George Takei's Marriage Rendered Illegal

Which was a complete falsehood wrapped in the guise of "PLEASE SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

The word "school" did not exist in Prop 8 as it was written. Nor did the word "church." Both were appeals to fear based on lies.

Why?

Edit: it's no more ridiculous than allowing people to get married, divorced, and remarried dozens of times.

No, the don't want "approval and acceptance." They want the legal protections and tax benefits that come with marriage.

Which are the same legal protections and tax benefits that you enjoy.

Because God Said So. Duh.

How do you guarantee equitable dissolution of the marital contract under current divorce law?

The same way groups of two do it: a signed contractual agreement.

The 5th:

Nothing in there about marriage.

The relevent portion of the 14th:

If you hold that equal protection applies to marriage then I, as a single person, am being discriminated against. Groups of two people who get a marriage license from the state enjoy a legally-recognized position that I do not have.

Which is not currently supported by the legal system.

What restraint would prevent a school from adding recognition of gay marriage to the curriculum? None that I can see.

So, you're a religious bigot, eh, Timmy?

What restraint would prevent a school from adding recognition of the flying spaghetti monster to the curriculum? None that I can see.

But the notion that Prop 8 failing would lead to gay marriage being taught in the curriculum is no more true than saying that passing Prop 1 would mean bullet trains would become a part of their curriculum. Hell, any of these props have probably been discussed in classrooms just because they're on the ballot, whether they're passed or not. So by getting Prop 8 on the ballot, those groups that didn't want gay marriage being discussed in the classroom failed in their agenda.

Better than being just a plain old all around bigot.

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How? Either way, you're just a piece of shit.

Since this is already possible in cases of heterosexual marriage within the mob, I don't see this as much of an argument.

And I say once again, if you require iron-fisted control of your child's exposure to concepts you deem offensive, you need to save up your pennies and enroll your little holylarvae in the theofascist indoctrination gulag of your choice. You could claim anything was covered by the notion of "moral views". A publicly-funded school should no more be promoting "gay marriage is great!!" than it should be "gays are evil and will burn in hell!!", but it's stupid to expect them to pretend the subject doesn't exist at all. A school simply recognizing gays isn't a moral statement at all. It being Kalifornia, I'm sure they took it further than that, but this should be a seperate topic. The fact that they bound the two subjects together doesn't mean I do.

The harm caused by littering is easy enough to connect that I'm sure you don't need me to explain it. So I will just repeat some other things you already know: You are not harmed when something offends you. You are not harmed when someone uses a word in a way you don't like. You are not harmed when government doesn't bend to your religious beliefs. And you are not fucking harmed when the rest of the tax-paying community is extended the same government functions as you.

Yep. I work with a couple of people who have young kids in CA public schools, and it seems that Prop 8 was the topic du jour amongst the young'uns of the west side of Los Angeles. Not in the classrooms, but on the buses and playgrounds.

Unintended consequences in action.

Sure thing, bigot.

Goddamn, I never believed that California of all places would pass this measure. The ads from the Yes on 8 crowd used any and every tactic from exaggeration to flat out lies to sway voters and apparently 52 percent of the voters took it.

Un-fucking-belivable.

There are plenty of dumb fucks who get married every day that shouldn't be together, for a host of reasons that extend well beyond the fact that the parties involved share the same genitals. Should we just say "marriage isn't a right" for those who marry for money, or those that are ill-suited but rush off to the alter because the woman got knocked up? Or--even more common--ones where one party just gives into a marraige he or she really doesn't want because they want their partner to shut up?

If they can't tolerate a differing point of view, they should be living in a theocracy.

Being legally married doesn't require anyone on the street to vocally recognize you as such. This "approval and acceptance" bullshit doesn't seem to have a clear definition.

Here is the ULTIMATE irony. In Ca and Fl white voters by about 55 to 45 voted in favor of allowing or keeping gay marriage. Black people by by a 70 to 30 ratio voted against gay marriage. So, because so many black people came out to vote to celebrate a black man finally overcoming civil rights issues, a whole new group was denied their so called civil rights. Had they not been out in such numbers Prop 8 would have failed and Florida would have allowed gay marriage This is from CNN's own exit polling.

I guess live and let live did not apply here.

The same way you adapt any other legal code to changing conditions: you alter the fucking law. This is just your arbitrary paperwork non-argument again.

Timmy! You put up a picture of yourself! How nice.

Ahh another comment from the dumber half of dumb and dumber.

And the legal system never changes.

Oh, wait....