression, revenge of some sort, a lack of appreciation for things of value, etc. - however, the sum-total is the action does not indicate a common "good sense".
Accusations that *all* Prop 8 supporters are motivated by H8 is so clearly contrary to "common sense" - that the very fact that people buy into that explanation makes reason stare and most certainly does not exercise "good conscience" or "good sense". I hope this illustrates the difference.
Finally, I do have a set of beliefs, and I was not implying that everyone should accept them as their religion. My statement was more a statement of law or truth. For example, the discipline of Astronomy would not have progressed much if the world had not ultimately accepted Copernicus' principles of heliocentric cosmology. It was actually quite an unpopular position when it was first introduced at large, and the people were free to disagree. But, no matter how many or for how long they disagreed with these principles, they could not change the fact that the Sun was indeed the center of our Solar System. Once they accepted this at large, they were benefited and could progress further in Astronomical principles and discover new truths... until then, basically, their progress was stalled or even reversed. This was my point - whether you accept Christ's teachings and principles or not, they are truth and law, and following them will benefit society and denying them will only stall or even hurt society at large. (By the way - most of these same principles are not unique to Christianity, and I am not implying Christ uniquely taught them.) History has shown this countless of times... when society is principled upon these "truths", whatever the religious beliefs or lack thereof, society generally prospers. Is this not the pure purpose of true government and government law, to prosper society?
I was and still hold that when people objectively weigh the loss of religious freedom vs. the right of same-sex couples to hold a marriage certificate, that "good conscience", which all may tap into and exercise, would clearly dictate that it is more important to preserve religious freedom than hold a piece of paper.
And I suppose this is where you and I (and you and many others here) differ. I believe the freedom of a couple to have their relationship and family unit recognized by their government is MORE important. Of course, I'm not sure I believe in God, but if I did, the God I would believe in wouldn't hate or condemn anyone He made, especially if one believes man was made in God's image. So I have an inherent problem with churches who spew hate against homosexuals (and some do - some might claim they "hate the sin, love the sinner" but be honest - some HATE gays).
If an organization within a state or country chooses not to comply with that country's law - whether the organization is religious or not - then we have a problem. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow, and if you do, you must be prepared for the consequences (as MLK was). The Catholic adoption agency you mentioned had a third choice - to refuse public funding and continue on its merry little way.
msmerymac,
Thank you for acknowledging that not all religions who do not support same-sex marriages H8 gays. I belong to one to one that does not and I work with and gladly associate with them. I respect and love and appreciate people of all opinions, walks, and even sexual orientation.
We can agree to disagree on your first point. I appreciate your points and will continue to contemplate them. Thank you.
On your second point about option 3 for the adoption agency - legally, after consulting 3 different lawyers during my research of Prop 8, you are incorrect. I am not a lawyer, but, in general, refusing public funding would not let companies and agencies such as these continue on their merry way, as you say, though, in this specific circumstance, I cannot say as I do not know enough of those types of details. As the counter example to your option 3, the Photography studio was not receiving any private funding, and they were not allowed to continue on their merry way.
As a side note, your suggestion that the Photography studio lie to avoid the consequences of the law is flabbergasting. And your assessment that they are stupid for admitting their religious beliefs is just amazing - in essence, you are advocating that it is perfectly proper and we should just accept that we live in a society where many should hide their beliefs from society at large. I am stunned.
Finally, your assertion that the adoption agency should just lie down and accept the law as being just and proper and that they should be expected to just comply with it seems hypocritical as those against Prop 8 are refuting that the law and constitution are unjust as they stand in CA. If those against Prop 8 have a right to refute the law, so does an adoption agency or a photography studio. As you pointed out, in the end, they suffered the consequences of what I deem to be an unjust law.
What does a rape in Richmond have to do with Prop 8?
The police report didn't mention anything about the suspects carrying the Book of Mormon.
They did however mention the suspects were all Black and Hispanic.
Honestly...I wish you folks would stick to the facts and stop being so goddamned hysterical all the time.
In a word, YOU'RE NOT HELPING.
I think he means that unlike gays and Lesbians, supporters of prop H8 aren't actually the victims of "hate". They're just a bunch of whiny little crybabies prone to exagerration and projection.
In other words, they're using the same tactics as you.
Tit for tat.
Bore, bore, bore.
Hang on now, while I freely practice ad hominem attacks and resort to hyperbole, I never, EVER project. EVAR!
Or put more simply: I hate oppression. I hate oppressors. That doesn't make me a bigot against oppressors.
You did read the article?
Also note the date that this occured?
The article mentions that the perpetrators were throwing around slurs and degrading her for her sexual orientation. Think she may have had a bumpersrticker of some sort on the car she was getting out of? Think maybe all the activisim that was going on at the time may have had some influence on what these sociopaths' evening activities were going to be?
An increase in violence against gay and lesbian people since the start of this campaign to strip them of their rights isn't exactly a straw man and this is not exactly rocket science TUA.