That said, the Prop. 8 thing is just absolute garbage. Something that I had admired about the church up to this point was its reticence on political issues. No more; that virtue has given way to a pernicious vice. This kind of thing is not okay. Just because something is contrary to their own doctrine is no reason to outlaw it. No one is suggesting that they would be forced to marry gays in their temples, so what’s the big idea? There is no big push to outlaw drinking, smoking, or pornography, so why this? If they want to play politics, they really, really need to understand that they are likely to get it just as good as they gave. What an absolute shame.

One man, one women.
One man, one man.
One woman, one woman.

All are *ARBITRARY* constructs of the State.

There is *NO* logical conclusion, but that prohibitions against polygamy are *ARBITRARY* constructs of the State.

Why are more than one man/woman married any different? We’re all in love, stop judging us you bigots.

If gay marriage is ok, then polygamy *HAS* to be ok too. Both or neither. One or the other is just more bigotry.

Get the damn State out of it!

I think you’re right. We often sow our own seeds. When you work so hard to take away other people’s rights, you shouldn’t be surprised when you lose some of yours. But I doubt anyone in the gay community would appreciate the parallel between them taking losing their rights to marry and them taking away gun owner and property owner rights.

I love the scapegoat thing after an election!! Let’s get the Mormons because they gave money for commercials!!

Come on!!! This was a VOTE. I don’t thing the Mormon population in CA turned this election. I read that the Anti-8 side outspent the Pro-8 side by a significant margin. In fact I read that it was the black vote that was the difference for Prop 8. But by liberal logic, blacks are a protected class and therefore can’t be persecuted.

You’d have more credibility here (well, actually not, since you don’t have any in the first place, but work with me people) had Radley not already written about how sad and hypocritical it is that the black vote helped pass Prop 8.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129925.html

Wait, did I say “going too far”? I meant “become completely hilarious”. Sorry.

Come on!!! This was a VOTE. I don’t thing the Mormon population in CA turned this election. I read that the Anti-8 side outspent the Pro-8 side by a significant margin. In fact I read that it was the black vote that was the difference for Prop 8. But by liberal logic, blacks are a protected class and therefore can’t be persecuted.

So Prop 8 is merely a statute. And since California’s supreme court said in April of this year that it considers a gay marriage ban to be in violation of California’s constitutional protection against “sex discrimination”, that same court will quickly overturn Prop 8 for the same reason.

The only way a gay marriage ban in CA will ever withstand this type of challenge is if it’s enacted as a constitutional amendment, or if the membership of the state supreme court changes so that a majority of its members will uphold the ban. I don’t see either happening soon.

Prop 8 is doomed.

Now should the state be telling people who and how many they should be married to, no. Marriage is a religious institution, keep the two seperated. At one time it served a purpose, see bastardly bonds for example.

Let’s keep it what it really is, a domestic partnership.

A gay man and a gay woman have the same right to marry each other as would a straight man and a straight women. Two gay men would have no more right to marry each other than would two straight men; likewise two gay women have no more right to marry each other than would two straight women.

Note, btw, that were it permissible, there would be situations where two straight men or two straight women might benefit financially from a “marriage”, even if they had no intention of sleeping with each other. I have yet to hear any straight people clamoring for such benefits, however.

The principle that a marriage should contain exactly one male–not zero, and not two–is not an invention of government. Indeed, that requirement predates by thousands of years anything resembling modern government. I have seen no indication whatsoever that the people who wrote the “equal protection” clause intended to overrule such a long-standing principle. The Fourteenth Amendment was held to protect the rights of newly-freed slaves, but that’s because the Thirteenth Amendment explicitly abolished slavery. Had it not been for the Thirteenth Amendment, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to slaves would have been an untenable legal stretch.

But San Francisco lefties cheered when citizens were forbidden to own a firearm. They’re quite comfortable with taking away rights, and have a long history of doing it.

They’ll take your weapons, because they don’t like them. They’ll control your property, because they don’t like the way you wish to use it. They’ll take your money, because they want to give it to someone else.

California is one of the most regulated places in America, and it’s been that way for years… give govt a big enough sword, eventually it will cut you too.

Creating an environment in which rights are no longer something solid is a very dangerous game. They simply lost their own game this time around. Stings, doesn’t it?

By the way, I was added to my “wife’s” insurance without hassle (non-married couple). We don’t have a marriage license and were “married” by our friend. The belief that a state must recognize gay marriage or else a gay couple cannot get insurance might no longer be an issue.

Did the free market provide?

The property transfer thing is not a big deal, but health insurance is a VERY big deal, as companies do not recognize non-married couples! Hetro or gay!

Though the Mormons were indeed a very visible presence in pushing for prop 8, there are not enough of them in CA or the nation for that matter, to actually create votes on the subject! That would require an ACORN to do.

Many other religious organizations were also involved in some pulpit lobbying of their own. One can bet with lots and lots of money in the bucket as well.

Oh and not all mormons give a crap about gay marriage either. Allot, yes, but not all.

Oh and that attack add against the church, was really out of this world! But in another defense of the “enforcement division of the missionaries”, (does not exist btw), hey they tore a reproducible govt. issued document in half, didn’t shoot anybody!

No animals were harmed during the typing of this drivel.