| # | Author | Message |
441
| Kar2oonMan
Thu 6/5/2008 12:50p | >>Moreover, Zogby polling is now starting to show that a majority of Californians are in favor of allowing gays to marry.<<
Ti-iii-iii-iiime, is on our side
Yes it is.... |
442
| Dabob2
Thu 6/5/2008 1:08p | I hadn't heard that they'd rejected the stay. That's excellent news. So now people will be able to marry from later this month till at least November? That will help put a human face on the issue when it comes time to vote. |
443
| DAR
Thu 6/5/2008 1:12p | I said either in this thread or one of the other threads about this topic, but getting Californians or New Yorkers or people from Massachusetts to approve gay marriage is like putting a bratwurst in front of me and then asking if I want a beer with it. Of course I do. The only way real progress is going to be made here is if the Montana's fall in line. |
444
| Dabob2
Thu 6/5/2008 1:24p | Every state represents progress. And a majority of Californians and Massachusettsians (??) didn't used to favor it either. |
445
| Kar2oonMan
Thu 6/5/2008 1:42p | >>The only way real progress is going to be made here is if the Montana's fall in line.<<
People in Montana don't like beer with bratwurst? What's the matter with them? |
446
| DAR
Thu 6/5/2008 1:53p | <<Every state represents progress. And a majority of Californians and Massachusettsians (??) didn't used to favor it either.>>
Right but I think California is your "Normandy Beach." |
447
| Dabob2
Thu 6/5/2008 2:35p | MA is already first.
CA is very important, though. One in 9 Americans live in CA, I think. The sheer numbers mean that within a few years quite a few married couples will be moving elsewhere, where all of a sudden they're "not married." It may take a few decades, but eventually I think SCOTUS will have to look at it the way they did with interracial marriage, where some states allowed it and some didn't (which lasted for decades) and said that was untenable. |
448
| SingleParkPassholder
Thu 6/5/2008 5:08p | "So now people will be able to marry from later this month till at least November? That will help put a human face on the issue when it comes time to vote."
Yes, exactly. Those wedding bells will never be unrung. No residency requirements, either. |
449
| SingleParkPassholder
Thu 6/5/2008 5:45p | And even if the ban would passes, there would likely be legal challenges to it.
http://www.metnews.com/article...2108.htm
The article spells out why the proposed amendment could be illegal to begin with and how those arguments could be used to challenge it in court, so yet another avenue of attack in addition to the merits of equal protection.
|
450
| DouglasDubh
Fri 6/6/2008 6:55a | <How about overt displays? Should that be banned?>
Depends on how overt. I definitely think that some of the things that go on during the SF gay pride parade go over the line.
<Before going there, "overt displays" meaning the same sort of "overt displays" of heterosexuality you might see in public.>
I think for now most people are going to have a little more tolerance for heterosexual displays than homosexual displays.
<I won't even try to paraphrase the rest, it's WAY too prejudiced and I don't even want to copy/paste the filth.>
Oh brother.
|
