COMMENTS: 69
The California Supreme Court Upheld Prop. 8, So Now What Do We Do?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Drugs headlines via email.
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold Proposition 8, thereby banning same-sex marriage in the state. The decision was expected, but still incredibly disappointing to the many citizens across the country in favor of equality and human rights.
The ruling did come with a thin silver lining though: The court voted unanimously to continue to recognize the marriages of roughly 18,000 couples who wed before the voter-passed constitutional amendment went into effect.
There is hope in those 18,000 same-sex marriages -- hope that they will serve as the cornerstone for a more equal California in years soon to come. With the number of states who recognize same-sex marriages doubling since November 2008, the writing is on the wall: basic human rights will overcome hate.
That is why it is more important today than ever before to join the fight to repeal Prop. 8. In a press release yesterday, San Francisco Mayor and gubernatorial-hopeful Gavin Newsom wrote:
It is up to every single one of us who supports marriage equality to reach out to those who still disagree with our position and have a personal conversation about why it is so important to treat every Californian equally.
We must change the hearts and minds of those who stand against marriage equality. That is why we are asking you to join the Courage Campaign’s latest action and be fearless in response to the upholding of Prop. 8.
The Courage Campaign states, "We don’t have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California. It’s time to go on offense. To be fearless in our fight for equality. Starting right now." Join the Courage Campaign and support its efforts to reach out to those who stand in the way of equality (if you would like to make a donation to the Courage Campaign, click here).
Also, if you live in California, or plan on being here this weekend, you can sign up to "Meet in the Middle for Equality." This Saturday, May 30, at 1p.m., the Courage Campaign and more than 70 other organizations are joining forces in Fresno, Calif. The day will center around outreach, as "California's Central Valley population is far more reflective of national attitudes towards LGBT equality -- and until we engage the communities of Middle America, we will not achieve full equality in California." Click here to learn more.
II -- Don't Drink Hate: Learn the Truth About Michael Savage and ROCKSTAR!
Everyone knows Michael Savage, the belligerent, conservative shock jock who (despite losing his television job at MSNBC after only four months for telling a caller "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig") is the third-most-popular radio talk show host in America, surpassed only by such luminaries as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But did you know Michael Savage's family is heavily invested in the popular energy drink ROCKSTAR? Savage's wife, Janet Weiner, is ROACKSTAR's CFO, son Russell G. Weiner is CEO and daughter Rebecca Lin (Weiner) Yops is the director of communications? Given the family behind it, does ROCKSTAR sound like the kind of product you want to support? We didn't think so. Click here to learn more.
Lawyers from ROCKSTAR have written AlterNet threatening to sue us because they claim that Michael Savage (aka Weiner) is not a "co-founder” of the ROCKSTAR drink co., as was described in our item, but rather his son, Russell Weiner, is the CEO and principle shareholder, and that Savage has never been an officer, director, employee or shareholder, of the company. AlterNet does not have any specific knowledge of family discussions, meetings, etc. that led to the formation of the company to be able to prove that he was a "co-founder."
Stay up to date with the latest Drugs headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spacemarine83 on May 27, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't like the laws? Move!
I could not live in California (my family is from Merced) because I do not believe in the absurd gun laws of California. So, I left.
Do the same, preserve your rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's a stupid attitude.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: Jkid4x
» No, idiot, we live in a democracy
Posted by: rickiey
» Thanks for moving
Posted by: sirios
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: Crazy H
» What are you? One of those bible and guns people?
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: DHopper
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: Libsrule
» quitters never win
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on May 27, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: These millions of WELFARE BUMS will DISPERSE
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeuropean2000 on May 27, 2009 2:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: billslm
» Of course...
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Erin
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: gjdagis
» RE: WTF? - to gjdagis (1)
Posted by: MelStL
» RE: WTF? - to gjdagis (2)
Posted by: MelStL
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: clvngodess
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Christian Southern Liberal on May 27, 2009 3:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Judges and Rights
Posted by: Jkid4x
» RE: THE ELITES SELL OUT GAY PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PARTY AFFLIATION
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Daito on May 27, 2009 5:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You can go home and bake something
Posted by: cmaciain
» Get real. She's a puppet.
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: You can go home and bake something
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: LOTS OF GAY PEOPLE WERE "BAKED" IN HITLER'S OVENS --NOT FUNNY!
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wagner on May 27, 2009 5:42 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: Phly
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: sureshot45
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: lyta
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: sureshot45
Comments are closed-
Posted by: braceforimpact.org on May 27, 2009 6:12 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOD CREATED DIVORCE FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN is one of 10 available stickers. Let's stick it to 'em!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: willymack
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: Libsrule
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on May 27, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Californians are to blame for the state of their state since they too often participate in that great miasmatic, quagmire of democratic demagoguery and political quackery, initiative and referendum.
One living in a more intelligent part of the country wonders how many heterosexual, serial monogamist Christians voted in favor of Prop 8 to prevent queers from the joys of divorce court? Then again, how many of California's minority citizens, victims of past and on-going racial discrimination, voted for Prop 8 because homosexuality is taboo in "their" community (RuPaul, ain't gay, he just dresses that way!)
Oh, well, California's going to be broke, thanks in large measure to another resent referendum vote, any day now so why should the rest of us care. If the rest of us are lucky, the big San Andreas earthquake will hit soon and Stupidity-On-the-Sea will drop into the Pacific.
As a wag has noted elsewhere on this site: "California: Some day we will catch up to Iowa."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GIVE CALIFORNIA BACK TO MEXICO --NOW!
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quist on May 27, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After having a long and thought-provoking discussion about same-sex (gay) marriage with a gay friend of mine, we both started to question if legal marriage (legal unions) itself is a form of discrimination and/or if marriage should be a legal right to begin with. Think about this for a moment, if someone is single or in a legally unrecognized relationship (which more and more couples and parents are in), they are not given the same legal rights and financial benefits as a married couple, so how is this not some form of discrimination toward people who are somehow unable to marry or choose not to be married?
Ultimately, the legal institution of marriage itself should be under scrutiny, as far as equal rights and discrimination are concerned. Marriage itself is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So, is legal marriage itself a constitutional right, as others have asked? Let me restate, is legal marriage itself a constitutional right for anyone - gay, straight, black, white, purple, and so on? I do not think so.
Why do married individuals receive certain rights and benefits that their unmarried counterparts do not receive in this day and age?
What makes married individuals special or important enough in our present society to receive special rights and benefits that others do not receive?
Do marriage rights and privileges truly benefit the whole of society in this day and age, especially when we take into account divorce rates, the amount of single and divorced parents, and the amount of couples that have remarried?
Is the state(s) over-stepping their authority by giving special rights* and rights not afforded by the constitution to individuals who are married?
* special rights : "laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups"
I think it is important to look at all the angles. This angle is not a question about gay marriage though, but about marriage itself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way???
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way???
Posted by: GEM-592
Comments are closed-
Posted by: revhaffner on May 27, 2009 8:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Up to the Supreme Court
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Sonia is a RACIST --AND she don't like those NO GOOD WHITE PEOPLE
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on May 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Start with Proposition 9, to outlaw marriage between Mormons. Wait a couple generations, then try again. If necessary, repeat with the Baptists or some other rabidly homophobic group.
Problem solved - along with several others.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on May 27, 2009 9:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've asked this question over & over again. I have yet to get an answer.
Two gay people get married:
HOW DOES THAT HURT YOU?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How? Are? YOU? Hurt? = It's that GOD thing!
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
» Love them ones
Posted by: Crazy H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer on May 27, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BulldogRedemer
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: As long as we're on the subject, Bull...
Posted by: Crazy H
» The last time we adhered to "the will of the people"...
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on May 27, 2009 10:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: counterpoint on May 27, 2009 2:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where do all of them stand on the subject of same sex marriage?
Do they celebrate it, condemn it, or remain neutral?
All of the above.
Even churches worshipping the same Prophet or Holy Book are all over the map.
There is no consensus what so ever, and never was.
In a sermon on belief, Peter Morales, my Unitarian Universalist minister (who may soon become the UU Association's next president), recently preached how within Christianity the same teaching was deemed 'eternal truth' in one century but deadly heresy in another.
Because religious "truths" are volatile and individualistic, we must not allow that some arbitrary theology dictates the law of the land.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lorenbliss on May 27, 2009 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thus 55 years later the U.S. is already a de facto theocracy, a condition that cannot be ameliorated by any democratic process simply because the minds of theocrats (whether Bible-pounder, Qu'ran-brandisher or Talmud-thumper) are forever sealed by the impenetrable cement of fundamentalism and the inviolable code of fundamentalist savagery. Hence Proposition 8.
Hence too the true significance -- tragically ignored -- of the California Supreme Court ruling: that constitutional rights can be overturned by majority vote. When the California decision is upheld at the federal level by the Bush Court, as it surely will be (not the least because it fulfills a long-sought ruling-class goal), it will have nullified the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and thereby removed the final obstacle in the way of national electoral imposition of fully declared theocracy: the “Christian Nation” already implicit in the revised "Pledge of Allegiance" -- a nation in which the electorate could even vote to re-legalize slavery. The Proposition 8 decision is literally the death-knell of U.S. liberty -- no doubt the reason its meaning is so thoroughly censored.
As I said yesterday, public support for Proposition 8 reveals the magnitude of the theocratic threat. The Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church joined forces to organize the California initiative to outlaw gay marriage, invoking the biblical principle that homosexuality is a mortal sin and that a homosexual is therefore an “abomination” -- an affront to the ever-vengeful god of Abraham: that is, the deity of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Christian effort garnered a decisive majority vote -- 52 percent -- with polls indicating that actual public support ran as high as 57 percent.
Meanwhile truthful analysts -- those who point out the California results were predictable given earlier findings that 63 percent of the U.S. population believes the Bible is the infallible word of god -- are methodically silenced by Big Business Media. Never mind that additional data -- the breathtaking misogyny evident in popular opposition to reproductive choice (51 percent); the hatred of science proven by wholesale rejection of evolution (60 percent); the implacable hostility to gays evidenced by three-fourths of the African-American population and two-thirds of the Hispanic population -- portrays a Christian population already so willfully ignorant and bigoted, its only present-day doctrinal counterparts are products of the harshest Islamic despotisms.
Why is this happening? Because theocracy with its vicious sexual oppression and omnipresent death-squad paranoia is deemed essential to maximize profits: the example of the U.S. South long ago proved a workforce so terrorized is the most profitable workforce on earth. And as Obama is teaching us by his wholesale betrayal of campaign promises, the propagation of capitalism -- absolute protection of the ruling class, total subjugation of all the rest of us -- is the sole purpose of government and governance at all levels of the United States.
Therefore forget squandering money in definitively futile attempts to change the minds of theocratic bigots. The only sensible response is for those of us on the Christian list of “heretics and abominations” is to follow the example set by the Jews in the early years of Hitler’s Third Reich: leave the country while we still can, before the Christian hate list becomes the U.S. death list
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: TELEVANGELIST STEAL MORE THAN ANYBODY -TAXFREE!
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 28, 2009 2:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other people are free to do what works for them as long as they don't commit felony crimes of violence against others and that includes GAYBASHING!
I have a pistol for my own DEFENSE and it is kept LOCKED UP in my home!
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE PSEUDO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TRYING TO DIVERT FROM THE MAIN EVENTS WITH LOUD AND NOISY SIDESHOWS ABOUT ABORTION AND GAYS.
Because I THINK THAT WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR PRIVATE LIFE IS THEIR OWNED DAMNED BUSINESS!
A woman's choice to have a kid should be between HER and HER PHYSICIAN and NOBODY ELSE!
IT IS A MEDICAL DECISION. PERIOD. ALL OF YOU IGNORANT,LOUDMOUTH RELIGIOUS FANATICS, BUTT OUR!
WE NEED FEWER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD --NOT MORE!
If GAY PEOPLE want to MARRY -- IT SHOULD BE NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS but THEIRS...It should be a joyful occasion for them and their invited guests.
It's NONE of my business and it is NO MONEY out of my pocket and they have done nothing to harm me.
NOT LIKE THE POLITICAL OPERATIVES WHO THREATEN PEOPLE WITH ABORTION, GUN CONTROL,GAY MARRIAGE AND TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY FROM THE OLD PEOPLE!
This is done to divert attention from their STEALING and LYING --- to whip the sheeple to a frenzy so that the crooks in public office can hide their dirty dealings behind this HUGE SMOKESCREEN of NON-ISSUES I have named here.
I AM SORRY THAT PROPOSITION 8 WAS UPHELD.
I also think if I was a gay or a lesbian person, I would LEAVE California and go somewhere I was allowed to marry...
And as many gay and lesbians who are involved in the film and allied industries, the California economy would COLLAPSE!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THE OCTOMOM --- they want it all and they want it now and they can have it.
Do you think that Mexico would take California back? Please?????
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on May 28, 2009 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has AlterNet given up on the subject? I see Andrew Sullivan is posting almost every day on pot. Why not AlterNet?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJColatrella on May 28, 2009 10:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: L5 on May 28, 2009 4:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The decision that occurred here has left the door wide open to advance the case to the U.S. Supreme court based on the fact that those 18,000+ marriages that were left untouched by this decision are the basis to bring a much more strengthened and clearly viable discrimination challenge before the national supreme court, based on the fact that one group of gay people retains the right to their marriage status while the remainder of that group that has been denied the same status.
In this instance, the discrimination that has occurred as a result of the initiative process can't be more clearly and obviously defined.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grailsnail on May 31, 2009 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many Christians know that Jesus equated second (and third, and fourth) marriages with adultery?
2 Mark 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
How many Christians are walking around, thinking they're married in the eyes of the Lord, unaware that they are defiling the sanctity of marriage? They may not be defying the sanctity of marriage laws, but this does call into question how consistent the "traditional values" camp is when it comes to doing what God said is right. Who knew how many shameless adulterers and adulteresses belonged to the churches currently demanding that gays get their dirty little feet off the traditional marriage carpet? I'm shocked, personally.
So, tireless gay warriors: Time to do your Bible research, make up some outraged signs, and stomp on over to your nearest conservative church demanding to know how many adulterous marriages are recognized there, and why. Demand that laws be passed banning second and later marriages on the same grounds used to demand a ban on gay marriage. Take the stand that if your relationship can't have the seal of human government approval because of traditional, religious dogma, neither should theirs. They get the tax advantages that come with married-filing-jointly status. Gays do not. And God isn't on their side, if they aren't on their first marriage!
Either a lot of Christians will leave the church in disgust as their pastors are forced to admit what Jesus said about divorce, or a lot of gay couples will get their wish, when those Christians are forced to think about how literally they want to take traditional wisdom on marriage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GTRrocker on Jun 16, 2009 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: menokia on Jun 25, 2009 8:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
نوكيا الشرق الاوسط
دليل المواقع
العاب فلاشيه
دردشة
طب الاعشاب
Site Map
احدث اجهزة نوكيا
برامج نوكيا
برامج نوكيا الجيل الثالث
برامج الجوال العربية
برامج نوكيا الجيل الخامس
شاشات التوقف - خطوط الجوال
تعريب البرامج , كسر البرامج
العاب جوال
العاب نوكيا الجيل الثالث
العاب الانجيج الجيل الثالث
العاب نوكيا الجيل الخامس
ثيمات الجوال
ثيمات نوكيا الجيل الثالث
ثيمات نوكيا الجيل الخامس
مسجات
فديو
اناشيد
نغمات, تحميل نغمات
اي فون
سوني اريكسون
برامج كمبيوتر
برامج الحماية و الصيانة
برامج المالتيميديا, برامج الصوتيات, برامج الفيديو
شرح استخدام البرامج
العاب الكترونية, العاب الكمبيوتر, العاب بلاي ستيشن
افلام سينما
تحميل افلام عربية
تحميل افلام اجنبية
منتدى السيارات
صور
نكات, صرقعه
اعشاب طبية
عالم حواء
الديكور و الأثاث المنزلي - The Design and Decor Section
تحديث سوفت وير نوكيا
خيمة رمضان
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spacemarine83 on May 27, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't like the laws? Move!
I could not live in California (my family is from Merced) because I do not believe in the absurd gun laws of California. So, I left.
Do the same, preserve your rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's a stupid attitude.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: Jkid4x
» No, idiot, we live in a democracy
Posted by: rickiey
» Thanks for moving
Posted by: sirios
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: Crazy H
» What are you? One of those bible and guns people?
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: DHopper
» RE: The people voted. Get over it. Move on, move out...
Posted by: Libsrule
» quitters never win
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: and_abottleofrum on May 27, 2009 1:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: These millions of WELFARE BUMS will DISPERSE
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeuropean2000 on May 27, 2009 2:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: billslm
» Of course...
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Erin
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: gjdagis
» RE: WTF? - to gjdagis (1)
Posted by: MelStL
» RE: WTF? - to gjdagis (2)
Posted by: MelStL
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: clvngodess
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Christian Southern Liberal on May 27, 2009 3:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Judges and Rights
Posted by: Jkid4x
» RE: THE ELITES SELL OUT GAY PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PARTY AFFLIATION
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Daito on May 27, 2009 5:25 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: You can go home and bake something
Posted by: cmaciain
» Get real. She's a puppet.
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: You can go home and bake something
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: LOTS OF GAY PEOPLE WERE "BAKED" IN HITLER'S OVENS --NOT FUNNY!
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wagner on May 27, 2009 5:42 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: Phly
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: sureshot45
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: lyta
» RE: Do not re-write Webster's Dictionary
Posted by: sureshot45
Comments are closed-
Posted by: braceforimpact.org on May 27, 2009 6:12 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOD CREATED DIVORCE FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN is one of 10 available stickers. Let's stick it to 'em!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: willymack
» RE: braceforimpact.org
Posted by: Libsrule
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on May 27, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Californians are to blame for the state of their state since they too often participate in that great miasmatic, quagmire of democratic demagoguery and political quackery, initiative and referendum.
One living in a more intelligent part of the country wonders how many heterosexual, serial monogamist Christians voted in favor of Prop 8 to prevent queers from the joys of divorce court? Then again, how many of California's minority citizens, victims of past and on-going racial discrimination, voted for Prop 8 because homosexuality is taboo in "their" community (RuPaul, ain't gay, he just dresses that way!)
Oh, well, California's going to be broke, thanks in large measure to another resent referendum vote, any day now so why should the rest of us care. If the rest of us are lucky, the big San Andreas earthquake will hit soon and Stupidity-On-the-Sea will drop into the Pacific.
As a wag has noted elsewhere on this site: "California: Some day we will catch up to Iowa."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: GIVE CALIFORNIA BACK TO MEXICO --NOW!
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quist on May 27, 2009 7:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After having a long and thought-provoking discussion about same-sex (gay) marriage with a gay friend of mine, we both started to question if legal marriage (legal unions) itself is a form of discrimination and/or if marriage should be a legal right to begin with. Think about this for a moment, if someone is single or in a legally unrecognized relationship (which more and more couples and parents are in), they are not given the same legal rights and financial benefits as a married couple, so how is this not some form of discrimination toward people who are somehow unable to marry or choose not to be married?
Ultimately, the legal institution of marriage itself should be under scrutiny, as far as equal rights and discrimination are concerned. Marriage itself is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So, is legal marriage itself a constitutional right, as others have asked? Let me restate, is legal marriage itself a constitutional right for anyone - gay, straight, black, white, purple, and so on? I do not think so.
Why do married individuals receive certain rights and benefits that their unmarried counterparts do not receive in this day and age?
What makes married individuals special or important enough in our present society to receive special rights and benefits that others do not receive?
Do marriage rights and privileges truly benefit the whole of society in this day and age, especially when we take into account divorce rates, the amount of single and divorced parents, and the amount of couples that have remarried?
Is the state(s) over-stepping their authority by giving special rights* and rights not afforded by the constitution to individuals who are married?
* special rights : "laws granting rights to one or more groups which are not extended to other groups"
I think it is important to look at all the angles. This angle is not a question about gay marriage though, but about marriage itself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way???
Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way???
Posted by: GEM-592
Comments are closed-
Posted by: revhaffner on May 27, 2009 8:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Up to the Supreme Court
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Sonia is a RACIST --AND she don't like those NO GOOD WHITE PEOPLE
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on May 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Start with Proposition 9, to outlaw marriage between Mormons. Wait a couple generations, then try again. If necessary, repeat with the Baptists or some other rabidly homophobic group.
Problem solved - along with several others.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on May 27, 2009 9:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've asked this question over & over again. I have yet to get an answer.
Two gay people get married:
HOW DOES THAT HURT YOU?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How? Are? YOU? Hurt? = It's that GOD thing!
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
» Love them ones
Posted by: Crazy H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer on May 27, 2009 10:00 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: BulldogRedemer
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: As long as we're on the subject, Bull...
Posted by: Crazy H
» The last time we adhered to "the will of the people"...
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on May 27, 2009 10:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: counterpoint on May 27, 2009 2:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where do all of them stand on the subject of same sex marriage?
Do they celebrate it, condemn it, or remain neutral?
All of the above.
Even churches worshipping the same Prophet or Holy Book are all over the map.
There is no consensus what so ever, and never was.
In a sermon on belief, Peter Morales, my Unitarian Universalist minister (who may soon become the UU Association's next president), recently preached how within Christianity the same teaching was deemed 'eternal truth' in one century but deadly heresy in another.
Because religious "truths" are volatile and individualistic, we must not allow that some arbitrary theology dictates the law of the land.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lorenbliss on May 27, 2009 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thus 55 years later the U.S. is already a de facto theocracy, a condition that cannot be ameliorated by any democratic process simply because the minds of theocrats (whether Bible-pounder, Qu'ran-brandisher or Talmud-thumper) are forever sealed by the impenetrable cement of fundamentalism and the inviolable code of fundamentalist savagery. Hence Proposition 8.
Hence too the true significance -- tragically ignored -- of the California Supreme Court ruling: that constitutional rights can be overturned by majority vote. When the California decision is upheld at the federal level by the Bush Court, as it surely will be (not the least because it fulfills a long-sought ruling-class goal), it will have nullified the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment and thereby removed the final obstacle in the way of national electoral imposition of fully declared theocracy: the “Christian Nation” already implicit in the revised "Pledge of Allegiance" -- a nation in which the electorate could even vote to re-legalize slavery. The Proposition 8 decision is literally the death-knell of U.S. liberty -- no doubt the reason its meaning is so thoroughly censored.
As I said yesterday, public support for Proposition 8 reveals the magnitude of the theocratic threat. The Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church joined forces to organize the California initiative to outlaw gay marriage, invoking the biblical principle that homosexuality is a mortal sin and that a homosexual is therefore an “abomination” -- an affront to the ever-vengeful god of Abraham: that is, the deity of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Christian effort garnered a decisive majority vote -- 52 percent -- with polls indicating that actual public support ran as high as 57 percent.
Meanwhile truthful analysts -- those who point out the California results were predictable given earlier findings that 63 percent of the U.S. population believes the Bible is the infallible word of god -- are methodically silenced by Big Business Media. Never mind that additional data -- the breathtaking misogyny evident in popular opposition to reproductive choice (51 percent); the hatred of science proven by wholesale rejection of evolution (60 percent); the implacable hostility to gays evidenced by three-fourths of the African-American population and two-thirds of the Hispanic population -- portrays a Christian population already so willfully ignorant and bigoted, its only present-day doctrinal counterparts are products of the harshest Islamic despotisms.
Why is this happening? Because theocracy with its vicious sexual oppression and omnipresent death-squad paranoia is deemed essential to maximize profits: the example of the U.S. South long ago proved a workforce so terrorized is the most profitable workforce on earth. And as Obama is teaching us by his wholesale betrayal of campaign promises, the propagation of capitalism -- absolute protection of the ruling class, total subjugation of all the rest of us -- is the sole purpose of government and governance at all levels of the United States.
Therefore forget squandering money in definitively futile attempts to change the minds of theocratic bigots. The only sensible response is for those of us on the Christian list of “heretics and abominations” is to follow the example set by the Jews in the early years of Hitler’s Third Reich: leave the country while we still can, before the Christian hate list becomes the U.S. death list
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: TELEVANGELIST STEAL MORE THAN ANYBODY -TAXFREE!
Posted by: joeocho88
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 28, 2009 2:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other people are free to do what works for them as long as they don't commit felony crimes of violence against others and that includes GAYBASHING!
I have a pistol for my own DEFENSE and it is kept LOCKED UP in my home!
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE PSEUDO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TRYING TO DIVERT FROM THE MAIN EVENTS WITH LOUD AND NOISY SIDESHOWS ABOUT ABORTION AND GAYS.
Because I THINK THAT WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR PRIVATE LIFE IS THEIR OWNED DAMNED BUSINESS!
A woman's choice to have a kid should be between HER and HER PHYSICIAN and NOBODY ELSE!
IT IS A MEDICAL DECISION. PERIOD. ALL OF YOU IGNORANT,LOUDMOUTH RELIGIOUS FANATICS, BUTT OUR!
WE NEED FEWER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD --NOT MORE!
If GAY PEOPLE want to MARRY -- IT SHOULD BE NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS but THEIRS...It should be a joyful occasion for them and their invited guests.
It's NONE of my business and it is NO MONEY out of my pocket and they have done nothing to harm me.
NOT LIKE THE POLITICAL OPERATIVES WHO THREATEN PEOPLE WITH ABORTION, GUN CONTROL,GAY MARRIAGE AND TAKING SOCIAL SECURITY AWAY FROM THE OLD PEOPLE!
This is done to divert attention from their STEALING and LYING --- to whip the sheeple to a frenzy so that the crooks in public office can hide their dirty dealings behind this HUGE SMOKESCREEN of NON-ISSUES I have named here.
I AM SORRY THAT PROPOSITION 8 WAS UPHELD.
I also think if I was a gay or a lesbian person, I would LEAVE California and go somewhere I was allowed to marry...
And as many gay and lesbians who are involved in the film and allied industries, the California economy would COLLAPSE!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THE OCTOMOM --- they want it all and they want it now and they can have it.
Do you think that Mexico would take California back? Please?????
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on May 28, 2009 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has AlterNet given up on the subject? I see Andrew Sullivan is posting almost every day on pot. Why not AlterNet?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJColatrella on May 28, 2009 10:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: L5 on May 28, 2009 4:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The decision that occurred here has left the door wide open to advance the case to the U.S. Supreme court based on the fact that those 18,000+ marriages that were left untouched by this decision are the basis to bring a much more strengthened and clearly viable discrimination challenge before the national supreme court, based on the fact that one group of gay people retains the right to their marriage status while the remainder of that group that has been denied the same status.
In this instance, the discrimination that has occurred as a result of the initiative process can't be more clearly and obviously defined.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grailsnail on May 31, 2009 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many Christians know that Jesus equated second (and third, and fourth) marriages with adultery?
2 Mark 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
How many Christians are walking around, thinking they're married in the eyes of the Lord, unaware that they are defiling the sanctity of marriage? They may not be defying the sanctity of marriage laws, but this does call into question how consistent the "traditional values" camp is when it comes to doing what God said is right. Who knew how many shameless adulterers and adulteresses belonged to the churches currently demanding that gays get their dirty little feet off the traditional marriage carpet? I'm shocked, personally.
So, tireless gay warriors: Time to do your Bible research, make up some outraged signs, and stomp on over to your nearest conservative church demanding to know how many adulterous marriages are recognized there, and why. Demand that laws be passed banning second and later marriages on the same grounds used to demand a ban on gay marriage. Take the stand that if your relationship can't have the seal of human government approval because of traditional, religious dogma, neither should theirs. They get the tax advantages that come with married-filing-jointly status. Gays do not. And God isn't on their side, if they aren't on their first marriage!
Either a lot of Christians will leave the church in disgust as their pastors are forced to admit what Jesus said about divorce, or a lot of gay couples will get their wish, when those Christians are forced to think about how literally they want to take traditional wisdom on marriage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GTRrocker on Jun 16, 2009 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: menokia on Jun 25, 2009 8:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
نوكيا الشرق الاوسط
دليل المواقع
العاب فلاشيه
دردشة
طب الاعشاب
Site Map
احدث اجهزة نوكيا
برامج نوكيا
برامج نوكيا الجيل الثالث
برامج الجوال العربية
برامج نوكيا الجيل الخامس
شاشات التوقف - خطوط الجوال
تعريب البرامج , كسر البرامج
العاب جوال
العاب نوكيا الجيل الثالث
العاب الانجيج الجيل الثالث
العاب نوكيا الجيل الخامس
ثيمات الجوال
ثيمات نوكيا الجيل الثالث
ثيمات نوكيا الجيل الخامس
مسجات
فديو
اناشيد
نغمات, تحميل نغمات
اي فون
سوني اريكسون
برامج كمبيوتر
برامج الحماية و الصيانة
برامج المالتيميديا, برامج الصوتيات, برامج الفيديو
شرح استخدام البرامج
العاب الكترونية, العاب الكمبيوتر, العاب بلاي ستيشن
افلام سينما
تحميل افلام عربية
تحميل افلام اجنبية
منتدى السيارات
صور
نكات, صرقعه
اعشاب طبية
عالم حواء
الديكور و الأثاث المنزلي - The Design and Decor Section
تحديث سوفت وير نوكيا
خيمة رمضان
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
NYC Police Accused of 'Anal Assault' Over Marijuana Use
Do Employers Really Need to Give Drug Tests for Pot?
False Claims on Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Lead to Credibility Gap for Prosecutors




