Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
Builder of Oakland's Fox Theater Once Imprisoned For 'White Slavery'
Sorry to inundate you with even more protest-ness, but this is happening all over the state today, citizens protesting Prop. 8's passing -- e.g., the protest at Oakland's Mormon Temple, the big one happening in Sacramento.
Jameth is over at the state capital capturing what's going down today. Check out some of his shots below.
(An aside: He shot these images with a G1 phone. Seriously, how cool are these pics, phone-wise? Very. We had no idea.)
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm thinking we should have a constitutional amendment banning people with excessively stupid political signs from getting married.
These 'chickens have more rights than me' signs are pretty obnoxious. I'm no chicken rights advocate, but that measure was to allow chickens room to turn around in their factory farm cages what where they are trapped all the time. Sure you can't get gay married, but do you live on a farm awaiting your eventual slaughter? Probably not.
I also don't really get the point of comparing the animal rights thing to gay marriage. You might as well say high speed trains were given more rights. It has nothing to do with the bigoted 8.
I'm getting a giggle out of the sign "Tyranny of the Majority is not Democracy."
Well no shit. That's why we live in a FEDERAL REPUBLIC.
yay for US edjamacation!
hahaha, I might just steal that one, louiedog.
Bonus: It's a good chance that the majority of the people at the protest voted yes on 2. Counterproductive much?
Than, not then! Spell-check your signs, please, people.
@Sivart13
Wait, you mean you have an apartment large enough for you to stand up, lie down, and turn around in? Sounds pretty sweet.
@Travin
Tell me about it. Apparently the term "representative democracy" took hold enough that people no longer have any understanding of how that functionally differs from a Republic. I even had this argument with my AP US Government teacher back in high school to no useful effect. Ah well, I got a 5 on the test so at least a faceless educational bureaucracy says I know 'bout the gub'mint.
It's almost as annoying as when the electoral college debates come up, but nobody bothers to mention how it's a fundamental part of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist history of the country and the concept of state's rights. In the modern era we no longer have such a strong view of the state compared to the federal government and until we finally decide whether we're going to be a country with a strong federal government apportioned into states for largely administrative purposes (in which a direct vote would make the most sense) or if we want to be a federation of largely independent states linked under a weak national government (the current, electoral college system wherein the states, and not the people, are the ones who really elect the president; the people are just allowed to vote on who the state will choose to vote for) we're never going to make any headway on this issue.
When one country interferes with another country enough to screw up their system of government those two countries go to war.
Let's bomb the fuck out of Utah. Seriously, I'm not kidding.
Funny Mark2000....Bet you didn't think our system of government was screwed up the last time California voters voted AGAINST same sex marriages and 1 Judge overturned the will of the majority..
I think it's YOU who think that the minority vote over-rules that of the majority vote...So...Should all of us against it "bomb the fuck" out of all you who support gay marriage because we think you're screwing up our government? If you don't like the decision I suggest moving to another state where the majority is in favor of it...Till then, the majority has spoken and you have lost...TWICE.
no one here is leaving the state, Darth_Elevator, even after you've suggested it three other times in other posts.
in fact, we all plan on staying here to make california even better. whether you like it or not.
Urgh, what are we arguing about here? Federalism, misspellings, chickens? Please don't lose focus on the issue: people are being discriminated against on the basis of gender, and that's wrong, and we need to fight it.
LMAO! Trying to play on a quote from that loser Gavin? I have one too: It's NOT wide open now. It's NOT going to happen whether you like it or not...
How arrogant...Just like that lady with the sign above spouting the "tyranny" of the majority...
You all get what you want just because YOU think it's right? Never mind the fact that the majority has ruled 2 times now...You going for three strikes? By the way...Where in the constitution does it say that marriage is a right OR a privilege?
A license is required for marriage...therefore it is regulated by the state....Just like a driver's license, medical license or any license issued by the state. There are requirements that go with issuing any license regulated by the state. The state now says that in order to be issued a marriage license that one party must be male and one female...END OF DISCUSSION. Marriage is not a right nor a privilege. It is regulated. If it WERE a right then I could marry my sister, daughter or even have multiple spouses should I so desire. Why can't I? BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE LAW just as it is now against the law for 2 people of the same sex to get married. Again...You lost twice now. Accept it or go elsewhere.
nah. we'll all stay and fight gender discrimination.
...and win.
oh, if i'm not being clear, i can ALL CAPS that for you. please advise.
Boycott Utah. Are Bevan Dufty and Tom Ammiano writing up legislation to stop the city and county from doing business with Utah companies yet?
OK Brock...Tell me why I can't marry my sister, daughter, mother, dog, cat or have multiple spouses? I have an oedipal complex and really really wanna marry my mom. Do I have a right to do that? I'm I being discriminated against because it's against the law for me to do it? We're both consenting adults and we love each other? How is your argument any different? Back off with the fighting for a minute and explain how it's OK and against the law for me to marry whomever I want but you should be granted that "right"? I'm not even looking to marry someone of the same sex! Hey! Multiple spouses! More love to go around! But...ummm...I can't do that either...Are my rights being violated? Will you fight for my rights to marry mom, sister or have a bunch of wives? When I see your people supporting my "rights" to the above I'll go along with you...Till then...ya lost...same as me.
your personal preferences, choices, secret sexual desires, and love for Rover aren't the matter. again, it's gender discrimination we're fighting against. that, and the blinded-by-rage hatred of boys like you.
I've said NOTHING hateful in ANY of my posts. But...again...You've proved my point....You have no good answer to my question. Am I being discriminated against because I am not allowed to marry whomever I like? That IS your real issue isn't it? That you aren't allowed to marry whomever you please? No. I'm not gay but guess what? I can't marry whomever I please either...Once again...I ask you...Why should you be afforded a special privilege / right that I am not? Stop calling names and making false accusations and answer the question. BTW...You call me a hater? What about Mark2000 above? "Let's bomb the fuck out of Utah. Seriously, I'm not kidding." He's supposedly on your side...Who's a hater now?
you marrying your sister or mother has nothing to do with either gay marriage or gender discrimination. in any way. whatsoever. thus: impossible to answer.
but you have helped us out a great deal, and for that i thank you. your oddly-placed venom helped a lot of us, and my readers, re-focus our efforts. this spit-balling will prove very re-energizing.
oh, and Mark2000 is simply frustrated; however, every letter you type is brimming with hate and confusion. but don't worry. we're here to help you.
...and thanks for reading.
Darth, what makes you think your mother wants to keep on cleaning up after your sorry ass? I never hear this argument from women - if two consenting adults can wed no matter their gender, oh why can't I marry my child? Because we know that marriage is a fucking scam in the first place.
But a scam that any two adults should have recongized by the state. Who knows, once men get married to men on a regular basis, maybe divorce will be a sacrament.
If marriage has to be "one man and one woman" then the courts will have to decide what is a man and a woman. Some people have ambiguous genitalia/messed up chromosomes (XXY, for example). Some of these people live as men, some as women, some as in-between. Do these religious folks have resentment for those people, too?
Darth_Elevator, you don't seem to be grasping the concept of the governmental process which rules your life. It is a federal constitutional republic--the founding principles of this nation. Which is setup specifically so that the majority cannot vote other people's rights away.
It doesn't matter if such a measure passed five times. Legally and ethically it should not have even been on the ballot because it is directly contrary to our state and u.s. constitutions. People cannot vote to take away anyone's 'inalienable' rights. In this case, equality under the law.
No, no one is "accept[ing] it or going elsewhere."
Keep in mind that prop 8 lost the young vote and won the old vote. There will be equality under the law in California. Even if it takes us half a generation for a few percent of 'yes' voters to die off and be replaced by younger people.
"Never mind the fact that the majority has ruled 2 times now...You going for three strikes? "
Darth,
We will vote on this as many times as it takes to do what's right.
The majority did win this time partly because there were a lot of misguided voters who voted "Yes" because they were told a bunch of lies by the campaign supporting the ban on same sex marriages and the opposition was too complacent and underfunded to effectively counter the lies. But, statistics have shown the nearly 70% of voters age 30 and under voted against the ban. That means there is a growing generation of voters who are able to see through those lies and understand that we all deserve equal rights.
"Tell me why I can't marry my sister, daughter, mother, dog, cat or have multiple spouses?"
For your potential inbreeding examples, it's because creating human genetic defects is inhumane and cruel. For your non-human examples, bestiality is illegal in most countries, and cruel. If there was some way to ensure platonic marriages in these cases I don't think I'd have a problem with it. But that would be an extreme corner cases and I think the law is set up just fine the way it is in those situations.
But banning same sex marriage is cruel because life partners might not see each other before one dies in a hospital, and the survivor might be screwed out of a deserved inheritance -- as one example. It's a bunch of crap how unfair federal and tax laws are to unmarried people as it is. I'm hetereo, if that makes a difference to you.
If a majority of Californians voted to, say, kill black people would that be OK? No it wouldn't. It's in the constitution somewhere, check it out. Depriving gays of human rights isn't allowed either. Prop 8 is going down.
"oh, and Mark2000 is simply frustrated; however, every letter you type is brimming with hate and confusion. but don't worry. we're here to help you."
Really Brock? Mark2000 is SO frustrated that he advocates mass murder? Then you have the audacity to AGAIN accuse me of hate? I don't hate. I don't agree with the lifestyle but I don't hate.
KatyG: Mom DOESN'T "clean up after my ass" as you say. I lost her to cancer a year and a half ago thank you very much. BTW...If marriage is "such a scam anyway" Why the big issue here?
And finally to Travin....The only person here who seems to want to debate rationally without calling names or accusing falsely of haters. (I do respect that of you btw) I would love for you to point out anywhere in the state or US constitution where it says that marriage is an "'inalienable' right". Marriage requires a license and is therefore regulated by the state just as any other license that is issued by the state is regulated. Somewhere, somehow your movement got the notion that marriage was somehow mentioned in the constitution as a right. It is not. I challenge you to find anywhere in the constitution prior to prop 8 that mentioned marriage specifically as a right or privilege or mentioned marriage specifically at all. Redbearded (above) mentions misguided voters. I say that your notion that marriage is a right is misguided.
I'm more than certain the usual cries of "hater" "Venom spewing" "Moron" will follow this. I've heard it all now. I've even been assaulted twice by the no on 8 people out there demonstrating when I voice an opinion contrary to yours. (Once hit on the head with a sign and once being spit on) Those folks are a great boon to your cause and have caused me to be even more resolute in my opinion that it should stay in place. Any group that uses violence and intimidation to push their point in my face will meet with severe resistance. So once again I ask anyone here to show me where marriage is mentioned specifically as a right in the constitution...Until then....You have no real argument.
Darth_Elevator, why such concern on your end for the state of California?
also, you were never assaulted. even you don't believe we buy that! heh.
"If a majority of Californians voted to, say, kill black people would that be OK?"
Funny you should give that example seeing that it was the African American vote that really pushed prop 8 to victory...(70% of African American voters voted in favor of it)
Wishful thinking on your part? Perhaps a Freudian slip? Hmmm....
So you're calling me a liar now Brock? Being hit on the head with a "no on 8" sign isn't being assaulted? Being spit on isn't being assaulted? Perhaps I should have retaliated with EXTREME prejudice so it would have made the news? Would you have believed it then? That's a real elitist attitude Brock. No one from your "good side" of the fence would EVER do such a thing...Guess what...They did...Only reason I didn't do what my gut wanted me to do and crush the guy's skull is that I have more self control than that...And...it only proves my point that the no on 8 people are resorting to violence and intimidation.
oh i believe it happens. to others.
OK Brock...I got no more time for you...When you come up with something intelligent to debate me about or wish to respond to my challenge to find marriage as a right in the constitution don't bother responding to me...You've demonstrated your inability to debate a point and stay on subject. You've become another great source for the yes on 8 people to point out that support their cause...
Thanks so much for that Brock!
except? not so much.
thanks for reading and commenting, DE.
Darth, why do you feel so strongly about this? What did any gay person ever do to you?
I have never understood why some people work so hard to take away others' rights. Why not, oh I dunno, plant a garden or bake cookies or something?
I would love for you to point out anywhere in the state or US constitution where it says that marriage is an "'inalienable' right".
Why did you skip over the "all men are created equal" part? Do you think that "men" are now equal under prop 8?
Wishful thinking on your part? Perhaps a Freudian slip? Hmmm....
Nice try. I randomly picked a minority group that has made more progress in overcoming discrimination. Would you rather I chose "Mormons"?
Also realize that *you* are the aggressor here. You threw the first punch by supporting prop 8. You're the one that wants to legislate cruelty to people that are (I assume) different from you.
Being gay is not a lifestyle. Riding a Harley is a lifestyle because it is a choice. The first step in discriminating against gays is to label them as having intentionally chosen to love members of the same sex the same as one would intentionally choose to ride the Matterhorn instead of the Teacups. Being gay isn't a choice, its a status, an immutable characteristic.
Let consenting adults love whoever they want. It doesn't affect you or I in any legitimate way. If you don't like it, don't do it, but don't deny others the right to do it if they want.
Darth, if you want to compare "Pity me, my Mama is dead" stories, I have a 2-hanky tale about how her ashes flew back on me when I scattered them; I'll be happy to share someday.
And just for you, the deep end of the pool.
Wow Katy...You're quite the hater yourself. Except all your venom seems to be directed at the male species et al...I don't think I've ever seen such hatred and venom directed toward any group of people in my life than I did on those two wonderful little articles you so kindly put links to. I appreciate knowing this now so you can be treated as a "hostile" witness so to speak. You have revealed your true self as a hater. I hope you can get some counseling to help you get over it.
And I'm quite happy being in the "deep end of the pool" as you put it...That's where all the strong swimmers and survivors dwell. Those that can't swim, fend for themselves or are too lazy to swim dwell in the shallows. Are you a strong swimmer? I think not...The weight of your hate pulls you under, drowning you if you venture out of your own little safety zone.
The other thing I guess I'm not getting about all the rantings here is this: If this was such an unconstitutional proposition (As everyone here seems to believe) How did it ever get on the ballot without any legal challenges from your side of the fence? I mean, really...If it was so out there, so incredibly unconstitutional as you all claim, why wasn't it blown out of the water with ease in the courts before it ever came to a vote? It's only now that it actually passed that all the hoopla, constitutional challenges (etc) have commenced...Anyone got a good answer to that?