The California Legislature is seeking to overturn the will of the people of California by considering Assembly Bill 19, “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” would amend the California Family Code to make marriage a gender neutral proposition in the state. This would, of course, make homosexual marriage legal and recognized in the state of California.
Unfortunately, this would also overturn Proposition 22, passed by the voters in 2000. It reads as follows.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Now I may be a bit slow, but that seems pretty clear to me. Marriage, according to the California voters, is one man and one woman. It isn’t two guys, two girls, or any other combination. The voters have spoken, approving Prop 22 with a 62% majority, and under the California Constitution the legislature cannot overrule that decision. But the supporters of homosexual marriage are still hell-bent on trying to validate and recognize something other than marriage between a man and a woman -- even if it means violating laws, constitutions, and the will of the people to get it.
 |
Comments on California Legislature Seeks To Overturn Will Of Voters
Greg,
|| Posted by gregisaretard, April 27, 2005 07:29 AM ||Mind your own damn business and your own damn relationship(s). As long as you got one, shut the fuck up and get over it - ya closet dick-sucker.
Well, coward, a pity you lack the cojones to leave some way to contact you. What you have done is engage in a spineless hit and run attack.
Notice, I didn't take a position on homosexual marriage or civil unions in the piece. I merely noted that passing the new law would overturn the express directives of the voters of the state of California, who defined marriage as a one man/one woman institution, and that the legislature's action would be both an assault on democracy and the state Constitution.
And you might consider getting over your own (self-loathing?) homophobia -- which is evident in your decision to attack an opponent by calling into question their sexual orientation. Do you really consider homosexuals so morally and socially inferior that engaging in the sort of labelling that you do is sufficient to discredit an opponent? And i will not get into the disgusting nature of your decision to trivialize those with developmental disabilities through your use of the term "retard" to describe me. I guess you hate the mentally handicapped as well as homosexuals.
And I can only note that if that is the best argument you can mount in favor of the piece of legislation currently under consideration in California, then the case for homosexual marriage must be weak indeed.
Oh, and by the way -- get help.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, April 27, 2005 04:30 PM ||Same guy?
|| Posted by mcconnell, April 28, 2005 03:40 PM ||I suspect we know who the author of the above was -- in all likelihood our old friend Ridor (or one of his fellow Amy-haters) who seem to think that calling someone a "retard" is such a damning indictment that no further argumentation is necessary.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, April 28, 2005 04:06 PM ||RWR, now I'm offended -- I did not write that. You d**bf**k.
R-
|| Posted by me is the ridor, April 30, 2005 05:31 PM ||I accept your assurances, Ridor, and apologize for my assumption. Your word on this point is suffucient for me to retract the above statement as regards the possibility that you wrote that comment.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, April 30, 2005 06:33 PM ||Wow.
|| Posted by mcconnell, April 30, 2005 06:54 PM ||What can I say -- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since I do not recognize the ISP address.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, April 30, 2005 07:23 PM ||Post a comment