[✌➬]

Ellen to get married.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJrEQxzGtc

[LifeDistortion]

Originally Posted by Lurker

How long before California becomes an independent country?

Maybe Kalifornia should join Canada.

[Lurker]

That would be good.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by ✌➬

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/...s/gay_marriage

if people are lucky it will go as far as Prop 215 and legitimize gay marriage for state employment, insuarance, next-of-kin, adoption, child custody/support cases, etc...

however, much like prop 215, the federal govt and shut down whatever state laws it feels like, so I suppose we shall see.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

if people are lucky it will go as far as Prop 215 and legitimize gay marriage for state employment, insuarance, next-of-kin, adoption, child custody/support cases, etc...

however, much like prop 215, the federal govt and shut down whatever state laws it feels like, so I suppose we shall see.

More reason for California to become independent.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Lurker

More reason for California to become independent.

secessionist movements have a terrifying history of failure, particularly in the United States.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

secessionist movements have a terrifying history of failure, particularly in the United States.

Wait a minute. You're the one who's meant to be really enthusiastic and activistic but immediately you stamp on this one. Seems like you don't like it when people step on your territory of activism, you phoney. And to think of the pointless crap you post.

[✌➬]

Ignore suchfriends dribble about politics.

[pbradley]

Unfortunately this isn't the end of the gay marriage debate in California. The Anti's are greating ready.

[✌➬]

Yeah I know. So on november I will be voting.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Wait a minute. You're the one who's meant to be really enthusiastic and activistic but immediately you stamp on this one. Seems like you don't like it when people step on your territory of activism, you phoney. And to think of the pointless crap you post.

why would I support something so obviously doomed to failure as secession of California from the United States? Like that is every going to happen, who the fuck wants that? CA may be the fifth largest economy on the planet, but like many other governments, it is critically dependent on funding from the US federal government. now on the otherhand, if you are accusing me of going against the gay marriage ruling, when did I say that?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

if you meant "independent" in regards to conventional politics, then why did you respond to my comment on secession? if you are talking about secession, do you honestly believe that the United States would give up the fifth largest economy on the planet?

quit trying to throw mud at I-man, it is ridiculous, at least go attack one my posts that has more substance then this. nobody in the world believes that any state in the US could secede, and the last folks who thought that, well we all learned in gradeschool how that went.

I meant independence in regards to all politics, conventional and nu.

America got independence from the UK so it can be done.

Who is "I-man"? Sounds like a super hero.

I don't know how that went, I didn't got to an American school.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Who is "I-man"? Sounds like a super hero.
.

http://www.translationdirectory.com/dictionaries/dictionary023.htm

[atsonicpark]

 

[steve newman]

you folks are fun! can't wait for the elections!

as for gay marriage. i don't think many who oppose it are fundamentally against same genders revelling in the same opportunities that opposite gendered folks can enjoy. there is no reason to inhibit these rights, and they are rights. but lawful union is already in place in many states. the idea of lawful marriage is set in religious ceremony 99.9% of the time. the real argument pro-gay groups is the ability for churchs to deny gays and lesbians the rite of marriage. almost all gays don't give two shits about getting married in a baptist church. but the gay groups want to be able to force churches to do just that. now, precedents have be set in canada, where hate speech includes making churches perform marriages or be subject to lawsuits. now you're talking a bigger picture. what was now free speech(the right to religious freedom, in particular) will now be classified as hate speech. now i know many of you are either indifferent or excited about the idea of the world sending religion to the stone age, but it serves its purpose, good and bad. the tailoring of speech in america THE FREE(?) is just the beginning of the primrose path to the tailoring of other freedoms. yes, it sounds a bit conspiratory, but look at the way your gov't works. do you really want these guys to be altering our freedoms. all speech, love and hate, should be protected. as long as its not acted upon, its just sticks and stones. i'd love to see everyone get what they want as far as marriage is concerned, the right to and the protection of, but i fear a much larger agenda is lurking in the background. maybe two of you will read all of this, the melvins rule!

[Alex's Trip]

Originally Posted by steve newman

you folks are fun! can't wait for the elections!

as for gay marriage. i don't think many who oppose it are fundamentally against same genders revelling in the same opportunities that opposite gendered folks can enjoy. there is no reason to inhibit these rights, and they are rights. but lawful union is already in place in many states. the idea of lawful marriage is set in religious ceremony 99.9% of the time. the real argument pro-gay groups is the ability for churchs to deny gays and lesbians the rite of marriage. almost all gays don't give two shits about getting married in a baptist church. but the gay groups want to be able to force churches to do just that. now, precedents have be set in canada, where hate speech includes making churches perform marriages or be subject to lawsuits. now you're talking a bigger picture. what was now free speech(the right to religious freedom, in particular) will now be classified as hate speech. now i know many of you are either indifferent or excited about the idea of the world sending religion to the stone age, but it serves its purpose, good and bad. the tailoring of speech in america THE FREE(?) is just the beginning of the primrose path to the tailoring of other freedoms. yes, it sounds a bit conspiratory, but look at the way your gov't works. do you really want these guys to be altering our freedoms. all speech, love and hate, should be protected. as long as its not acted upon, its just sticks and stones. i'd love to see everyone get what they want as far as marriage is concerned, the right to and the protection of, but i fear a much larger agenda is lurking in the background. maybe two of you will read all of this, the melvins rule!

Wrong.

There are already plenty of pro gay churches in many big cities.

[Ciccone Warhol Monroe]

i'm happy for teh gays!!!

[Ciccone Warhol Monroe]

Originally Posted by steve newman

maybe two of you will read all of this

# II.

[steve newman]

Originally Posted by Alex's Trip

Wrong.

There are already plenty of pro gay churches in many big cities.

wrong with what? of course there are pro gay churches. there are churches with no religion at all. the statement simply says laws could be enacted to force churches to comply. some will, some won't. i'd just like to see what the reaction would be if they said mosques and synagogues had to comply as well. its just a theory worth a little thought.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by steve newman

you folks are fun! can't wait for the elections!

as for gay marriage. i don't think many who oppose it are fundamentally against same genders revelling in the same opportunities that opposite gendered folks can enjoy. there is no reason to inhibit these rights, and they are rights. but lawful union is already in place in many states. the idea of lawful marriage is set in religious ceremony 99.9% of the time. the real argument pro-gay groups is the ability for churchs to deny gays and lesbians the rite of marriage. almost all gays don't give two shits about getting married in a baptist church. but the gay groups want to be able to force churches to do just that. now, precedents have be set in canada, where hate speech includes making churches perform marriages or be subject to lawsuits. now you're talking a bigger picture. what was now free speech(the right to religious freedom, in particular) will now be classified as hate speech. now i know many of you are either indifferent or excited about the idea of the world sending religion to the stone age, but it serves its purpose, good and bad. the tailoring of speech in america THE FREE(?) is just the beginning of the primrose path to the tailoring of other freedoms. yes, it sounds a bit conspiratory, but look at the way your gov't works. do you really want these guys to be altering our freedoms. all speech, love and hate, should be protected. as long as its not acted upon, its just sticks and stones. i'd love to see everyone get what they want as far as marriage is concerned, the right to and the protection of, but i fear a much larger agenda is lurking in the background. maybe two of you will read all of this, the melvins rule!

You, sir, are a reactionary moron. You betray your true beliefs in your pseudo-even handed prose, but in fact it's obvious you have a problem with gay marriage., and frankly I feel you have a problem with the whole idea of homosexuality. So there.