The people of California voted and passed the law stating that marriage was between one man and one women - its called democracy when the people vote. The four judges who over-ruled the will of the people are corrupt and abused their power.
Your criticism of Californian judges implies that you would prefer a majoritarian dictatorship over the parliamentary democracy that you have now.
It's a popular misconception that democracy means that the majority should rule by popular vote.
I will give the example that one of my high school teachers used to explain the concept of democracy:
Imagine there is an island that is populated by 90% sexual sadists and 10% people who prefer regular sexual practices. Popular vote would result in 10% of people becoming sexual slaves to the 90% of sadists, who are the majority.
In this example you would be the sadist.
That kind of "democracy" allows for (and has resulted in) a majority deciding that certain minorities should not be able to participate in democracy at all. In other words, that "democracy" would be undemocratic by its own definition.
Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example.
There are different subgenres of democracy that you can look up on Wikipedia or in "Old Books".
You might also be interested in reading about Trias Politica.
I am an AAPL stockholder too. But I am selling my stock on Monday morning, regardless of price. Any company that uses its stockholders' money this way doesn't need my support.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all major corporations donate to political parties in one way or another?
How will you ensure that any stocks you hold or purchases you make are not indirectly funding something with which you disagree?
My bank in the UK, The Co-operative has an extremely vigourous ethical policy
and as a result I can be sure that my money does not fund corrupt regimes, animal testing, the arms trade etc.
Unfortunately, as a consumer I do not have this assurance and neither do you or anyone else. How do you know, for example that the $300 you paid the plumber, or the $50 you spent in the local deli did not go straight into the coffers of the 'No' campaign?
The only difference here is that Apple have chosen to donate to a specific campaign and made that donation public.
As a stock holder I believe this is the wrong move at the wrong time by the wrong company. Apple has nothing to win on this one and only things to lose. I am very displeased with Apple's management for taking this type of stand for either side in this hotly contested personal issue. This is a people decision not a company one. It may play well with the "Hollywood Crowd" but not with most shareholders. As for it being courageous, sorry, I find nothing courageous about it at all. I find it very ill advised.
This is not a personal issue! if it were, there would not be an amendment to the states constitution being necessary! This is the state barging in on peoples homes to enforce their bigoted immoral view! This IS a civil rights issue as much as the 60's civil rights issues. Apple has increased it's moral position in the eye's of a large portion of it's users and stockholders. The stock price is not the only important thing in the long run for public companies. (this is the fallacy that put us in the mess we are in now... "the bottom line is all that matters!" This is BS). Companies need to do what is right! even if it's not the popular thing to do!
Way to go Apple! I will gladly purchase more AAPL stock and products in the very near future!
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
As long as it's your view of "life, liberty and happiness!" that you want to impose on others... What a load of BS!
Marriage is a personal commitment being recognized by the government! It's no longer a religious institution. The traditional family is not under attack and so does not need protecting! What about single parent families, aren't they families? apparently not in your narrow view!
Your criticism of Californian judges implies that you would prefer a majoritarian dictatorship over the parliamentary democracy that you have now.
It's a popular misconception that democracy means that the majority should rule by popular vote.
I will give the example that one of my high school teachers used to explain the concept of democracy:
Imagine there is an island that is populated by 90% sexual sadists and 10% people who prefer regular sexual practices. Popular vote would result in 10% of people becoming sexual slaves to the 90% of sadists, who are the majority.
In this example you would be the sadist.
That kind of "democracy" allows for (and has resulted in) a majority deciding that certain minorities should not be able to participate in democracy at all. In other words, that "democracy" would be undemocratic by its own definition.
Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example.
There are different subgenres of democracy that you can look up on Wikipedia or in "Old Books".
You might also be interested in reading about Trias Politica.
What is preferred here, is that the judiciary NOT legislate from the bench. The will of the people reigns supreme over a handful of justices. This is typical left wing, liberal, judicial interpretation, instead of a strict constructionist view of the state constitution. IOW, the people do NOT want an extremely small percentage of the population, gays, setting the standards for the rest of us. Get over it!
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not even slightly interested in the opinions of foreigners with regard to this issue. It's none of their business how the US and/or California, conduct their affairs. It is the sole prerogative of the citizens of those domains. We are not interested in becoming European Socialists, with all of their problems. They can't even defend themselves without the aid of the US, so kindly mind your own business.
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------I have rarely seen such utter tosh.
How exactly is your marriage diminished by extending the right to marry to same sex couples?
Is your marriage also diminished by those who divorce or have multiple marriages.
Or by those who have quickie marriages in Las Vegas whilst under the influence.
Or by those couples whose marriages are unhappy and/or violent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeyslaptop
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
Are you really saying that marriage is only about raising a family?
If so, are the marriages of those who are unable to have children or choose not to have children invalid?
Should senior citizens be prevented from marrying? After all there is zero chance of them creating a 'traditional family'
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not even slightly interested in the opinions of foreigners with regard to this issue. It's none of their business how the US and/or California, conduct their affairs. It is the sole prerogative of the citizens of those domains. We are not interested in becoming European Socialists, with all of their problems. They can't even defend themselves without the aid of the US, so kindly mind your own business.
How very blinkered and insular of you.
Let me be perfectly clear.
As a long time Apple customer I have every right to express my view and will continue to do so.
The money I have paid for my Apple products pays the wages of Apple employees in California, and their wages contribute to the US economy.
I find it ironic that a citizen of the USA is demanding that others 'mind their own business'
And don't get me started on the subject of WW2 and tardiness....
None are more blind, then those who will not see! Okay, I'll elaborate a little more.
If you're Hollywood ie. Matt Damon and can say Palin for VP is like a bad Disney movie, knowing, that even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, your opinion will be picked up by both the media news and to shows like Extra, etc. and be given validation.
If you're Hollywood ie. Demi Moore / Ashton Kutcher and can be at a university symposium and voice your opposition to policies even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, and your opinion will be picked up by the media news and be given validation.
BUT if you're "Joe the Plumber" where only by fate do you find a bunch of news cameras in your face and that one reply, to a simple question can bring the wrath of the media elite doing more vetting of you, Joe the plumber, then for Barry the politician, yeah, I think that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined below)
Elite - defined - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
How about if your the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers being confront by a Fox News reporter and for once in your life your at a loss for words and have to call the police to escort you from your home to your car so no more embarrassing questions, that you gave no answers to in the first place, will be brought upon you. Bill Ayers the domestic terrorist is now depending upon the very organization (the police) who were his targets he tried to destroy when he bombed the NYPD! I bet he probably needed to get to his car to arrive on time to a University symposium or a magazine interview where he could pronounce his anarchist ways and that he wasn't sorry for bombing the NYPD Police Headquarters or a photo shoot where he can step on the American flag on the ground. IMO that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined above)
These are just a few examples off the top of my head but I am sure with a little research, a little sleep, I can find more.
It's after 1:30 am, Good Night folks!
Oh thought of one more...
When you are Obama's VP pick, Joe Biden, and you say things like "“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”
and the Drive By, Lame Street Media gives Biden a pass even though Hoover was President when the market crashed and television service as we know it began in 1936. Thus all those "fire side chats" of the American people listening to Roosevelt on the radio!
Had Palin said that, front page news on the New York Times with subsequent articles following a week after questioning her capabilities to be VP. Heck they still bring up Dan Quayle and the spelling of "potato" that he said for the kid to add an "e" to the end.
Regarding the media's attention from a democratic gaffe to a republican gaffe, can you say...
go on...
we know you know it...
"ELITISM" yeah, that's right. Don't be affraid to say it when you know it. Just shout out the answer.
Wow! I understand your point now. Joe, the unlicensed, tax owing, I make over $250,000 a year, but nowhere near that, I want to buy my boss out, plumber for president. You must need your toilet fixed. We need the country fixed. Education means nothing? Who's the elitist?
As a long time Apple customer I have every right to express my view and will continue to do so.
The money I have paid for my Apple products pays the wages of Apple employees in California, and their wages contribute to the US economy.
I find it ironic that a citizen of the USA is demanding that others 'mind their own business'
And don't get me started on the subject of WW2 and tardiness....
The money that you paid to Apple does not entitle you to ANY input with regard to the lives of the citizens of the US, and/or California. If that were true, the money that the US has put into much of the rest of the World would mean that we own it. How ridiculous!
The money that you paid to Apple does not entitle you to ANY input with regard to the lives of the citizens of the US, and/or California. If that were true, the money that the US has put into much of the rest of the World would mean that we own it. How ridiculous!
So let me get this straight. What you are in effect saying is that although MY money is being used to support a cause with which I happen to agree I have no right to say so.
If we follow your logic this debate should be restricted to the registered voters of California, of which, as you are contributing to the debate, I assume you must be one.
You do know that we are on the World Wide Web, don't you?
Oh, and could you please have a word with the AFA who threatened a US boycott of Heinz products unless an ad shown exclusively on UK TV was pulled
The money that you paid to Apple does not entitle you to ANY input with regard to the lives of the citizens of the US, and/or California. If that were true, the money that the US has put into much of the rest of the World would mean that we own it. How ridiculous!
At this point I think you should declare your State.
At this point I think you should declare your State.
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up, I'm a native Californian, with family living there. However, I currently live in Arizona, where we have a similar constitutional amendment on this November's ballot. Our's is worded very simply "Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman". I will vote for it, and it will pass.
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up, I'm a native Californian, with family living there. However, I currently live in Arizona, where we have a similar constitutional amendment on this November's ballot. Our's is worded very simply "Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman". I will vote for it, and it will pass.
"If we follow your logic this debate should be restricted to the registered voters of California"
Precisely!
The voting of California's Prop 8 should be restricted to registered California voters, as it is now, but that doesn't mean others can't have an opinion on the subject. These civil issues will carry over into the rest of the US and the world. Besides that, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up,
The thread is 14 pages long with many very long posts!
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up, I'm a native Californian, with family living there. However, I currently live in Arizona, where we have a similar constitutional amendment on this November's ballot. Our's is worded very simply "Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman". I will vote for it, and it will pass.
Hmm.
As this debate is about Apple donating $100,000 to the Californian campaign your views as a registered voter in Arizona are no more valid/invalid than are mine.
Sorry Apple. You lost me on this one. Off come the Apple logos on our vehicles and I will no longer encourage my clients, friends and family to purchase Apple products. Even though Apple has superior products in the marketplace, I do not want to be associated with a company that's willing to chance alienating many of its customers by challenging their moral stance on an issue. To be more direct. I cannot associate with anyone that opposes the will of our Creator.
Comments
If sexuality is always well-defined and therefore not a choice
It doesn't logically follow that in order to not be a choice, sexuality must be well-defined.
The people of California voted and passed the law stating that marriage was between one man and one women - its called democracy when the people vote. The four judges who over-ruled the will of the people are corrupt and abused their power.
Your criticism of Californian judges implies that you would prefer a majoritarian dictatorship over the parliamentary democracy that you have now.
It's a popular misconception that democracy means that the majority should rule by popular vote.
I will give the example that one of my high school teachers used to explain the concept of democracy:
Imagine there is an island that is populated by 90% sexual sadists and 10% people who prefer regular sexual practices. Popular vote would result in 10% of people becoming sexual slaves to the 90% of sadists, who are the majority.
In this example you would be the sadist.
That kind of "democracy" allows for (and has resulted in) a majority deciding that certain minorities should not be able to participate in democracy at all. In other words, that "democracy" would be undemocratic by its own definition.
Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example.
There are different subgenres of democracy that you can look up on Wikipedia or in "Old Books".
You might also be interested in reading about Trias Politica.
I am an AAPL stockholder too. But I am selling my stock on Monday morning, regardless of price. Any company that uses its stockholders' money this way doesn't need my support.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all major corporations donate to political parties in one way or another?
How will you ensure that any stocks you hold or purchases you make are not indirectly funding something with which you disagree?
My bank in the UK, The Co-operative has an extremely vigourous ethical policy
http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/servl.../GoodWithMoney
and as a result I can be sure that my money does not fund corrupt regimes, animal testing, the arms trade etc.
Unfortunately, as a consumer I do not have this assurance and neither do you or anyone else. How do you know, for example that the $300 you paid the plumber, or the $50 you spent in the local deli did not go straight into the coffers of the 'No' campaign?
The only difference here is that Apple have chosen to donate to a specific campaign and made that donation public.
As a stock holder I believe this is the wrong move at the wrong time by the wrong company. Apple has nothing to win on this one and only things to lose. I am very displeased with Apple's management for taking this type of stand for either side in this hotly contested personal issue. This is a people decision not a company one. It may play well with the "Hollywood Crowd" but not with most shareholders. As for it being courageous, sorry, I find nothing courageous about it at all. I find it very ill advised.
This is not a personal issue! if it were, there would not be an amendment to the states constitution being necessary! This is the state barging in on peoples homes to enforce their bigoted immoral view! This IS a civil rights issue as much as the 60's civil rights issues. Apple has increased it's moral position in the eye's of a large portion of it's users and stockholders. The stock price is not the only important thing in the long run for public companies. (this is the fallacy that put us in the mess we are in now... "the bottom line is all that matters!" This is BS). Companies need to do what is right! even if it's not the popular thing to do!
Way to go Apple! I will gladly purchase more AAPL stock and products in the very near future!
KRR
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
As long as it's your view of "life, liberty and happiness!" that you want to impose on others... What a load of BS!
Marriage is a personal commitment being recognized by the government! It's no longer a religious institution. The traditional family is not under attack and so does not need protecting! What about single parent families, aren't they families? apparently not in your narrow view!
KRR
Your criticism of Californian judges implies that you would prefer a majoritarian dictatorship over the parliamentary democracy that you have now.
It's a popular misconception that democracy means that the majority should rule by popular vote.
I will give the example that one of my high school teachers used to explain the concept of democracy:
Imagine there is an island that is populated by 90% sexual sadists and 10% people who prefer regular sexual practices. Popular vote would result in 10% of people becoming sexual slaves to the 90% of sadists, who are the majority.
In this example you would be the sadist.
That kind of "democracy" allows for (and has resulted in) a majority deciding that certain minorities should not be able to participate in democracy at all. In other words, that "democracy" would be undemocratic by its own definition.
Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example.
There are different subgenres of democracy that you can look up on Wikipedia or in "Old Books".
You might also be interested in reading about Trias Politica.
What is preferred here, is that the judiciary NOT legislate from the bench. The will of the people reigns supreme over a handful of justices. This is typical left wing, liberal, judicial interpretation, instead of a strict constructionist view of the state constitution. IOW, the people do NOT want an extremely small percentage of the population, gays, setting the standards for the rest of us. Get over it!
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------I have rarely seen such utter tosh.
How exactly is your marriage diminished by extending the right to marry to same sex couples?
Is your marriage also diminished by those who divorce or have multiple marriages.
Or by those who have quickie marriages in Las Vegas whilst under the influence.
Or by those couples whose marriages are unhappy and/or violent.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
Are you really saying that marriage is only about raising a family?
If so, are the marriages of those who are unable to have children or choose not to have children invalid?
Should senior citizens be prevented from marrying? After all there is zero chance of them creating a 'traditional family'
And what exactly is a traditional family anyway?
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not even slightly interested in the opinions of foreigners with regard to this issue. It's none of their business how the US and/or California, conduct their affairs. It is the sole prerogative of the citizens of those domains. We are not interested in becoming European Socialists, with all of their problems. They can't even defend themselves without the aid of the US, so kindly mind your own business.
How very blinkered and insular of you.
Let me be perfectly clear.
As a long time Apple customer I have every right to express my view and will continue to do so.
The money I have paid for my Apple products pays the wages of Apple employees in California, and their wages contribute to the US economy.
I find it ironic that a citizen of the USA is demanding that others 'mind their own business'
And don't get me started on the subject of WW2 and tardiness....
None are more blind, then those who will not see! Okay, I'll elaborate a little more.
If you're Hollywood ie. Matt Damon and can say Palin for VP is like a bad Disney movie, knowing, that even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, your opinion will be picked up by both the media news and to shows like Extra, etc. and be given validation.
If you're Hollywood ie. Demi Moore / Ashton Kutcher and can be at a university symposium and voice your opposition to policies even though you have no other outstanding credentials other that being a famous movie star, and your opinion will be picked up by the media news and be given validation.
BUT if you're "Joe the Plumber" where only by fate do you find a bunch of news cameras in your face and that one reply, to a simple question can bring the wrath of the media elite doing more vetting of you, Joe the plumber, then for Barry the politician, yeah, I think that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined below)
Elite - defined - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitist)
How about if your the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers being confront by a Fox News reporter and for once in your life your at a loss for words and have to call the police to escort you from your home to your car so no more embarrassing questions, that you gave no answers to in the first place, will be brought upon you. Bill Ayers the domestic terrorist is now depending upon the very organization (the police) who were his targets he tried to destroy when he bombed the NYPD! I bet he probably needed to get to his car to arrive on time to a University symposium or a magazine interview where he could pronounce his anarchist ways and that he wasn't sorry for bombing the NYPD Police Headquarters or a photo shoot where he can step on the American flag on the ground. IMO that is ELITISM! (see elitism defined above)
These are just a few examples off the top of my head but I am sure with a little research, a little sleep, I can find more.
It's after 1:30 am, Good Night folks!
Oh thought of one more...
When you are Obama's VP pick, Joe Biden, and you say things like "“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”
and the Drive By, Lame Street Media gives Biden a pass even though Hoover was President when the market crashed and television service as we know it began in 1936. Thus all those "fire side chats" of the American people listening to Roosevelt on the radio!
Had Palin said that, front page news on the New York Times with subsequent articles following a week after questioning her capabilities to be VP. Heck they still bring up Dan Quayle and the spelling of "potato" that he said for the kid to add an "e" to the end.
Regarding the media's attention from a democratic gaffe to a republican gaffe, can you say...
go on...
we know you know it...
"ELITISM" yeah, that's right. Don't be affraid to say it when you know it. Just shout out the answer.
Wow! I understand your point now. Joe, the unlicensed, tax owing, I make over $250,000 a year, but nowhere near that, I want to buy my boss out, plumber for president. You must need your toilet fixed. We need the country fixed. Education means nothing? Who's the elitist?
How very blinkered and insular of you.
Let me be perfectly clear.
As a long time Apple customer I have every right to express my view and will continue to do so.
The money I have paid for my Apple products pays the wages of Apple employees in California, and their wages contribute to the US economy.
I find it ironic that a citizen of the USA is demanding that others 'mind their own business'
And don't get me started on the subject of WW2 and tardiness....
The money that you paid to Apple does not entitle you to ANY input with regard to the lives of the citizens of the US, and/or California. If that were true, the money that the US has put into much of the rest of the World would mean that we own it. How ridiculous!
The money that you paid to Apple does not entitle you to ANY input with regard to the lives of the citizens of the US, and/or California. If that were true, the money that the US has put into much of the rest of the World would mean that we own it. How ridiculous!
So let me get this straight. What you are in effect saying is that although MY money is being used to support a cause with which I happen to agree I have no right to say so.
If we follow your logic this debate should be restricted to the registered voters of California, of which, as you are contributing to the debate, I assume you must be one.
You do know that we are on the World Wide Web, don't you?
Oh, and could you please have a word with the AFA who threatened a US boycott of Heinz products unless an ad shown exclusively on UK TV was pulled
I wonder if saying you're a republican will get you a scholarship when going to college...
No, but it will allow you to legally use handicapped parking spots.
The money that you paid to Apple does not entitle you to ANY input with regard to the lives of the citizens of the US, and/or California. If that were true, the money that the US has put into much of the rest of the World would mean that we own it. How ridiculous!
At this point I think you should declare your State.
Precisely!
At this point I think you should declare your State.
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up, I'm a native Californian, with family living there. However, I currently live in Arizona, where we have a similar constitutional amendment on this November's ballot. Our's is worded very simply "Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman". I will vote for it, and it will pass.
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up, I'm a native Californian, with family living there. However, I currently live in Arizona, where we have a similar constitutional amendment on this November's ballot. Our's is worded very simply "Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman". I will vote for it, and it will pass.
Sorry, that was 499 postings ago.
"If we follow your logic this debate should be restricted to the registered voters of California"
Precisely!
The voting of California's Prop 8 should be restricted to registered California voters, as it is now, but that doesn't mean others can't have an opinion on the subject. These civil issues will carry over into the rest of the US and the world. Besides that, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up,
The thread is 14 pages long with many very long posts!
If you had read this thread, then you'd already know. But, for those that can't seem to keep up, I'm a native Californian, with family living there. However, I currently live in Arizona, where we have a similar constitutional amendment on this November's ballot. Our's is worded very simply "Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman". I will vote for it, and it will pass.
Hmm.
As this debate is about Apple donating $100,000 to the Californian campaign your views as a registered voter in Arizona are no more valid/invalid than are mine.