Democracy!... when it goes our way...

[C-Kwik]

TBH you guys have me so damned confused I think I know less about prop 8 now than when we started.

Well, you are trying to argue on 2 fronts. Sensibles13driver and myself are arguing different points for the most part, but there is a bit of bleedover. I can see how it gets confusing if you try to respond to both of us simultaneously. Perhaps try addressing each argument separately and specifically. Even at the risk of repeating yourself. However, in hopes to bring you some clarification I'll try to sum up my points as best I can. Bear in mind, this does not relate to anyone else's argument. Only the point I have been making and the matters of the issue that relate to my points.

Starting at the beginning, California passed an initiative (Prop 22) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This was merely a definition within the law. The Supreme Court deemed that the law was unconstitutional based on the interpretation of the California state constitution. So an initiative was secured to try and change the constitution itself. There are essentially 2 methods for doing this. The more traditional way is to pass it through legislation with at least a 2/3rd's vote and then it must secure 50% of the popular vote. This is required for any amendment that effects a "major" change (revision). "Minor" amendments need only to secure 8% of the voter population's signatures to place an initiative amendment on the ballot and 50% of the popular vote.

In the case of Prop 8, it passed the initiative amendment requirements to effect the change to the constitution. The case is now going to be heard by the CA Supreme Court based on the assertion as to whether or not defining marriage explicitly as between a man and a woman should be defined as a revision or an amendment.

One of the key points in relation to your view is that those that were against Prop 8 tried to have it removed from the ballot through the supreme court. It was rejected, but not by review of any contentions made by either side. It was rejected because the supreme court does not make decisions on laws that aren't voted in. So now the anti-prop 8 group are asking the court to review the case since it falls within protocol and the court agrees to do so.

In a broader scope, certainly, the anti-Prop 8 group pushing this through has an agenda to abolish this amendment. But the methodology used will be purely based on the aspect of whether or not proper process was used to enact the amendment in the first place.

My personal view on that aspect is that while the physical change to the constitution is actually quite small, the intent and impact is quite large. I would think this would be considered a revision. However, the reasoning behind it is certainly grey and could potentially go either way.

As I said though, I think Prop 8 supporters used a poor strategy to approach this. However, I can't blame them as the trend for new voters is that more and more liberal voters are making it to the polls each election while the number of conservative voters are dropping. This means its highly unlikely that they will ever have enough support in the legislation to get the 2/3rds needed to get it on the ballot as a revision. So my impression is they hope to get it secured as an initiative amendment ad do their best to have it enforced through the supreme court and eventually try and keep the constitution the way they would like to see it.

There are essentially two outcomes of this case. If prop 8 is determined to be a revision, then it becomes invalidated as the proper protocol wasn't used to effect the revision. Basically, they lose. It likely won't be brought up as an initiative amendment again as it will likely be struck down again. The other potential outcome is that the supreme court allows Prop 8 to stand as an initiative amendment. In this case, they get a short term win, but as voter trends continue, its only a matter of time before the pro-gay-rights side brings up an initiative amendment to reverse Prop 8 and secures the vote to win (my opinion). And since the polar opposite amendment will have already passed through the supreme court, it would be tough to argue that they can't allow any other such amendments to stand.

Hope this helps. If something doesn't make sense, please ask specifically and I'll try to clarify it.

[C-Kwik]

The Problem is this, Due Process of Law, which these guys are arguing is a very slippery slope. And can be used to justify the courts striking down any law that makes anything illegal. I guess we need to be prepared for what comes next if the courts keep interpreting Due Process of Law as guaranteeing fundamental fairness in regards to the State 14th Amendment and Federal Gov 5th Amendment. Instead of interpreting Due Process of Law in its classical sense of respecting the Laws of the Lands.

If I am being included in "these guys" bear in mind that my argument is limited in scope to whether or not Prop 8 is a revision or an initiative amendment. I'm trying to be clear so that I am not merely lumped into arguing anything else, as I have not...

Having children and raising them with their biological parents. Of course, divorce throws that out the window and is further showing there is a breakdown of what marriage really is regardless. Same sex couples cannot procreate.

Heh. There is absolutely no requirement to have to be married to have children. Nor does being married constitute a requirement to bear children. There is no biological basis for marriage to exist. It's purely social.

It's a point of irritation that I throw up and IS technically correct. There is emotion in both forms of relationships. One leads to expanding the species and one does not. Granted, that's more the traditional perspective as divorce is too easy of a choice in today's environment which is somewhat making the word marriage useless anyway. Again, I'm on the fence with the whole situation due to gay family members but that does not mean I won't argue one side or the other. I definitely do not dislike the individual regardless of gay or straight.

By that account though, a couple that can't have children should be excluded from marriage as well. And I'm not talking about just couples that might discover an infertility issue after the fact. Even senior citizens (menopausal) get married. When heteros no longer have a choice to get married, THEN it will be fair.

As for divorce, one might argue that its marriage that is too easy a choice.

And I do understand that you tend to argue both sides of this issue. I have no problem with that. Gives me something to argue against.

[audtatious]

Heh. There is absolutely no requirement to have to be married to have children. Nor does being married constitute a requirement to bear children. There is no biological basis for marriage to exist. It's purely social.

Of course not and of course it is, in a way. It's part of what makes society and a values-based system. I find it comical that this boundary is being deemed "civil rights" and should be over turned when the same people are against overturning other boundaries that "hold back" others. Why have any boundaries in the first place? Why not let everyone do what they want and when they want? Boundaries and guidelines simply don't seem necessary anymore as someone will feel they are being denied something they may desire to do. Everything is all touchy-feely now and we should not hold anything up as "justifiable".

By that account though, a couple that can't have children should be excluded from marriage as well. And I'm not talking about just couples that might discover an infertility issue after the fact. Even senior citizens (menopausal) get married. When heteros no longer have a choice to get married, THEN it will be fair.

As for divorce, one might argue that its marriage that is too easy a choice.

And I do understand that you tend to argue both sides of this issue. I have no problem with that. Gives me something to argue against.

I say get rid of marriage all together and let it be only religious in nature. Of course, that will simply lead to more attacks against religion as history and court systems have shown us. Maybe we should just label "married" as a gay term now? Hell, it's all about forced acceptance and recognition anyway.

[sensibleS13driver]

Hell, it's all about forced acceptance and recognition anyway.

I've heard you say this before and I think your beef is with the Courts and poorly designed legislation. Most gay marriage proponents recognize the difference between ambiguous social "acceptance" and legal equality. The original article in here shows how weak and poorly designed CA Prop 8 is. The Courts are the ones who have the power to "force recognition". Prop 8 was thrown together between May and November, and it is pretty clearly unconstitutional- Constitutional lawyers don't just say that stuff to play politics. Had it made a few more caveats, and had more time and thought put into it, it would be much more difficult to challenge afterward. As it is however, it's no wonder there has been such a vocal recoil. It is sloppy and likely to be overturned, potentially locking in the "recognition" much more securely.

[audtatious]

Of course it's going to be overturned. If not this time it will at some point in the near future. They have done a good job with "but we just want to love each other" to pull at peoples heart strings, then they get the anti-religion folks on board and make it a point to portray gays on TV in a positive light so people can associate with the characters. Very smart.

The protests and carrying on they have done recently is not going to get them any sympathy from anyone and will probably have a negative effect on some.

[ishkabibble]

I have yet to see proof that gay is anything but a choice.

I have yet to see proof that being anti-gay marriage is anything but homophobia and bigotry.

Funny how the self-proclaimed "traditional conservatives" around here get so pissy about being "forced to accept" homosexuality, but are very nonchalant about being "forced to accept" Christian values.

[Cold_Zero]

Funny how the self-proclaimed "traditional conservatives" around here get so pissy about being "forced to accept" homosexuality, but are very nonchalant about being "forced to accept" Christian values.

What planet have you been living on? For the past 30 some years I have been alive there has been an all out assault on anything Judeo-Christian in this society. But hey, ish, go play the victim here having to be 'forced to accept Christian values' and all.

[audtatious]

I have yet to see proof that being anti-gay marriage is anything but homophobia and bigotry.

Funny how the self-proclaimed "traditional conservatives" around here get so pissy about being "forced to accept" homosexuality, but are very nonchalant about being "forced to accept" Christian values.

Who's forcing Christian values down your throat? Do you simply have disdain for any societal values or just those that can be attributed from having a religious origin?

[ishkabibble]

Who's forcing Christian values down your throat?

Christians? And their vehicle, the neocons.

Do you simply have disdain for any societal values or just those that can be attributed from having a religious origin?

I'm for allowing people to be as free as reasonably possible.

What planet have you been living on? For the past 30 some years I have been alive there has been an all out assault on anything Judeo-Christian in this society. But hey, ish, go play the victim here having to be 'forced to accept Christian values' and all.

It's a matter of perception. Christians see a war on Christianity led by the left, the left sees an imposition of Christian values being led by the neocon "base".

Your accusation of "playing the victim" is unfounded.

[Cold_Zero]

It's a matter of perception. Christians see a war on Christianity led by the left, the left sees an imposition of Christian values being led by the neocon "base".

Your accusation of "playing the victim" is unfounded.

You know what they say, "Perception IS Reality."

[ishkabibble]

Well, there is perceived reality and then there is objective reality.

[audtatious]

Christians? And their vehicle, the neocons.

Ahhhh, the bad 'ole neocons who have ruined the US......

I'm for allowing people to be as free as reasonably possible.

Who makes the determination of what reasonable is?

It's a matter of perception. Christians see a war on Christianity led by the left, the left sees an imposition of Christian values being led by the neocon "base".

We should jail all those damn neocons. How strange it is that the majority of Californians, who happened to vote for prop 8, are all neocon Christians. Wait, we are talking about California so how can that be? Could it be possible that a large number of non-neocon non-Christians don't support the viewpoint either?

GASP

[sensibleS13driver]

What planet have you been living on? For the past 30 some years I have been alive there has been an all out assault on anything Judeo-Christian in this society. But hey, ish, go play the victim here having to be 'forced to accept Christian values' and all.

LOL

The planet where the U.S. is 80% Christian, and every president for the last 30 years has been as well. Gays have their rights stripped away and the straight, White Christian is being assaulted. I gotta agree with Ish here.

Like I said:

Victimizing yourself and your views is not a strong argumentative tactic.

You're making a habit of it, Culture Warrior.

[audtatious]

The simple solution is to get rid of all the Christians. You suggest massive deportation or simple cyanide gas? If you are real smart you will mummify the bodies so you can use them for fire wood and not have to use the electricity that coal-burning plants use to create MMGW.

[Cold_Zero]

LOL

The planet where the U.S. is 80% Christian,

82% of Americans ascribe themselves to be 'Christian.' –Pew 2002

Is the USA a Christian Nation?67% Yes25% No8% Unsure -Pew 2004

Religion's influence in American Life?37% Increasing influence52% Losing influence3% Same 8% No opinion -Pew 2004

Now 42% of Christians claim to be 'Born Again' -Barna 2007

People that you would think of being in the Religious Right and Moral Majority folks, like Ralph Reed, Sarah Palin and Jerry Falwell would fall into this category.

So 58% of 'Christians' in this country do not scribe to be ‘Born Again.’ The majority of Christians in the United States don’t fall into this category.

36% of Born Again Christians ascribe to be Politically Conservative -Barna 2007 where 35% is associated with the Republican Party, while an even greater percentage is aligned with the Democratic Party 42%. -Barna 2007

So in a synopsis, the majority of Christians in the US are NOT, Born Again. Of the Born Again Christians, most are not Politically Conservative nor affiliated with the Republican Party.

Just because the people in this country ascribe to be Christian (82%) does not mean that we are all Neoconservative Bible Thumpers looking to take away Homosexuals’ rights.

Seriously, this Grand Conspiracy that you guys are putting forward about "White Evangelical Christian Neoconservatives" running this country is a bit ridiculous. You guys really don't have a leg to stand on.

Also, I can get the ethnic/race breakdowns for Christians in the United States, if you want.

and every president for the last 30 years has been as well. Gays have their rights stripped away and the straight, White Christian is being assaulted. I gotta agree with Ish here. [/qoute]

Here is the break down of the President's Religious Affiliation for the past 30 years.1. GW Bush- United Methodist2. Bill Clinton- Southern Baptist Convention3. GHW Bush- Episcopal4. Ronald Reagan- Disciples of Christ and Presbyterian5. Jimmy Carter- Baptist

Now, correct me if I am wrong here. Disciples of Christ, Most Presbyterians (Presbyterian Church USA), United Methodists and Episcopalians are very open towards Homosexuals. To be honest, these denominations would be lumped in Liberal Protestantism as a category. While Baptists typically have more problems with homosexuality and they tend to hold to more conservative moral views.What??? The two Democrat Presidents on the list are affiliated with denominations that are more socially conservative on moral issues??

[C-Kwik]

Of course not and of course it is, in a way. It's part of what makes society and a values-based system. I find it comical that this boundary is being deemed "civil rights" and should be over turned when the same people are against overturning other boundaries that "hold back" others. Why have any boundaries in the first place? Why not let everyone do what they want and when they want? Boundaries and guidelines simply don't seem necessary anymore as someone will feel they are being denied something they may desire to do. Everything is all touchy-feely now and we should not hold anything up as "justifiable".

While traditionally, many of our laws originated based on christian values. But the law did not intend that but put forth basic rules that they thought were reasonable for the time based on their values. Problem is values have changed. If the intent was to make laws based purely on the values known at the time, then no devices would have been implemented to make, change and abolish laws, or interpret them.

As for boundaries, we should all be free to do what we want. But there is a reality factor in which those freedoms should be reasonable. laws are generally enacted in an effort to protect people from other people and themselves. Allowing gays to marry harms noone.

I say get rid of marriage all together and let it be only religious in nature. Of course, that will simply lead to more attacks against religion as history and court systems have shown us. Maybe we should just label "married" as a gay term now? Hell, it's all about forced acceptance and recognition anyway.

While not a bad idea in concept, the reality is people will reject it. And since marriage outdates any religion, it would be hard to prove it is only a religious entity. As for any arguments about protecting religious institutions, if such institutions were adamant about this being they won't allow such a thing, then why not try and help push legislation that would truly appease homosexual marriage supporters while providing proper legal protection from being sued for not agreeing to allow a practice that fundamentally contradicts their own beliefs. Instead they take a hard line stance. A compromise would likely provide a much better position for both in the end. Where a lack of compromise would end up with one party losing all. And as both our opinions are that ultimately, gay marriage will end up being allowed, wouldn't it seem reasonable to try and come to such an agreement now vs at a time when religious institutes will not have a chip to play on the table?

However, my opinion is those that would argue on the basis of religious protections would not compromise as the issue is much deeper than that. There are viable solutions that could be seeked and resolved. But it becomes hard to reach such compromises when they are not looking for them...

[sensibleS13driver]

...

So you disagree with me by a few percentage points. Tell me again where the grand stealth assault on Christianity comes in? Did I miss that part in your web of statistics, or did you forget that that was your real assertion?

[audtatious]

As for boundaries, we should all be free to do what we want. But there is a reality factor in which those freedoms should be reasonable. laws are generally enacted in an effort to protect people from other people and themselves. Allowing gays to marry harms noone.

Again, who determines which boundaries are abolished and which are not? There are other things attributed to being gay than just marriage; higher suicide rates, alcoholism and disease to name a few. Primarily you will need to look at UK reports as it seems the US community does not talk about it and when the Surgeon General comes out with "gay is bad for you" it's dismissed as him being a homophobe. I actually had some links to "official" .edu and gov sites concerning a lot of these issues but for some reason you can't find any study online anymore, just people talking about studies in which their links are all broken.

why not try and help push legislation that would truly appease homosexual marriage supporters ........ A compromise would likely provide a much better position for both in the end.

And therein lies the rub. Appeasement and compromise on one side and nothing but rejection on another. Gay marriage is appeasement while Civil Union is a compromise. In both instances, one side is giving while the other is taking and not willing to negotiate nor accept any form of compromise. Thus you end up having a large percentage of the population stepping back and saying "FU" (on both sides as well).

At least that's the way it seems to me at this point.

[Cold_Zero]

So you disagree with me by a few percentage points. Tell me again where the grand stealth assault on Christianity comes in? Did I miss that part in your web of statistics, or did you forget that that was your real assertion?

Disagree with you on a few percentage points? Did you not read the entire post?

Who cares if the percentage is 80 or 82%. Just because Christians are in the majority (and I guarantee that the 80-82% number is a pretty flimsy number) or the fact that this country comes from a Judeo Christian Heritage does not mean that it is immune from attack.

I was laying out the base statistics of Christianity in America. Making few points...1. They are not all so called Evangelical, Religious Right wing nuts... 2. They are not out to force Christian morals down the throats of Americans.

Of the 20% of non Christians in America, the one's attacking anything Judeo Christian in our society comprise of less than 5% of the population. Yet, they are the ones that have strong support with lobby groups, mass media and higher education and want to wipe Religion out of the public square.

[C-Kwik]

Again, who determines which boundaries are abolished and which are not? There are other things attributed to being gay than just marriage; higher suicide rates, alcoholism and disease to name a few. Primarily you will need to look at UK reports as it seems the US community does not talk about it and when the Surgeon General comes out with "gay is bad for you" it's dismissed as him being a homophobe. I actually had some links to "official" .edu and gov sites concerning a lot of these issues but for some reason you can't find any study online anymore, just people talking about studies in which their links are all broken.

I was stating an ideal and a way people should think when considering laws. Implementation is always a problem of course, but generally, on both sides, there are too many who would try to force their own wills and beliefs as a matter of law. The issues you name, however, are not somehow an inherently universal or direct result of being gay. There are some higher risks involved, but like smoking, it is still a choice. Hell, sex has many of the same risks but we haven't banned it...

And therein lies the rub. Appeasement and compromise on one side and nothing but rejection on another. Gay marriage is appeasement while Civil Union is a compromise. In both instances, one side is giving while the other is taking and not willing to negotiate nor accept any form of compromise. Thus you end up having a large percentage of the population stepping back and saying "FU" (on both sides as well).

My point was that they are not coming to a compromise because their reasons for fighting gay marriage has little to do with the possibilties of lawsuit. It's merely another reason they will try to use to argue against gay marriage. Gays who want to MARRY, want to MARRY. Those against it generally don't want them to marry, but hide behind excuse after excuse. Unfortunately, there are those who aren't too concrened about gay marriage itself buying into the rhetoric. Certainly, I can see there being potential legal issues. But if the legal issues werre the only real roadblock, then why not look for an amicable solution. Probably because its less of a roadblock and more of another excuse to throw in.

Frankly, if the legal issue is a big concern, and I was a church, I'd be looking for a way to protect myself from what I think will be inevitable. As we both agreed, gay marriage is likely going to become legalized at some point. My thought would be to lobby for good common sense laws to help eliminate/reduce the possibility of a church being sued for discrimination against something their belief structure doesn't allow. Consider, if they wait until Gay marriage becomes legel, there is nothing to bring gay marriage supporters to the bargaining table at that point. The churches still have chips on the table at this point.

[HashiriyaS14]

What planet have you been living on? For the past 30 some years I have been alive there has been an all out assault on anything Judeo-Christian in this society.

I just wanted to chime in and say that not everyone sees things this way, and I'm not just talking about atheist lefty extremists.

There has been a general trend towards removing traces of religion from GOVERNMENT, but this is not the same as an "assault on Christianity in society". Government and society are not the same thing.

As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, something it has done and will continue to do, there will be less and less support for the Government to appear to have ties to any one religion. This isn't because there is some nasty contingent out there bent on destroying Christianity, it's just because the makeup of the nation is changing and will continue to change. If we are running along the same trend as Europe, a trend towards a largely "post-religious" society (the coasts certainly are), then I'd expect that all references to religion will be removed from Government and associated documents by the end of the century, including currency.

It's a very minor happening, honestly. It doesn't make much difference in the goings-on of America if our currency says "In God We Trust" on it or not, and I'm not quite sure why anyone really cares. It seems a silly thing to spend so much time fighting over.

None of this constitutes an "assault on Christian society", it's just the removal of religious references from Government. Christianity in America will go on, wholly apart from government, and be just peachy.

[audtatious]

I was stating an ideal and a way people should think when considering laws. Implementation is always a problem of course, but generally, on both sides, there are too many who would try to force their own wills and beliefs as a matter of law. The issues you name, however, are not somehow an inherently universal or direct result of being gay. There are some higher risks involved, but like smoking, it is still a choice. Hell, sex has many of the same risks but we haven't banned it...

How about we go back to the '70's when "gay" was removed as a Sexual Deviation not due to any actual scientific evidence (scientific research actually stated the opposite) but due to gay activism via the Gay Liberation Front, gay psychiatrists who were high within the APA and extreme political pressure? Of course, we can't go backward and investigate "gay" unless it is to prove how normal being gay is.

Now, in regards to risk, there's some higher risks when choosing to smoke or drink but I sure don't see activists pressing forth to teach kids how to light up or mix a highball. Based upon what you admitted above we are teaching kids that it is OK to be gay even if it is more harmful than not being gay. Does that really make sense?

My point was that they are not coming to a compromise because their reasons for fighting gay marriage has little to do with the possibilties of lawsuit. It's merely another reason they will try to use to argue against gay marriage. Gays who want to MARRY, want to MARRY. Those against it generally don't want them to marry, but hide behind excuse after excuse. Unfortunately, there are those who aren't too concrened about gay marriage itself buying into the rhetoric. Certainly, I can see there being potential legal issues. But if the legal issues werre the only real roadblock, then why not look for an amicable solution. Probably because its less of a roadblock and more of another excuse to throw in.

Like Hashy you feel everyone should be allowed to do what they want with no social boundaries? If not, then who sets the boundaries since we will pretty much wipe out our current boundary system and rebuild it to represent something else? Things that are "out of the norm" should all be simply allowed because there is a small percentage of the population that feel they are being discriminated? Of that small percentage of population, how much smaller is that group that are gay all their lives? I'd be interested to know that as we hear all the time of "kids" experimenting with gayness or bisexual ism during college years only to get into monogamous relationships with the opposite sex once they had their "fill" of the lifestyle.

Frankly, if the legal issue is a big concern, and I was a church, I'd be looking for a way to protect myself from what I think will be inevitable. As we both agreed, gay marriage is likely going to become legalized at some point. My thought would be to lobby for good common sense laws to help eliminate/reduce the possibility of a church being sued for discrimination against something their belief structure doesn't allow. Consider, if they wait until Gay marriage becomes legel, there is nothing to bring gay marriage supporters to the bargaining table at that point. The churches still have chips on the table at this point.

There is no way to stop impending lawsuits against religious establishment. It's on the roadmap in the quest to quell all religion. Further proof came out today in which California's Fair Political Practices Commission is going to investigate the Mormon church concerning not reporting nonmonetary contributions to the prop-8 push. Gays have been after them for weeks and now Cali is obliging them to find any reason to persecute more. Gotta punish them Mormons ya know.

[C-Kwik]

How about we go back to the '70's when "gay" was removed as a Sexual Deviation not due to any actual scientific evidence (scientific research actually stated the opposite) but due to gay activism via the Gay Liberation Front, gay psychiatrists who were high within the APA and extreme political pressure? Of course, we can't go backward and investigate "gay" unless it is to prove how normal being gay is.

Scientific research can say what it wants in either direction. The reality here is people are following what their bodies and minds tell them is going to make them happy. Its not inherently hurting anyone else. Live and let live.

Now, in regards to risk, there's some higher risks when choosing to smoke or drink but I sure don't see activists pressing forth to teach kids how to light up or mix a highball. Based upon what you admitted above we are teaching kids that it is OK to be gay even if it is more harmful than not being gay. Does that really make sense?

Uhh? So who is trying to teach kids to be gay?

Like Hashy you feel everyone should be allowed to do what they want with no social boundaries? If not, then who sets the boundaries since we will pretty much wipe out our current boundary system and rebuild it to represent something else? Things that are "out of the norm" should all be simply allowed because there is a small percentage of the population that feel they are being discriminated? Of that small percentage of population, how much smaller is that group that are gay all their lives? I'd be interested to know that as we hear all the time of "kids" experimenting with gayness or bisexual ism during college years only to get into monogamous relationships with the opposite sex once they had their "fill" of the lifestyle.

I've stated that the boundary should be the point at which actions hurt others. Its not like sex is regulated beyond rape and pedophelia. Lets try to keep this in the context of reality and reasonability.

As for kids that experimented, it is irrelevant. If there were only 2 homosexuals in the world my ideals would still remain unchanged. But, if I were to argue with you on this, I might bring up situations where married individuals end up in divorce after one of the spouses determines they are homosexual. But that's just as irrelevant.

There is no way to stop impending lawsuits against religious establishment. It's on the roadmap in the quest to quell all religion. Further proof came out today in which California's Fair Political Practices Commission is going to investigate the Mormon church concerning not reporting nonmonetary contributions to the prop-8 push. Gays have been after them for weeks and now Cali is obliging them to find any reason to persecute more. Gotta punish them Mormons ya know.

Lawsuits are always going to be a problem. Especially frivolous ones (this could probably be its own topic). But in the case you are describing, its kind of a chicken or egg scenario. If the Mormon church didn't politically contribute to this law, would the opposing group have gone after them? I'm not trying to point fingers here as gay-rights activists have done many things I disagree with, but I'm not going to make up my mind about a group of people's rights out of spite or sympathy.

[Bubba1]

Well said, Hash and C-Kwik. I've enjoyed reading this thread. but I guess it's time for the old guy to speak If we cut thru all of the gay and religious rhetoric, Prop 8 is destined to be overturned simply because it discriminates against a minority. Clearly many people have issues with this particular minority, but it is still an identifiable minority nonetheless.

Prop 8's upcoming legal test is very likely to follow the same course as Supreme Court case Loving vs Virginia which involved an even smaller minority of the population. For those unfamiliar with it. In 1967 the Supreme Court overturned a Virginia law that prohibited cross racial marriage. the Virgina law was overturned because....ready? it discriminated against an "unpopular" minority segment of the population.

Interesting case to read about, I think you'll find some of the arguments parallel Prop 8.

Just my $.02