Let's be honest folks. Why should America give this sprawling bedsore of a state a free pass because they tossed 55 big electoral votes to Obama?

These morons listened to Ronald Reagan tell them crazy things like redwoods cause pollution. Still, they were so hypnotized by his pomade quaff that he ascended from Excremento to the White House. That was just one of their sins. Nixon was another.

All across the state, they have voted for crazy, lazy, criminal and dim. No ballot measure to reduce taxes goes unpassed, so the kids attend sardine can classrooms and most never afford college. The cops are brutal because they are stretched thin, fires get easily out of control, and many former public employees are in the soup lines. When Californians need a colander for spaghetti, they just toss a pot in the street during the dinnertime gunfight. It is quickly becoming a part of the third world.

Did they really elect and re-elect an Austrian bodybuilder and hack actor who is dear friends with a former top official in Nazi Germany? Of course. Did that anchorwoman just admit that she was the mistress to the Mayor of Los Angeles? Sure, why not. Did they just vote down a fitting tribute to the crippled duck in the White House? How brazenly unpatriotic and typical.

Seriously though, what the hell do so many of these people drink to make them stupid? Mercury gimlets? Pesticide wallbangers? It cannot be in the water they divert from every western state and three Canadian provinces. We slug it down all the time and most of us are at least a little more well-adjusted.

For the first time in California history, they voted to take away civil rights from their citizens. Yes, this solidly Democratic state has mandated discrimination through the ballot box. Proposition 8 was put forth and funded to the gunwales by an unholy coalition of hate groups, Dr. Dobson and the Mormons, but the majority of dimwits still passed it.

Personally, I believe that marriage is essentially a business contract or financial partnership. This is already protected by existing laws against discrimination. Like most Americans, I am a strong supporter of civil unions. People who are linked by blood and bond should be entitled to hospital visits, tax equality and inheritance. If gays and lesbians want to argue with the same person their whole lives, they have a right to do it.

The legal function of marriage exists like a business deal, so it often happens in a courthouse. It can also be performed by a boat captain, a tribal chief, a polygamist preacher or a celibate priest. Just like driving a car or going on a fishing trip, all you need is a license. The rest is a self-defined adventure.

The religious right argues that marriage is a sacred thing. The very definition of "sacred" is loosely determined by each denomination, each church and each individual in the pew. Some folks worship one way and some folks worship another. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that "traditional marriage" is just a ceremony. Whether you take a pink Caddy to Vegas, walk your bride to the pitcher's mound, or exchange rings in a cathedral, it is just a celebration of a legal pledge you signed when you were still sober.

So, you have a little get together to celebrate a lifelong legal financial contract between lovers, and voters insist that the gender balance of that contract must be defined by law? Will banning interracial relationships be next? Whoa whoa whoa there Nelly. How far do you want to go with this folks? One could easily get whipped with your own wide Bible belt.

When a boy becomes a man, or a girl becomes a woman, some churches celebrate it with baptism, some with ethnic ritual, and others with a big party. Each denomination can define the rite of passage, the age of the participant, and the qualifications for graduation into adulthood. No license is necessary because it is a tradition. The state has no role.

What the voters of California are saying is that civil rights are defined by the state. Not only that, but those qualified for religious ceremonies are also defined by the state. True adulthood is defined by the state as 18, so they could insist that all churches abide by that standard to celebrate maturity.

If a church holds a cotillion, or a synagogue celebrates Bar or Bat Mitzvah, or a descendant of the first peoples goes on a spirit guided walk through the woods, they will have to be qualified by law. Right? The Constitution says that we cannot legislate religion, but now the door has been thrown wide open. What is a religion anyway? In this age of prosperity gospel, flim-flam and fraud, spirituality ought to be defined by law as well. Why not?

If you follow the logic of the supporters of Proposition 8, the electorate has insisted that a religious tradition must be defined by law. The passage of the measure also means that not all adults can enter into a binding legal contract. You would think that the Mormons with a long history of marriage persecution would be against that sort of legislation, but I guess not. They already run Utah, and now they are determinded to expand the empire.

It is a bitterly ironic night when Obama can break centuries of barriers, but at the same time, a few million idiots can vote to take away liberty from minorities.

I'm disappointed that Prop 8 passed too - but Oregon passed something similar (Measure 36) several years ago. And both Obama and Biden oppose same-sex marriage. So I don't think California voters are too far out of the mainstream on this.

Andrew

The comparison is apples and oranges. Oregon never had legal gay marriage defined by our Supreme Court. California had legal gay marriage defined by their Supreme Court, then took it away through the ballot box. Imagine Alabama voting for segregated classrooms in the first year after they were finally integrated by the Supreme Court. It is that kind of ugly.

I'm disappointed too. But like Andrew, I think we need a little more time for some of the 23%ers to die off, for the younger ones to shoot themselves and/or their friends with their gun collections or accumuate felonies making themselves ineligible to vote.

The thing that bugs me the most is that it is just a damn contract. The ritual is up to the participants. If a faith does not want to perform a ceremony, or a lodge feels uncomfortable renting a room out for a reception, I can understand it. At the same time, we could simply define "marriage" as a wingding with booze and family, make civil unions the standard and be done with the argument. Church activities and state controlled legalities should and could be kept completely separate.

I agree that there is some hope for our gay and lesbian friends. After all, three straight guys all concur that it is a dumb argument. California cannot afford to pay their bills, but at least "traditional marriage" is safe? Think about all the state and municipal revenue they just threw away. Think about all the photographers, hotels, motels, ballrooms, vineyards, restaurants, caterers and their employees who will not pay taxes on income from these couples. Many citizens of California are stone cold stupid.

Whats interesting is that 75% of the black voters in california voted to pass prop 8 compared to 50% of whites.

It is the will of the voters that this passed. Its why we vote. What the hell is the reason for voting if what we vote for is immediatley held up in court with lawsuits and elected officials acting on their own?

You may not like it but thats how the system is supposed to work.

The will of the voters shouldn't determine the civil rights of it's people. This measure will be found to be unconstitutional.

In a very different way I believe that eventually most states will align with the prevailing winds of change and gay couples will be allowed to marry. It may not be this year or the next but it will happen.

The gay and lesbian community needs to continue to be persistent much like the suffragist movement and the abolitionists. Work hard, network and keep the faith that one day you will be recognized equally.

I think the government should no longer recognize marriages -- it should be a Church thing period. Instead, our government should issue legal and binding Civil Unions for all types of relationships.

"The will of the voters shouldn't determine the civil rights of it's people. This measure will be found to be unconstitutional."

Well as the 13th amendment reads, there is no civil right for sexual orientation on the federal level. DOMA, passed in 1996 under a republican congress and signed by president Clinton defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In looking at the California state Constitution, yes there is precedent in Perez v. Sharp for interracial marriages which was applied in the supreme court decision opening marriage for same sex couples but the voters did speak and you are found to be in the minority. If you lived there you might have been able to do more but this speaks loudly to the whole assumption that Obama voters are just so much more intelligent than those stupid neo-cons. We all make what you perceive as mistakes, some bigger than others. This is just one example of many in history.

Going to Skeps comments, marriages here are way different than many places around the globe. We are one of the few cultures that infused religion into a tax break. Many other cultures have marriage as a union only for religious purposes.

If you have a problem with how marriage is defined, I would take it up with our forefathers who allowed religion to permeate our government so heavily that it made marriage a tax incentive and ultimately brought us to this juncture. I completely agree though with Skep... make it a religion only thing here, it shuts up the majority here who whine all the time and it brings marriage back to its roots.

Chaps: Sexual orientation really has nothing to do with the core argument, and that is that the state recongnizes a contract between a man and a woman, but not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. This is a violation of a person's civil rights because as a result of that contract, some people are given rights and tax benefits while others are not.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what they call it. Gay marriage or civil unions, it's the same thing. A legal contract between two individuals for the purposes of managing a household, raising a family, etc. This is why I would side with Skep in that the government should get out of the business of recognizing marriages and just look at it as a contract. Because that's what it really is.

>>just look at it as a contract

how about 2 men and a woman wanting to get "married" or a man and an 8 year old?

Also...someone answer this question...how do you prove that you are gay/lesbian/transgender/bi...other than your general outward appearence?
Just asking...

This thread/header should actually read:

"Too many Californians are stupid"

Broadway, if two men and a woman want to sign a contract and deal with all that comes with it, I have no problem. I've yet to see a documented case of this though. As for the 8 year old, you can't enter into a legal contract until you are 18, so that is nothing to be concerned about. And as for proving that you are gay or lesbian, is there currently a requirement to prove you're hetrosexual when you apply for a marriage license?

>>I've yet to see a documented case

just wait...it will happen in our lifetime...

>>requirement to prove you're hetrosexual

if you are a male attracted to a female and your birth certificate proves your gender and you "consummate" or prove your hetrosexuality in marriage?
So I have to do is just say I am gay and I am? Just trying to understand.

"just wait...it will happen in our lifetime..."

And?? Who cares? It's not your life so don't worry about it.

"if you are a male attracted to a female and your birth certificate proves your gender and you "consummate" or prove your hetrosexuality in marriage?
So I have to do is just say I am gay and I am? Just trying to understand."

Just as it is assumed that you are a hetrosexual if you're applying for a marriage license and the applicants are male and female, it can be assumed that you are gay if there are same gender applicants. It's not really that hard of a concept to understand.

Thinking out loud here......What If......

Dump the tax break for married couples and up the tax credit per child. After all it is incredibly expensive to raise children these days and whether they are adopted or not does not matter. Then as far as the Fed's are concerned it won't make any difference as to your sexual preference, same tax structure either way, single, married, same sex partnership. The only A Major issue remaining is employeers and insurance coverage for same sex couples.

Edit Add:
Amongst others.

C'mon Broadway, you're smarter than that. I think you are letting your religious viewpoint override your intellectual viewpoint.

There's more than just taxes at stake. There's property ownership issues, inheritance issues, child custody issues, etc.

OK, lets raplace "The only" with "A Major".

I've always said the solution is simple, civil unions. Marriage is a church thing. To force religion to recognize the marriage of gays is not unlike religion forcing their beliefs on me, right or wrong AND their usually wrong. I voted no on Oregon's gay marriage ban, but I just don't like others forcing their views on me and I don't think I should be doing it myself. Let's also face the fact a gay marriage ban has passed everywhere it's been on the ballot, not just California. Arizona passed theirs this year. Hope this gives you a better idea of where I stand Broadway. When you vote Republican, you vote to shove your belief system on me and that's MY belief.

So I have to do is just say I am gay and I am?

So if you say your hetro then you are???

I'm just trying to understand the mind of the extreme right here.....

My sister and her partner will be celebrating 21 years together this Thanksgiving. They own two houses. One of the coast and one in Portland.

When Multnomah county allowed for same sex marriages a couple of years ago they marched down to the courthouse and got a marriage certificate. Of course it's been void since that time.

Broadway I'm not sure if you've been exposed to many gays and lesbians on a personal level as I have. Right now if my sisters partner were to need extended medical care my sister, who knows her partners health history better than anyone, wouldn't be allowed to speak for her if she could not speak for herself. It would require a blood family member. They may not always be available in a time of emergency.

Also not all gays and lesbians may "look" the part. Sam Adams our mayor-elect is but one example.

I believe we are moving in the right direction allowing equal rights to same-sex relationships however they are finally recognized via marriage or civil unions.

Personally I dont believe they have any rights, its a choice or lifestyle.

its a choice or lifestyle

Its not. But you're free to believe what you wish. I won't be bashing your head in for that, unlike gay people who often get their head bashed in for their so-called "choice".

" Personally I dont believe they have any rights, its a choice or lifestyle."

Really? ANY rights?

Let's get back to the core issue here... I thought California had civil unions which grant the same tax breaks and will designations etc to a same sex partner just as a marriage does.

I still think this gets back to the definition of marriage which again I agree with Skep should be yanked to a religious only ceremony and everyone gets a union for the other incentives society has added.

" Let's get back to the core issue here "

Yes. Let's. God forbid we quibble about words and purpose and statements actually used to define why we hold a position.

I do not know why this is a point with me. ( I'm not gay. So it must be for some OTHER reason ) But since it is, let's see where it goes, eh?

So, Dr. John, I believe I can out-move you, by your own definition, in about 5 moves. Likely less.

Here's my first move;

Do you stand by your quoted statement?

" Personally I dont believe they have any rights, its a choice or lifestyle."

That's one move for me.

Your move.

I also believe its a lifestyle choice but I dont care if they get married or not.

marriage to me is not about religion its about a tax break and if I am entilted to that so should two guys who like to cornhole each other.

Save your argument that they are born that way, its pointless as trying to convince me that there is a god.

So our 20 year marriage has been nothing more than a tax break for us?

Had I known that I would have name my daughter 1040 and my son 1099.

I am also waiting to see the chess game between the Dr. and CJ.

Mc74 is demonstrating his latent tendencies yet again. Fight the urge!

"Save your argument that they are born that way, its pointless as trying to convince me that there is a god."

Mc74, I've never seen two such polar perspectives expressed in one statement. Not a criticism of your position (you have a right to believe what you believe), just an observation.

"Save your argument that they are born that way..." = you believe that biology is irrelevant, and that people's lifestyle choices, including heterosexuality, are exactly that - choices.

"...its pointless as trying to convince me that there is a god." = God, ethereal powers, even fate itself is untrue. We are products of evolution, in all it's interesting diversity, including the diversity of gender preference. Homosexuality may be an evolutionary dead-end, but it is biologically possible.

See my confusion?

Personally I just like chaos. If being against gay marriage pisses off the liberals then I am all for it.

On a personal level, I could care less. If they are allowed to get married Ill just find another topic that pisses you all off and rail on that for the time being.

and you will take the bait (ask Merkin)

Hmm . . . low life comes to mind. But hey, its your life.

Thank you..

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get that minnow back in Mc74's pants. It's so little and slippery.

"Personally I just like chaos."

The loose concept around here is to ring in with an opinion, say hello, or share a fact. By and large, we are all busy people who like this community for that very reason. Often, the day is too full of this little box on the desk and this local corner of the net reminds us that we are part of something bigger than the office or a laptop.

In other words, this is a bar.

You see, back in the olden days, folks could break up a day a little bit at the bar. They could discuss news and share opinions. It lasted until the late 1970s and 1980s when the corporate overlords, theocratic charlatans, puritans, extremists and health nuts started to take over. It was not just about a shot and rocks to take away the grouchiness. It was family.

So, being a dick is fine if that is how you want to come off to people. Just understand that most folks here fall into a few pretty concrete positive categories, and they are also bonded by an industry. Because some of us may be on the beach, underemployed, under appreciated, and underpaid, it is vital to find a place where one is also understood.

Work is a bond. We are all friends because we either do the work, did the work, or love the work of radio. Perhaps the lack of shop talk and the rather progressive bent makes you bored, but in a tight job market like this, jawing about layoffs is even more depressing than politics. The way that the bullshit machine has been in a race with the economy to the bottom these last few years has given us plenty to discuss.

So, to wrap up the bar analogy, look around and catch a smile once in a while. The proprietor is a keen guy who loves the family of broadcasting and has graciously provided us all a forum to connect with one another. He likes a fat tip once in a while, and he won't serve folks long who come in toxic, but the company is good if you give it a chance.

Cheers.

Personally I don't believe they have any rights, its a choice or lifestyle.

So your saying that homosexual men and lesbian women WANT to be that way? Lose their families? Lose friends and loved ones just so they can be that way? Have to hide it from the rest of us? They do that just so they can make a choice to be that way?
WOW! The ignorance flows through Johnny Fever like blood.

I've been waiting for the extreme neo-CONs to chime in..... HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO....

MC - you said " I also believe its a lifestyle choice..."

What does that mean exactly? That they choose to be homosexual? Or that they choose to act on being homosexual?

Then you said - " Save your argument that they are born that way, its pointless as trying to convince me that there is a god."

Again. That's confusing to me. Are you saying that only a god could make you one way or another? Therefore, since there isn't a god, everything you feel or have a preference for is your own choice?

Is being gay some kind of temptation for you? One that you have to resist? And others that " choose " to be gay somehow give in to that temptation or something?

" If they are allowed to get married Ill just find another topic that pisses you all off "

Why? What if it doesn't piss me off? Then you have nothing further to say about it?

It does piss you off so job accomplished.

Good job Mc! You the man!!

Now, if you only put your efforts towards more productive endeavors maybe you could leave your apartment and service job (and video games) behind in favor of greener pastures.

OK MC, you win. I would say that it disappoints me. I don't feel like it makes me angry, at least not this time, maybe it does. But lots of things do. You're just one of those people. I see them all the time. Not a huge deal. You have a lot more control over things than I do sometimes. That motivates you. I can relate to that in some ways.

It's too bad that that's all you ever show around here though. You just make things worse. And there are things that could stand to be better for some people - especially me. You don't.

It's not like I didn't try. So, uh, carry on man. I don't relate to that, Good Will Hunting.

It's not your fault.

I'll celebrate this Veterans day by staying home from my service job in my apartment and play Gears of Wars all day.




I cant be broken.