The People's Democratic Republic of Insomnia

"It's just laser beams and power chords--there's no plot at all."

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Didn't See THAT Coming...

California Voters Ban Gay Marriage

Published: November 5, 2008

LOS ANGELES — California voters have adopted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, The Associated Press reported Wednesday, joining voters in two other states who went to the polls Tuesday to overturn such unions....

10 Comments:

  • At 6/11/08 14:25 , Blogger KAISER ANDY I said...

    The homosexuals would not have had as much difficulty if they wouldn't have tried to use the word marriage.

    Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Easy as that.

     
  • At 6/11/08 20:42 , Blogger Jenny said...

    But 'marriage' is a legal term, not just a religious one. If it was a 'civil union' it wouldn't be marriage and therefore legally protected in the same way.
    Separate but equal is never equal.
    Not claiming a side, just saying.

     
  • At 6/11/08 22:20 , Blogger Ted said...

    I used to be pro-civil union until it was pointed out to me that a civil union (or the equivalent) costs thousands of dollars, while it's possible to get married cheaply for about $50. That ain't right.

     
  • At 7/11/08 01:51 , Blogger MelloYello said...

    I think EVERYBODY should be legally bound to their significant other in a "civil union" if you want to get married go to a freakin' church. And i concur ted, it should not cost more, that's ridiculous.
    I also (believe it or not) agree with andy. if they called it something else "warriage" for instance they probably wouldn't get as much flack

     
  • At 7/11/08 14:40 , Blogger KAISER ANDY I said...

    Why is it that people are finding it odd that they agree with me?
    I mean, I am the Kaiser after all, and if you weren't in agreement with me before, then you were in violation of the internet alien and sedition act of about twenty minutes ago.

    I see where you're coming from Jenny. Without the legal term people can't have acrymonious divorces where the belongings are fought over- you would just have two people breaking up!

     
  • At 7/11/08 15:33 , Blogger Ted said...

    Mary has a neat idea, but I don't think it's politically workable. Give gay marriage a generation or two and you'll be seeing the Ms. President and the First Lady in the White House.

    Hey, we just elected a black guy. It could happen.

     
  • At 7/11/08 20:37 , Blogger KAISER ANDY I said...

    I realize that he's still alive, but if we were to elect a lesbian, Billy Grahm would choke, die, and then roll over in his grave.

     
  • At 8/11/08 21:32 , Blogger Yankee John said...

    this is the basic problem with democracy. You see, if you give the people the right of self-determination with the full weight of law behind them, then they're going to express their majority will.

    It is difficult to protect the alleged rights of a minority group when the application of those rights is judged by the majority.

    Besides, we in this country have a long history of denying rights to minority groups. Seperate but equal did work and for a long time, from the perspective of the southern white majority.

    Again, this is the problem with a democracy. Minority views (as defined as being not commonly held by most of the people) will take time to be assimilated into the mainstream. It was only 40 years from the summer of Bobby and Martin to the election of Obama. Given the rapid pace of information, why not give Hollywood another decade or two to wear down the majority's resistance and infiltrate their agenda to Bubba's kids, the next electorate.

    Concepts like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property are concrete, unto themselves. Legal terminology, when bound up in religious morality (see also: marriage, sexuality, and abortion) becomes far less unanamous or self-evident.

    But the simple answer is this: you cannot simultaneously support the voice of the majority electing a black man president and decry another majority determining what is or is not acceptable in their society. Give the power to the people and you get what you deserve.

     
  • At 9/11/08 18:27 , Blogger Ted said...

    You misunderstand me. I am completely in agreement with the rights of Californians to choose to ban gay marriage. I disagree with the decision they made, but I will not deny their right to make it.

    I was, however, surprised by the result.

     
  • At 10/11/08 15:42 , Blogger KAISER ANDY I said...

    Surprised because it's liberal California?
    I can understand that.

    Things never change, Yooj.
    Vote Tory.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home