April 25, 2005
Unfortunately, this would also overturn Proposition 22, passed by the voters in 2000. It reads as follows.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Now I may be a bit slow, but that seems pretty clear to me. Marriage, according to the California voters, is one man and one woman. It isnÂ’t two guys, two girls, or any other combination. The voters have spoken, approving Prop 22 with a 62% majority, and under the California Constitution the legislature cannot overrule that decision. But the supporters of homosexual marriage are still hell-bent on trying to validate and recognize something other than marriage between a man and a woman -- even if it means violating laws, constitutions, and the will of the people to get it.
Posted by: Greg at
12:52 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
Mind your own damn business and your own damn relationship(s). As long as you got one, shut the fuck up and get over it - ya closet dick-sucker.
Posted by: gregisaretard at Wed Apr 27 01:29:13 2005 (jm7xX)
Notice, I didn't take a position on homosexual marriage or civil unions in the piece. I merely noted that passing the new law would overturn the express directives of the voters of the state of California, who defined marriage as a one man/one woman institution, and that the legislature's action would be both an assault on democracy and the state Constitution.
And you might consider getting over your own (self-loathing?) homophobia -- which is evident in your decision to attack an opponent by calling into question their sexual orientation. Do you really consider homosexuals so morally and socially inferior that engaging in the sort of labelling that you do is sufficient to discredit an opponent? And i will not get into the disgusting nature of your decision to trivialize those with developmental disabilities through your use of the term "retard" to describe me. I guess you hate the mentally handicapped as well as homosexuals.
And I can only note that if that is the best argument you can mount in favor of the piece of legislation currently under consideration in California, then the case for homosexual marriage must be weak indeed.
Oh, and by the way -- get help.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Apr 27 10:30:41 2005 (NO5CG)
Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Apr 28 09:40:42 2005 (LmcbS)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Apr 28 10:06:07 2005 (EFLao)
Posted by: me is the ridor at Sat Apr 30 11:31:55 2005 (nWmj6)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 12:33:13 2005 (vVeux)
Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:54:55 2005 (LmcbS)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 13:23:17 2005 (vVeux)
21 queries taking 0.0088 seconds, 37 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.