Skip to comments.Anti-Prop 8 Forces Push Tolerance-->Except For Pro-Prop 8 People
Posted on 12/04/2008 9:42:51 PM PST by Shellybenoit
Then Prop 8 argument, was settled by the voters almost three weeks ago and in that time the argument has shifted from "should there be gay marriage" to "should people/institutions be punished for their political views? Two weeks ago a theater director was forced to resign because he gave money to the pro-Prop 8 forces, then the head of the LA Film Festival has been forced to resign for the same reason. There are regular and sometimes vicious protests in front of the Mormon Church in California. The Argument has shifted. This no longer has to do with the definition of marriage and everything to do with the definition of Freedom in America.
The Anti-Prop 8 forces argue that it is all about tolerance. If they are so pro-tolerance why are they so Intolerant of those who disagree with them. Today in the world of entertainment, there is a NEW BLACKLIST. That list is anyone who goes against the Anti-Prop 8 Mafia:
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
And see what happens when the Calif. Supreme Court rules on these challenges to Prop. 8. If they overrule it, the consequences go far beyond having homosexual marriage as a policy matter. Such an action by the court would call into question the whole initiative process, and the whole set of laws in Calif. which govern the making of our laws and social policies.
The backers of Prop. 8 followed all legal procedures to get it on the ballot in the first place. The voters approved it, and that should be the end of it. Do we have the rule of law anymore, or do we just want judges to make up our law based on political correctness? To me that’s a key issue in all of this.
Are they going to boycott Sir Elton?
George Orwell explained this long ago: Some people are more equal than others.
“George Orwell explained this long ago: Some people are more equal than others”
Which is why things like Prop-8 should never pass, and anyone who supports official discrimination by the government are operating in the exact fashion that Orwell outlines in that passage.
I dunno... considering we have no leg to stand on in the constitution to oppose gay marriage, if they overturn it, it has full legal validity. This is essentially discrimination against a group. Whether we agree with their sexual tendencies or not is irrelevant. We can’t discriminate, and we can’t play the God card. The “Wall of Separation” idea prevents that. If this gets overturned, we up a creek without a paddle in terms of fighting this kind of policy.
Frankly, I don’t care either way. If they want marriage, give it to them. No skin off my back.
Do you feel that polygamous marriage should be made legal, or do you support official discrimination by the government against polygamists?
Sure we can discriminate! I can't marry my brother. I can't marry my sister. I can't marry any of my other family members. I can't marry someone who is under the legal age to get married. I can't marry someone who is already married. I can't be married to more than one person at any given time. And as a woman, I can't marry another woman. That's a whole lot of discrimination that I, and every other American, faces on the subject of marriage.
I don’t think that can be proved
The whole business of having same sex marriage by court order calls into question whether we as a society are allowed to define marriage at all.
Are we? Are we allowed to have any definition of marriage? As some here point out, if we’re going to say marriage is just any two people, then those who want polygamy or group marriage are still discriminated against.
And unlike same-sex marriage, there is a history of polygamy in our own country and in other cultures too. Our country made a specific policy decision over 100 years ago to oppose polygamy as it was openly practiced by the Mormon church of the day. And that policy still stands, at least for now. People living polygamous lives today have no legal recognition of that. But it’s only a matter of time if judges are going to make up the law.
Who makes our laws, and how law is made are being tested with homosexual marriage in court. Who makes our laws — the people, the legislatures, the courts? Do we just make up our laws based on political correctness?
Some of these protesters managed to exceed the Westboro Baptist Church in obnoxiousness- a mountainous order.
Just a peek at what we’re all in store for. A gang of homosexual protestors surround a Christian grandmother being interviewed by a TV reporter. They begin screaming so the reporter can’t broadcast, mob the grandmother, knock the Cross out of her hands, STOMP ON THE CROSS and chase the grandmother off.
The anchors in studio were horrified. Not a peep from the mainsteam media. Can you imagine the outrage if a group of Republicans did that to someone’s Obama poster?
Actually one of the anchors said at the end that there was hatred on both sides, The only side that had hatred was the anti-prop 8
But if there is one thing I’ve seen over the years, it’s that libs never follow the rules...
“Do you feel that polygamous marriage should be made legal, or do you support official discrimination by the government against polygamists?”
I dont know whether or not polygamist marriage should be made available to all Americans, as it would have to be under the broadly recognized equality provisions in the US consitution.
That is a debate that America hasnt even really begun yet, and there may never really be any interest in having it. People just dont seem that interested in polygamous marriage, outside of the mormon, muslim and risque cable tv community.
Now, I do know this; The only version of Marriage we have right now is 2-person marriage, and right now it is restricted to men and women in all but a few states.
I believe civil unions are a basic. The state must notarize the consentual and sensible financial contracts that straight and gay people enter into together. To refuse an entire creed of citizen access to legal arbitration in the courts is the essence of taxation without representation. Straight people get civil unions in every state, under commonlaw. Gays are legally barred from the same civil union commonlaw ‘assumed’ protections, in most states.
That is wrong.
So at minimum, gay civil unions must be recognized by the state.
Marriage? I have no idea, but I do know a constitutional ammendment is a desperate tactic to use a political tool to take a cultural issue off the table, and that never, ever works. If gay people being ‘out there’ bugs someone, a constitional ammendment isnt going to make them go away, it is going to do the opposite, because all Americans are raised to fight for their god given rights.
Gay americans just like any other americans wont stop until they get what they damn well pay for with their taxes, and what their forefathers fought for and built the country for, which was a home for all of us, and they’ll sue until they get it. Good for them! A constitional ammendment is an attempt to block gays from being able to even walk into a courtroom and have a legal petition be accepted, and that is totally wrong.
If the courts dont take people seriously, people take it into their own hands.
You get all this confrontation crap that is going on now by both sides.
We must keep it in the courts. You can protest outside, pray outside, advocate outside that courtroom, but as soon as you shut that down, people start doing that stuff elsewhere. We have courts to prevent that garbage.
It is okay to be hard on the issues, but we must always remember to soft on the people.
But dont ask me about the word marriage, I am not wise enough to know if the gays should get that, or what it means for churches. I do know that lesbians rent like 50 % of all Uhauls because they move in together on the 2nd date, holy crap, so they need their right to private ownership of what they earn respected. In a split, that means court arbitration.
Let’ see...been on Freeper since Dec 4-2008?
This whole argument is ridiculous.
While conservatives are ranting about the passage of Gay Marriage and gays are demanding gay marriage...the whole issue could be over with very simply.
the problem is that “civil unions’ do not cover enough of the legalities. It is NOT about religion. It is up to the churches, synagogues etc to decide if they want to “marry” gays.
The discrimination legally that “gays’ face is the SAME discrimination that “singles” face. If the “civil unions” could legalize “a legally designated significant other” for ALL singles in this country to:
a) allow for the sig other to receives soc security benefits
upon the death of the single person
2) dispense with the “married” filing of taxes
3) allow for sign others to receive pensions, life insurance, and property upon the death of the single ( without the court battle that marrieds don’t face with family members)
3) allow medical decision making
this whole issue would disappear. Our “married” statutes discriminate against single people, not gays.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.