Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Exact words - no - read my statement again. It is a statement about the future of this issue.

 

But saying that gays and lesbians will become one of the constitutionally protected groups doesn't change the argument at all. You are still defining them as members of a constitutionally protectred group whether that be now or in the future and my point was that they are not constitutionally protected, either today or in the future, they have the same rights as everyone else....period!

Remember, Prop 8 didn't grant them additional rights, it took rights away from them.

 

Actually Prop 8 stripped all citizens whether heterosexual or gay of the right to marry a person of the same sex. Personally I am not in favor of constitutional admendments which restrict individual rights and would have voted against Prop 8 if I were a resident of California.

 

I guess that makes the entire state a constitutionally protected group. At least your heart is in the right place.

 

Now, Moen it's a fact that more than 1 in 5 liberals in Cali voted for Prop 8. More than 1 in 5... and that's just the ones who voted. How many more liberals opposed Prop 8? We may never know. Your stance that liberals have such sympathetic sensibilities is simply dust in the wind.

 

BO doesn't agree with same-sex marriage so the libs in CA probably just took their lead from him and fell lock-step into BO's ideology.

 

Exactly. How much more "evolving" does liberal Obama need?
Barack Obama Still 'Evolving' On Same-Sex Marriage: White House

(The words in red are mine)
February 7, 2012
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama continues to "evolve" on the topic of same-sex marriage, his top spokesman said Tuesday, just hours after a federal appellate court ruled that a state's ban on such unions is unconstitutional.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the president's personal stance on same-sex marriage hadn't changed (Obama is opposed to gay marriage), but he added "that divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights to same-sex couples is something this president has long opposed."

Since he first ran for the White House, the president has responded to questions about his stance on LGBT rights by saying that his position on gay marriage is "evolving." Carney's remarks provided a slight twist on that vague statement. They also raised the question of how Obama can be proactively opposed to discrimination against same-sex couples but not proactively in favor of marriage equality. Can someone please explain how Obama can be "opposed to discrimination" but not be in favor of "marriage equality"?

"The president's position on these issues writ large are well known," Carney said. "You know his position, where it stands now, on the position of same-sex marriage. I don't have much to add on that."

As Obama wrestles with his position on the issue, the legal world -- and increasingly, fellow politicians -- continues to pass him by. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling stated.

While others in the party applauded the announcement, Carney declined to weigh in on the legal arguments or ramifications surrounding the decision -- even though Obama has done so before. He simply noted that "the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to discriminate against same-sex couples."

President Obama has, in the past, praised the idea of voters in individual states crafting their own policies with respect to marriage. When the state of New York legalized same sex marriage in 2011, he called it a "good thing" because it allowed citizens to participate in the policy-making process.

"I think it is important for us to work through these issues -- because each community is going to be different and each state is going to be different," the president said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/barack-obama-gay-marriage-same-sex-marriage_n_1260537.html

 

I don't know that that is a fact, but 1 in 5 is only 20%. so what.

 

So what? SO WHAT? The number is actually 22% and that IS a fact. That's more than 1 in 5. Twenty percent of anything is quite a big chunk. This will open a PowerPoint presentation in your browser if you're interested in reviewing the stats from www.eqca.org:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/DBR%20PROP%208%20POST-ELECTION%20SUMMARY%20REPORT%20012109%20V2.PPT&ei=obAyT9jWOcGC2AX6sOzZBw&usg=AFQjCNHY9DKVKulfTGUU3kpqo0cZucaVWg&sig2=lIV33NwNtVCxR3Vb7nHIrw

 

I like how the minions signal a looming flip-flop by calling it "evolving".

 

1 in 5 is 20%. 1 in 5 is not 22%. That IS a fact. If you meant 22%, you should have said so instead of waiting until now to make a non-point. Again,.... So what?

 

DING DONG... is anyone home in your head? Have you ever heard of rounding off percentage points? I actually rounded it IN YOUR FAVOR, but math has never been your strong suit (especially percentages).

Anyway, back to the topic. I still can't believe 1 in 5 (actually more than that) hard-hearted, ignorant liberals in California would vote for Prop 8. Those anti-gay, two-faced liberals! But, what is it they call California? Oh yeah, the "land of fruits and nuts".

 

Here's an example of a stupid, ignorant liberal and "liberal sensitivities" when it comes to homosexuals:
CNN suspends Roland Martin over ‘offensive’ Super Bowl tweets

February 8, 2012
Political commentator Roland Martin has been suspended indefinitely by CNN over a series of tweets he published during the Super Bowl.

"Roland Martin's tweets were regrettable and offensive," CNN said in a statement. "Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being."

Those comments, published on his personal Twitter feed, concerned a two Super Bowl ads, including an H&M spot showcasing a new David Beckham underwear line.
Martin wrote:

If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl​

Earlier in the game, Martin chastised a player for wearing pink:

Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass​

Several gay and lesbian rights groups were outraged. GLAAD said CNN ought to fire Martin: "Advocates of gay bashing have no place at CNN." Even Glenn Beck found Martin's comments insulting.

Martin first tried to defend his tweets as lighthearted ribbing of Beckham's sport. "I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time," Martin wrote on Twitter. "I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I'm sorry folks took it otherwise. It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it's another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more."

The CNN contributor later formally apologized, issuing a statement:

Based on several tweets I made on my Twitter feed on Super Bowl Sunday yesterday, I have been accused by members of the LGBT community of being supportive of violence against gays and lesbians and bullying. That is furthest from the truth, and I sincerely regret any offense my words have caused.​

Martin remained on CNN through Tuesday, contributing to its Election Center coverage Tuesday night.
"What Martin tweeted—advocating beatings for men who'd enjoyed the David Beckham underwear ad shown during the Super Bowl plus the same for a New England Patriot clad in a pink suit—was the equivalent of cheerleading for violence against gays," Washington Post columnist Erik Wemple, the first to report Martin's suspension, wrote Wednesday.

Martin did not return a request for comment. No word on how long he will remain off CNN's airwaves.
Several conservatives, however, felt Martin's Twitter trangressions did not warrant a suspension.
"I'm not exactly a dues-paying member of the [Roland Martin] fan club," National Review editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg wrote. "But I think this is ludicrous."

"Same here," Hot Air's Ed Morrissey added. "Overkill."
"Do you really think Roland Martin was seriously advocating violence against men who wear pink and/or enjoy looking at David Beckham in his underpants?" Jim Treacher wrote on the Daily Caller. "Or was he just tweeting stupid stuff in the middle of a Super Bowl party? Do you think maybe you could just relax a minute?"

Martin has a history making provocative statements. Last October, while responding to the U.S.-led attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki--the American-born radical Islamic preacher turned propaganda chief for al-Qaida--Martin wrote: "Look, I don't want to kill someone. But if you threaten my family [and] one of our lives is in danger, I'm doing all I can to kill you. No apologies."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline...rtin-over-offensive-super-bowl-195422269.html

 

I certainly understand rounding but you could have said "rounded to 1 in 5" but no, you decided to try and make a dumb point out of the difference between what you said and what you meant, I mean what you "rounded". Like you'd know what my strong suit is. And how is more "liberals" voting for Prop 8 "IN my favor"?

 

Just another instance of liberal hyocrisy & how closeted their institutional bigotry is.

 

We know math is not your forte because of comments like this. 22% is greater than 20% (AKA 1 in 5).

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I'm sure that you couldn't have. Since you both agree that 22% is 1 in 5 but I have the math problem here. Keep cheerleading each other ladies. It's so darn cute.

 

i guess you are going to have to give me more of that that edumacation. I am missing something here, but I am sure you can help. Please show me where I said "22% is 1 in".

Regardless even that would be closer than 2 is 6.

 

1. How was Prop. 8 "protecting heterosexuals"?

2. Which legislation "exclusively protects gays"?