AMERICAblog: Anti-gays to sue over changed wording of California marriage repeal amendment
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Facts have a notoriously liberal bias.
hrh
· 1 year ago
Giving credit where it's due, that's from Stephen Colbert. Doesn't make it any less true, though!
greenleegazette
· 1 year ago
My partner and I got married in Palm Springs on June 27. Since we live in Las Vegas, where you'd THINK such a thing would be legal, but was voted down twice, we made the trek to California. If our marriage is annulled in November, I intend to FIGHT to get my money back, at least for the marriage license and the ceremony. That's $170 total.
The voters ought to know that everyone that got married and then annulled wants their money back too. I wonder what that would multiply out to?
gumbygirl
· 1 year ago
Congratulations to you and your spouse. I am a heterosexual woman who has been married for 25 years. Supposedly, I am 'threatened" by your challenge to traditional marriage. Believe me, this could not be further from the truth. I think that any two people who love each other and are willing to make a life=long commitment to each other are to be commended, not condemned. I wish you and your beloved the kind of happiness that my husband and I have enjoyed. You are every bit as married as we are--don't ever let anyone tell you different.
ndtovent
· 1 year ago
well, then the pro-gay groups can just counter sue.
Rab
· 1 year ago
Shine the light on the repugs and they run for the corners. I believe this issue will be decided for gay marriage and there will be no stopping it. This is 2008, I think this is a losing issue for the fascists, they might win in certain parts of the country but by large its unstoppable. The Democrats need to get a spine and speak out clearly in favor of this issue.
unrepentant_expat
· 1 year ago
U.S. Reports Drop in Homeless Population By RACHEL L. SWARNS 20 minutes ago
The number of chronically homeless people has dropped by about 30 percent between 2005 and 2007, Bush administration officials said on Tuesday
if you live in SoCal, you don't have a choice where your utilities come from. I don't agree with them doing this.
Why? If they were using MY money fighting FOR prop 8 to pass, I'd be pissed... and I'd have no recourse.
its one thing if its a corporation you can boycott, its another if its something you HAVE to have... this is almost like the government using your money to fight against you.
not right.
scooter in brooklyn
· 1 year ago
actually, i agree with you. but it's fun to see the fundie heads exploding as captive customers.
scooter in brooklyn
· 1 year ago
i was married by the city clerk of boston back in 04. at the time, she said that if the state ever revoked the marriages she was performing she would resign in protest. quite a woman.
Grimmlok
· 1 year ago
I love the fundie nutjobs who are screeching about "protecting" marriage. That implies that if gays get married, marriage itself will be "damaged" or suffer some sort of injury.
Have these crazies actually quanitified what "damage" would occur to an institution that has neither enrollment quotas, consequences of failure outside of the 2 people involved, or societal impact in any way that is beyond heterosexual divorces?
Can they actually explain why marriage needs "protecting" from people who want to actually participate in it? If participation is the factor, shouldn't they be going after the 98% of straight people who participate, and ensure they'll be doing it correctly?
Has anybody actually sat down with these people and asked these questions ON CAMERA? How would it be possible for them to even answer?
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
I'm wondering if its the wives... I mean, now we'll be sleeping with married men (or women if you're a lesbian) too.
well, more than we did before anyway :-)
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
interesting... they change the wording to state EXACTLY what it means, so as not to CONFUSE the voters...
... and suddenly it might predjudice the voters that would've voted for it?
I guess its easier to say no to something that hasn't already begun. The new wording makes it clear that voters would be denying a right that has already been granted...
it also goes on to point out that tax revenue produced by the new rights would be lost if prop 8 goes into effect... and tourism, and commerce created by wedding ceremonies... etc.
the new wording pretty much points out what is lost is MUCH more than what is gained if prop 8 is voted in.
I'm tempted, if the Bible thumpers only reason for not letting gay marriage go on, is really Laviticus...
to sue so on the grounds that Athiests, Agnostics, Wiccans etc.. shouldn't be able to get married in California because it isn't a sanctioned 'marriage' in the eyes of the Xtians.
funny... I thought people actually got married in non-chri$tian countries as well?
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
Congrats again! I know I'd already pre-congrated you.
Hey, do you remember even seeing anywhere on the license application where it asked Party A's or Party B's gender? Me neither. Doesn't it seem it would be EXTREMELY difficult for the state to try to "annul" our marriages seeing that any couple that got married since June 16th, straight or gay, didn't have to state what their gender is?
It would be an absolute mess and chaos would ensue. Maybe that's why Gavin went to Montana to get married last weekend :-)
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
nope... no gender on there at all... just party A and party B.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
Ok. . .well, we can re-word it then. Why not explain that the amendment is designed to "protect" the rights of heterosexual child sexual predators, pornographers, spousal abusers, and rapists to marry in the Constitution.
Since the fundies have never uttered a word about the rights of these people to marry, despite noted damage to society and children, we must realize that the "religious" Right is desperately concerned about protecting the rights of criminals to marry and create those they have proven to wish to abuse.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
Divorce rate is hovering around 62% in this country...
I'm still wondering what 'the sanctity of marriage' is.
... and I just got married on July 18th :-)
KerrynowCampau
· 1 year ago
Congrats!
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
Thanks! :-)
FunMe
· 1 year ago
That's my birthday - CONBGRATULATIONS on your wedding!
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
Thanks! and happy B-day! :-)
Webster
· 1 year ago
Nice to see the Bush/Cheney Orwellian Newspeak go. Just the truth in plain English, thanks--and the people can decide for themselves. The ballot measure would take away the rights rather than "protect" anything.
Time to get the English language back on the side of truth again.
RobertSanDimas
· 1 year ago
What a vile, stupid waste of human time and energy. We have a completely broken country to repair and these moronic, bigoted double-digit IQers I are spending time on trying to control my life and the other 10-20% of Californians who happen to be gay. Goodgawdalmighty.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
I'm starting a new CA initiative:
Marriage is only for those who have never divorced and never discriminated.
ClayPotts
· 1 year ago
The citizens of California should think long and hard and be fully informed before they vote for such a vile measure. To constitutionally define a large portion of California citizens as unequal and undeserving of basic rights is a serious matter. I know that most evangelical christians do not mind destroying families, but others who are less rabid might appreciate knowing the consequences of their actions.
woodroad34
· 1 year ago
Nice little game they're playing (but typical hate-group rhetoric). They shroud their amendment in sugar to make it sound all innocent, but not truthful or accurate; but they scream and sue when Jerry Brown tells it like it is. Morally corrupt groups like these have had their day under this administration and people are, finally, starting to wake up to the rules of their game and refusing to play by them. They should be burned at the stake for their corruptibility.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
America isn't as dishonest as the religious right either. The religious right LIES by omission constantlly.
therepguy
· 1 year ago
Bigots maybe... but one would be more likely to hit the mark... if one called them FASCIST!
anarchy
· 1 year ago
human beings evolve but wing-nuts DON'T.
buncha goddamn mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who want total control over others and that's all they know..
well, they will die off and the world will be better for it.
as the Jerry Falwells and Jesse Helmses perish from the Earth, hopefully their hateful beliefs will disappear along with their rotting carcasses.
jr
· 1 year ago
anti-gays need to get back in their time machine and go back to their caves
All Comments
The voters ought to know that everyone that got married and then annulled wants their money back too. I wonder what that would multiply out to?
By RACHEL L. SWARNS 20 minutes ago
The number of chronically homeless people has dropped by about 30 percent between 2005 and 2007, Bush administration officials said on Tuesday
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/30homeless...
Sources in the Administration are hopeful that winter attrition will further reduce the number of homeless by another 30%.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarr...
if you live in SoCal, you don't have a choice where your utilities come from. I don't agree with them doing this.
Why? If they were using MY money fighting FOR prop 8 to pass, I'd be pissed... and I'd have no recourse.
its one thing if its a corporation you can boycott, its another if its something you HAVE to have... this is almost like the government using your money to fight against you.
not right.
Have these crazies actually quanitified what "damage" would occur to an institution that has neither enrollment quotas, consequences of failure outside of the 2 people involved, or societal impact in any way that is beyond heterosexual divorces?
Can they actually explain why marriage needs "protecting" from people who want to actually participate in it? If participation is the factor, shouldn't they be going after the 98% of straight people who participate, and ensure they'll be doing it correctly?
Has anybody actually sat down with these people and asked these questions ON CAMERA? How would it be possible for them to even answer?
well, more than we did before anyway :-)
... and suddenly it might predjudice the voters that would've voted for it?
I guess its easier to say no to something that hasn't already begun. The new wording makes it clear that voters would be denying a right that has already been granted...
it also goes on to point out that tax revenue produced by the new rights would be lost if prop 8 goes into effect... and tourism, and commerce created by wedding ceremonies... etc.
the new wording pretty much points out what is lost is MUCH more than what is gained if prop 8 is voted in.
I'm tempted, if the Bible thumpers only reason for not letting gay marriage go on, is really Laviticus...
to sue so on the grounds that Athiests, Agnostics, Wiccans etc.. shouldn't be able to get married in California because it isn't a sanctioned 'marriage' in the eyes of the Xtians.
funny... I thought people actually got married in non-chri$tian countries as well?
Hey, do you remember even seeing anywhere on the license application where it asked Party A's or Party B's gender? Me neither. Doesn't it seem it would be EXTREMELY difficult for the state to try to "annul" our marriages seeing that any couple that got married since June 16th, straight or gay, didn't have to state what their gender is?
It would be an absolute mess and chaos would ensue. Maybe that's why Gavin went to Montana to get married last weekend :-)
Since the fundies have never uttered a word about the rights of these people to marry, despite noted damage to society and children, we must realize that the "religious" Right is desperately concerned about protecting the rights of criminals to marry and create those they have proven to wish to abuse.
I'm still wondering what 'the sanctity of marriage' is.
... and I just got married on July 18th :-)
Time to get the English language back on the side of truth again.
Marriage is only for those who have never divorced and never discriminated.
buncha goddamn mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who
want total control over others and that's all they know..
well, they will die off and the world will be better for it.
as the Jerry Falwells and Jesse Helmses perish from the
Earth, hopefully their hateful beliefs will disappear along
with their rotting carcasses.