>"Guarantee you that prop doesn't succeed if not for the constant threats of having courtrooms decide the will of the people. "

That's an extremely dumb opinion. Stop having it.

It's not for the people to decide whether gay people are equal citizens or not.

Therefore, in a decent society, prop 8 would never have been conceived, let alone voted on. People are not allowed to vote on whether to deny people their self-evident rights or not.

Prop 8 was evil, it's very concept is evil and the people who voted for it invariably did evil.

>>14615

When you're discussing something as ritualistic in its nature as marriage, it's not a dumb opinion at all especially with how supportive Californians are of civil unions.

>>14617

lol, civil unions are a step down from marriage rights when it comes to legal status and tax recognitions. Civil unions are a fucking insult.

If gays don't get to serve openly in the military, adopt or be written up as legal partners, then they shouldn't have to pay as much taxes as "first rate" citizens, no?

Also, marriage predates religion. Marriage as a concept belongs to a society, not any religions in society.

Civil unions are not an acceptable compromise - policy must reflect reality, and reality is that gay love = straight love, which means all the rights, tax dividends and rules must be the same. Anything else is not meritocratic or based on reason/empiricism/self-evident metaphysical qualities, and therefore evil.

I don't want to discuss this anymore. You can have the final word if you want to.

>>14618

Now if they support civil unions as a complete replacement for marriage in our law books, complete with everything that marriage has except for a name, and everyone gay or straight has a civil union (thus "marriage" becoming a term no longer used in legal documents), then I totally support it, mostly because I want to see the commercials opposing it. I'm sure it will have something to do with storms fueled by gay sex and the souls of child sacrifices to Satan or something.

>>14620

>>14620

>>14618

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the point I was making. If I want to convince you that your view of something is false, then I gotta communicate with you right? And do you want me to treat you as a fellow rational being whose views are valuable or do you want me to backhanded methods to force my views on you without giving you your due respect?

I think forcing the courts to make a decision on gay marriage rather than addressing the people directly is what gave you prop 8, among other props that passed in other states to officially limit marriage.

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8. I don't give a shit WHO gets married. Why anyone would want to is actually a mystery to me.


Also, I said marriage was ritualistic, which implies its existence before modern religions, however I would like to add that marriage in the past if you wanna bring that up, was almost solely for business and breeding, not for love. In fact, marriage for love is relatively new and very western concept. So, if you wanna use the whole "it's been around forever" thing, then lets use it in its proper context and not bring up "love".

>>14623

What gave us Prop 8 wasn't the courts, it was a bunch of in-state bigots being funded by a bunch of out-of-state bigots to put a measure on a ballot to try to make an example out of California. A campaign that succeeded by "addressing the people directly," as you put it. Because the people are still a bunch of bigots themselves and are afraid of little Timmy learning that two men or two women can be perfectly happy together.

Also gay sex hurricanes or something, according to the ads that NOM put out.

>>14621

I find that macro doesn't really fit. If that was really meant for Hogan it would say "This, brother!"

... just an aside.

>>14624

What I found funny was that in the aftermath of Prop 8 passing, a number of people pointed out that it was likely because record numbers of black people voted due to Obama being up for election, and that black people actually tend to be heavy on the "social conservative" side... they like church, they don't like gay people, and they really don't like immigrants.

Of course, anyone that brings up such a thing is immediately labeled a racist, because how DARE you say that there's anything negative about black people. The explanation is obviously that a giant sleeper cell of Republicans in California all showed up to the polls, voted Yes on Prop 8 in numbers sufficient to overwhelm all the No votes cast by pro-Obama voters, completely declined to vote in the actual elections, and then went underground again.

>>14624

I like how suddenly people are trying to paint California as a land of roving hicks and bigots since Prop 8. It's this kind of emotional and irrational response that's going to keep marriage away from homosexuals.

Instead of engaging, you're name calling and crying. How do you expect to change someone's mind if your response to their view is to call them a bigot?

Hell, even Elton John said that was the wrong approach to the voters.

>>14627

>How do you expect to change someone's mind if your response to their view is to call them a bigot?

If they can't take being told the truth, that's their problem.

>>14624
>What gave us Prop 8 wasn't the courts, it was a bunch of in-state bigots being funded by a bunch of out-of-state bigots to put a measure on a ballot to try to make an example out of California.

Alright, if that's what you truly believe, then explain how the law that was in place before the courts overturned it was passed to begin with. Was that just "out-of-state bigot"s as well?

>>14626

My pet theory is that people thought that "yes" meant "yes, gay people can marry" instead of "yes, let's fuck over gay people." Probably no basis in actual fact though, and it can't really be proven.

>>14627

I'd love to engage someone logically on the idea that people can marry the same sex, but for the most part I've found that people tend not to listen to any reason besides the one they made up for themselves. At that point when a person literally has no logical argument that has not already been refuted and still refuses to accept that they are incorrect, I'm pretty sure it's safe to call them a bigot.

>>14629

I'm assuming by "the law that was in place before the courts overturned it" references California Proposition 22, on the ballots in 2000, passed, and then struck from the record in 2008 by the California Supreme Court, and then promptly superseded by Prop 8. Unfortunately I was unable to find campaign funding information from the Proposition 22 campaign, but Proposition 8's campaign was very clearly funded by out-of-state interests, including the Latter-Day Saints, as well as companies in places such as Utah and Arizona.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

This is a nice search tool that looks through the donations for the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns. So yes, there was funding coming in from outside California for the Yes on 8 campaign.

>>14630

This makes me feel a little better about my state: according to their records, only 27 people in NC supported Prop 8 with donations (with the top donation being $1,000), while 321 people donated to organizations against it (there were four $1,000 donations and a $2,500 dontation on that side).

>>14618
>civil unions are a step down from marriage rights
Yeah. If they're going to have two separate systems, at least make them equal.

Still separate.

But equal.

>>14635

Isn't there a supreme court decision against that

>>14630
>>My pet theory is that people thought that "yes" meant "yes, gay people can marry" instead of "yes, let's fuck over gay people." Probably no basis in actual fact though, and it can't really be proven.

I find that unlikely, considering that at some point some of these people might have gotten together to talk amongst themselves about how they voted and put two and two together.

Considering that there's precedent for people protesting a "confusing" ballot and getting a lot of attention by doing so, if such a confusion had happened I think it would have been brought to light by now.

I think that people are going to have to wake up and start understanding that The Land of Liberal Ideals and the Land of Equality And Tolerance are not automatically the same thing.

It's one of the reasons that gay people need to realize that the solution to society's inequalities is not "voting Democrat", and just forcing themselves not to notice when 99 out of 100 of Democrats with thoughts of office higher than "local campaign organizer" is going on record saying they think marriage is between a man and a woman. The Democrats convincing the alt sexuality demographic that it can only get anywhere by voting for them, to the point that most GLBT organizations are just thinly-veiled Democrat advocacy organizations, is perhaps one of the top ten massive PR spins in the last century.

Since I'm finding myself posting more and more frequently I'm taking up the name of the best rare parrot in the universe, the Kakapo. To complete the rite of passage for this name, I will be raping an Englishman's head shortly.

>>14641

Yeah, that's kinda why I thought it was silly and said I couldn't prove it.

Basically everything anyone thinks they know about either side of American politics has been sold to them by one of two massive political machines, neither of which actually does anything that the people that vote for them think they do except carry a name. Consequently, I hate every politician ever. Except Teddy Roosevelt; he's exempt, mostly because I'm concerned about his ghost strangling me to death at night with nothing but his mustache.

Back on topic a bit more, did anything else come out of this story yet? If they're headed to court, I'd love to see something like the Prop 8 Trial Tracker back in January except with this case instead of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, unless it's videotaped and put on Youtube, in which case it's better.

So basically, the gay demo is so small that neither side thinks it's worth the loss of voters they'd get by catering to it?

>>14620

That's what I've always favored over either of the other options anyway. So far you two and Mason "Tailsteak" Williams are the only other people on earth I've ever seen step forward with that position, though, so good luck ever getting it to stick. I imagine most people would brand it as "forced fake compromise" at best, and "pandering to [insert arguer's opposing party here]" at worst.

Didn't "marriage licenses" not exist in the US until they needed a way to ban interracial marriage, anyway? That's what I was told at least (I was also told it didn't happen until after the Civil War, but that's a little hard to swallow).

>>14646

I believe it came about to support the tax breaks being given to families and make sure couples were really married. It was part of the attempt, successful, to create the middle class in the 50s.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000972-504083.html

>Schools Superintendent Teresa McNeece testified in front of a federal judge Monday that officials had discussed not sponsoring the prom even before McMillen's rule-challenging request, and cited liability concerns over alcohol and drugs at a school sponsored event.

>McNeece testified that the final decision to cancel the prom came as a result of the controversy surrounding McMillen's request.

So basically, they just wanted an excuse to cancel the prom, and the lesbian was the best scapegoat. Nice.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/03/ellen-degeneres-constance-mcmillen-college-thirty-thousand-tonic.html

Okay, this is pretty cool.

This, however, is not: http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=24662

>>14746
>Schools Superintendent Teresa McNeece testified in front of a federal judge Monday that officials had discussed not sponsoring the prom even before McMillen's rule-challenging request, and cited liability concerns over alcohol and drugs at a school sponsored event.

>McNeece testified that the final decision to cancel the prom came as a result of the controversy surrounding McMillen's request.

Bullshit.

And I hope the furniture mart catches fire and burns down around their bigoted little ears.

I'm telling you. She's gotta write a book next.

That 30 grand is just the beginning of the kind of cash she can make off all this.

Still no prom, but the courts did find in favor of Constance McMillen that her rights were violated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_re_us/us_lesbian_prom_date

>>14645
Yeah, pretty much. If I had a penny for every person who still thought that MAYBE 1 percent of America cared about gay rights, and 1/10th of 1 percent WERE gay...

Essentially, though, it's that they're not voting for what they think will get people to vote for them...at least not directly. They're voting for what will keep the lobbyist money flowing in, which lets them make flashier and wider-spread ads. And "the people" do seem to believe the ads.

Mind, not all lobbies are expressly anti-gay per se - there are lobbies from the NRA (quit claiming "the government" is about to "take away all our guns" - we've seen no signs that they want to do anything like that anyway, but even if they did, they won't with the NRA watching) and from all the major insurance firms (hence why the health bill had zero legislation designed to get the insurance firms to stop smashing the public with killer fees) But there are enough religious groups with large bankrolls lobbying to keep many Congressmen from voting for gay rights.

Something I'd like to opine here: I believe we must stop thinking of and calling these fights "for GAY rights". We really need to remind people that these are HUMAN rights. We're not fighting for a splinter group - these are human beings, being denied basic rights, and that needs to stop.

Oh look a WestBubbafuck town actually giving a shit about faggots and doing some to upset the entire studnet body for the sake of PRINCIPLES AND MORALS that they don't even believe in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01prom.html
Sooo... Irony. Yeah.

>>15017

Atheists need to get more street cred and support before groups like the ACLU consider them worth the trouble over other more popular minority groups.

>>15051

We chose to be atheists, and be part of a minority. Gays and ethnic minorities couldn't choose.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/06/constance_mcmillen_fake_prom

Any sympathy you MAY have had for the school board/town/etc.? Yeah, that should be dead as soon as you read this.

>>15103

Someone... get me a shitload of kerosene, a cage full of rats, and a grill lighter.

That town is late for its preview of the fires of Hell.

>>15106


While I can't fault you for being passionate about this issue, your response to it is... well...


I await whatever punishment comes my way.

Funny thing...there were minority students at the "real" prom.

They should get a civil rights history lesson: 45 years ago in Alabama, whites pulled the "fake prom" trick on a black girl - http://bit.ly/cRfZJY (Link goes to Google News.)

Gotta fuckin' love the South.

This town should change its name

>>15112

You're a real prick sometimes, Id.

>>15116

Careful about venting, or His Holy Smugness ID_Fox might call you an internet tough guy and then smarm about expecting a banning in Eagleland as if he were one of the whiny little Lulztards we get in here.

>>15103
After all the shit she's been put through, they pull this crap. To the residents of Itawamba, I can say only this: FUCK YOU.

Words cannot express my anger and disgust.

>>15115

Guilty, and I apologize.

http://www.queerty.com/constance-mcmillens-high-school-also-suspended-a-transgender-student-just-cause-20100325/

http://www.akawilliam.com/classmate-explains-why-constance-mcmillen-was-sent-to-fake-prom-because-shes-lesbian/

Fuck. That. Whole. Goddamn. School.

>>15136
I can't believe that cunt had the gall to start her first post with "Open-minded Readers Only." People say they should just fire the school's administration. After what I've been reading, I think they should just firebomb the whole damn town.

>>15137

"Open-minded readers only" is and always has been social site code for "People that agree with me only".

I think this one image eloquently sums up my reaction over the entire course of this thing.

Someone build this and use it on this town.

You know, this kind of thing you would expect out of the villains in a John Hughes movie...It would be funny if it didn't paint a picture of intolerance.

>>How interesting, twenty years ago not wanting homosexuals at a prom would be basic. I guess we just have to wait until 2030 and pedophilia will be socially acceptable, and your antiquated mentally regressive Christfag philosophy will be dead and buried.
They wouldn't be allowed anyway, kids can't be around alcohol in public places, and everyone knows the punch is always spiked.

>>How interesting, fifty years ago not wanting negros at a prom would be basic. I guess we just have to wait until 2060 and beastiality will be socially acceptable, and your antiquated mentally regressive Christfag philosophy will be dead and buried.
This is called a 'fraternity initiation', and wouldn't be allowed in a prom because proms are for high school, not college.

It is impossible to sympathize with or talk to people who actually base their opinion of actions and decisions that do not concern them or society based on religion. I just hate these people and really don't think other Americans should go to war for them if they were to be invaded by Obama's Mexico-UN-Al Gore army.

http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2010/04/05/the-meanest-town-in-america-fake-prom-for-lesbian-student/
You've probably already seen this link through the others, but if you didn't click on the hyperlinks, I have to post this just to highlight something I noticed as a running theme throughout her classmates' defenses, here and on facebook.
All I can say is thank god Constance is enough of a social pariah and enough of an 'obnoxious loudmouth' as her classmates accuse her of being to get this story recognized.
Ctrl+F to begleg10 and read onwards at what her classmates say. Things like they can't be treating the disabled/retarded kids badly, because they never talk/look at them anyway. That all says so much, in so few words, about their world views...They literally think of anyone who acts different as a stupid pack mule who doesn't deserve any sort of attention, and that a lack of attention isn't a bad thing. Essentially, the disabled kids can't be mistreated if their existence is never acknowledged in the first place. I have a feeling Constance wasn't exaggerating when she mentioned the 9-person prom might be the highlight of their lives, especially if they continue to live in Fulton.
I seem to recall a story a ways back about a mentally ill man living with his mom who was continually badgered by the local schoolgirls and shunned by adults, eventually got his hands on a gun and sniped a passenger in the back of the head after an egging as the car drove away...They're fixin' to create those kinds of people if Constance ever leaves and they have to fend for themselves.