Suck it, haters.

brbr
Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited August 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207



Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.







You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.



To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.



Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better.
«13456712

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 237
    floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Where's The GayKK? They were fun.
  • Reply 2 of 237
    mysticmystic Posts: 514member
    Yea, to hell with what the people want....
  • Reply 3 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mystic View Post


    Yea, to hell with what the people want....



    No, it's the people who want immoral things that are to hell with. Like denying equality. That's immoral. If you think Jesus would support Proposition 8, then you don't know the Jesus I do.



    If what people want is against the constitution of the United States of America, or the state in which they live, they can fuck off as well. Do you disagree with that?



    Really really great news!!!
  • Reply 4 of 237
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207



    Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.



    It shouldn't make your happy. Understand I voted AGAINST prop 8 but getting what you want temporarily the wrong way isn't the same as getting it the right way and, in my opinion can create backlash instead of progress.



    The reality is that this now may go to the Federal Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court is the most overturned of all the courts.



    Quote:

    To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.



    Perhaps spiking the football when you are on the 5 yard line is premature.

    Quote:

    Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better



    No, what we can say to them is that we hope people pursing the agenda don't create a backlash against it which is what created prop 8 in the first place.
  • Reply 5 of 237
    marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207



    Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.







    You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.



    To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.



    Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better.



    You are telling me that the Mormon religion is against gays and minorities. Than who wants Romney for president with these views of his religion.
  • Reply 6 of 237
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    ... with liberty and justice for all. ??



    What is it about the little 3-letter word "all" that religious and social conservatives fail to understand?

    When did "liberty" get redefined as "restricted".

    And since when did "justice" mean "just us" for the aforementioned group?
  • Reply 7 of 237
    brbr Posts: 8,320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    You are telling me that the Mormon religion is against gays and minorities. Than who wants Romney for president with these views of his religion.



    Bigots who are against gays and minorities.
  • Reply 8 of 237
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Why don't same-sex "marriage" and civil union folks lobby for the complete privatization and separation of marriage and state?



    Wouldn't that really be the best long-term solution here?



    I mean isn't the problem here that "we the people" have consented to give the state the power to say who can and cannot be married?



    Why not withdraw that consent and flip the state the bird and tell it to "suck it"...you have no business saying who can and cannot be married?
  • Reply 9 of 237
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Why don't same-sex "marriage" and civil union folks lobby for the complete privatization and separation of marriage and state?



    Wouldn't that really be the best long-term solution here?



    I mean isn't the problem here that "we the people" have consented to give the state the power to say who can and cannot be married?



    Why not withdraw that consent and flip the state the bird and tell it to "suck it"...you have no business saying who can and cannot be married?



    Excellent questions.



    I believe the State shouldn't be allowed to determine who can and cannot enter into voluntary contracts or agreements that don't infringe upon the rights of others.



    But the State IS involved. And because it is involved, we are unnecessarily pitted against each other. We are fighting over who gets to use government to protect their own interests at the expense of others.



    The sooner more people realize that the initiation of aggression against peaceful people is wrong - even when you use the State to do it on your behalf - the better off we'll all be.
  • Reply 10 of 237
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    This is also disturbing proof that at the end of the day, regardless of the issue at hand, men/women in robes are legislating by decree in this country, bypassing the work of elected representatives and even direct votes from the people themselves . The will of the people is ultimately irrelevant.



    That sounds a bit like the form of government from which our founding fathers declared independence.
    techprod1gy
  • Reply 11 of 237
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,357member
    Has anyone looked into this ruling? It is pretty damn crazy in what it asserts!



    Quote:

    "The opinion holds that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional only in a case where the state had already granted full legal rights to same-sex couples," said University of Minnesota law school professor Dale Carpenter.



    The decision "is specifically looking at the role of Proposition 8 in the California context," said Santa Clara University law professor Margaret M. Russell. Because it is limited to California, the Supreme Court may not be as concerned about reviewing it as it would a ruling that would have affected the entire country, she said.



    The court ruled that the equal protection clause doesn't matter. Arizona CAN ban gay marriage but California cannot amend their Constitution because they already had a judge rule gay marriage was constitutional when overturning the prior law that prevented it.



    Regardless of your view on gay marriage, someone really wants to attempt to defend this legal reasoning??!
  • Reply 12 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Why don't same-sex "marriage" and civil union folks lobby for the complete privatization and separation of marriage and state?



    Wouldn't that really be the best long-term solution here?



    I mean isn't the problem here that "we the people" have consented to give the state the power to say who can and cannot be married?



    Why not withdraw that consent and flip the state the bird and tell it to "suck it"...you have no business saying who can and cannot be married?



    The state has to recognize civil unions and determine what marriage bodies can be recognized before that is done, which will automatically force recognition of gay marriages. Do you think anyone opposed to full gay marriage will accept this? The process may end up being even more difficult this way.



    But in principle, I agree with you.
  • Reply 13 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    This is also disturbing proof that at the end of the day, regardless of the issue at hand, men/women in robes are legislating by decree in this country, bypassing the work of elected representatives and even direct votes from the people themselves . The will of the people is ultimately irrelevant.



    That sounds a bit like the form of government from which our founding fathers declared independence.



    What you're saying is that there's no role for the constitutional courts. This is asinine. There is a good reason our state and federal governments are based on a triumvirate system. It's so that men not in robes cannot make laws that are against the constitution. You claim you respect the constitution but you're telling me the courts shouldn't be allowed to interpret it? That's absurd.
  • Reply 14 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Has anyone looked into this ruling? It is pretty damn crazy in what it asserts!







    The court ruled that the equal protection clause doesn't matter. Arizona CAN ban gay marriage but California cannot amend their Constitution because they already had a judge rule gay marriage was constitutional when overturning the prior law that prevented it.



    Regardless of your view on gay marriage, someone really wants to attempt to defend this legal reasoning??!



    That's not what the ruling says at all. It says that Prop 8 is against the California constitution. It may be perfectly fine under the Arizona constitution, who knows? It didn't say squat about validation based on previous ruling.
  • Reply 15 of 237
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    The state has to recognize civil unions and determine what marriage bodies can be recognized before that is done, which will automatically force recognition of gay marriages.



    I don't follow this logic at all? Why must the state recognize it all all? Who do you want to be forced to recognize gay marriages and why?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Do you think anyone opposed to full gay marriage will accept this?



    I'm confused here. What is "full gay marriage?"



    What I'm saying is that private relationships should be just that. Why must the state have any say in it whatsoever?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    But in principle, I agree with you.



    OK
  • Reply 16 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I don't follow this logic at all? Why must the state recognize it all all? Who do you want to be forced to recognize gay marriages and why?



    Because there are likely hundreds of laws that depend on the state's recognition of a union between two people. I suppose you could try changing each and every one of those first... But...



    Quote:

    I'm confused here. What is "full gay marriage?"



    Pardon my brevity. I meant full recognition of gay unions, of course, including unions by churches that call it 'marriage', and not just civil unions.



    Quote:

    What I'm saying is that private relationships should be just that. Why must the state have any say in it whatsoever?



    I agree, but extremely complicated legal changes would need to be made first, taking decades. Of course those who really want freedom for gays to marry would choose to do it in the more practical way.
  • Reply 17 of 237
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,556member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...23964920120207



    Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional. This makes me quite happy.







    You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.



    To all the Mormons who flooded my state with television ads promoting hate...you lost. Enjoy your further tarnished reputation. You may try to one day distance yourself from this as you have with your codified, scripturalized bigotry against black people--but we won't forget. For all you Mormons who didn't support either form of bigotry against blacks or gays, perhaps you should reexamine the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims and whether you want to be affiliated with an organization that has taken such hateful stances.



    Today, we can truly say to LGBT kids that it gets better.



    I'm so fucking sick of this shit. Everyone who disagrees with you is a "hater." You support gay marriage, and that is the only position a reasonable human being is allowed to have. Why? Because you are a member of the liberal elite. The liberal elite are more moral than everyone else. They have the only non-reprehensible positions on gay rights, on taxes, on poverty, on abortion, on stem cell research, on global warming, on war...on EVERYTHING. Well I've had enough. I'm calling you out on your bullshit. You are better than no one. You opinion is no better than any random asshole off the street.



    Oh, and one more thing: The 9th circuit is the most liberal, activist federal court in the nation. After lecturing the people of California on what is the proper basis for legislation (e.g. moral positions are not sufficient basis), the panel decided the case on...a moral basis. They felt they were right, and that's all there is to it. There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about the CA amendment. The liberal, pro-gay rights judges simply didn't like it.
  • Reply 18 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    I see someone is in the second phase of the death of their ideology.
  • Reply 19 of 237
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Because there are likely hundreds of laws that depend on the state's recognition of a union between two people. I suppose you could try changing each and every one of those first... But...



    Like what? Doesn't eliminating the need for state recognition effectively invalidate those dependencies?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Pardon my brevity. I meant full recognition of gay unions, of course, including unions by churches that call it 'marriage', and not just civil unions.



    I still don't know what this means. Are you saying you want to force churches to "recognize" gay marriages? Perform them?



    Who or what needs to be forced to "recognize" gay marriages? That's the part I don't get? I'm saying give people the freedom to marry however and whoever they want. I didn't say anything about forcing anyone to recognize anything. Who or what needs to be forced to do this and why?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I agree, but extremely complicated legal changes would need to be made first, taking decades.



    What's so complicated about declaration from the highest governing authority that says something like:



    "We're out of the business of marriage. People can do what they want in their personal relationships."
  • Reply 20 of 237
    tontontonton Posts: 14,066member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Like what? Doesn't eliminating the need for state recognition effectively invalidate those dependencies?



    of course not. We have hundreds of laws guaranteeing various legal rights and responsibilities for spouses, such as visitation, legal proxy, health care decision making, debt responsibility, custody, ownership, etc. You can't just invalidate those laws.



    Quote:

    I still don't know what this means. Are you saying you want to force churches to "recognize" gay marriages? Perform them?



    Of course not! But to recognize union making bodies, as would be necessary to maintain those laws that depend on unions, the state must recognize all union making bodies equally. They couldn't, for instance recognize unions made by the Catholic Church but not by the Universal Unitarians. That means official recognition of gay marriage.



    Quote:

    Who or what needs to be forced to "recognize" gay marriages?



    The state, where there are laws that recognize unions.

    Quote:

    That's the part I don't get? I'm saying give people the freedom to marry however and whoever they want. I didn't say anything about forcing anyone to recognize anything. Who or what needs to be forced to do this and why?



    The state must say, "There was a ceremony performed by the West Hollywood Unitarian Church between Mr. Gerald Fitzpatrick and Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald. We recognize this as a legal union for purposes of law." Get it now?



    Quote:

    What's so complicated about declaration from the highest governing authority that says something like:



    "We're out of the business of marriage. People can do what they want in their personal relationships."



    Oops. What happens to a contract when someone dies? What happens to medical decision making when someone is incapacitated? Who gets the kid? Who gets the house?
Sign In or Register to comment.