Who shouldn't have the right to vote

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and yet only reps indulge in hysteria.....

i would disagree with both on that issue. call it what you want, but as soon as married couples started getting perks from the govt for legally tying themselves to each other, they opened up that pandoras box--once it became a civil issue, due to govt via license requirements and claiming deductions--well, there's that 'all created equal' thing we claim to go by. you can't give rights to some adults, and not others.

i just don't understand why some are so hysterical (aughhghgh, gays, aughghhg)--it makes no sense. how does anyone's life get affected by a gay person? how would my life change if gays could marry? it wouldn't. people need to mind their own dammed business!!

MORMONS are sending money into Cali from Utah(against the gays.) We already had a vote on something like this back in 2000. My guess is it goes the same way this time(against the gays.) If it doesn't, then they will put it back on the ballot until it passes.

[Mortimer]

You would never think someone this irascible and an obvious AB member , with prison tats to prove it, would be such a sissy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

MORMONS are sending money into Cali from Utah(against the gays.) We already had a vote on something like this back in 2000. My guess is it goes the same way this time(against the gays.) If it doesn't, then they will put it back on the ballot until it passes.

i saw that prop one is the second most expensive ballot issue, behind only the presidential election. crazy stuff.
thing is, majority shouldn't rule on this-just because a majority votes for it, doesn't mean it's constitutional to ban gay marriage.
if they voted to get rid of freedom of the press, the first amendment would still be in force.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i saw that prop one is the second most expensive ballot issue, behind only the presidential election. crazy stuff.
thing is, majority shouldn't rule on this-just because a majority votes for it, doesn't mean it's constitutional to ban gay marriage.
if they voted to get rid of freedom of the press, the first amendment would still be in force.

prop 8 is a "initiative constitutional amendment" in california.

so yes, it would be constitutional under california state law to discriminate against gay marriage if it passes.

we've had laws that outlawed interracial marriage and banned certain ethnicities from buying property where they wanted in the past. noted liberal earl warren championed internment for americans of japanese descent during ww2.

there's a long history of discrimination in california. we're not immune to xenophobic seizure's.