« Open Thread | Main | Even Breathalyzers Are Racist »

Way to go Mormons! They are showing great restraint and maturity. The African American churches have had plenty of practice with this kind of bias and hate. If the gays were to do this sort of tom foolery to the black churches I believe a brawl would follow and there would be a lot of hurting homos. Their a bunch of chickenshits.

Well, judging from the whale in the blue and green shirt, the myth about gays being thin and fashionable has taken a severe blow.

funny thing, watching - it was the black vote in california that was the deciding factor in the outcome of prop 8 - at least according to the stats i've been hearing - perhaps the gays need to take it up with the black folks?

V the K: And the rumor that most lesbians are lesbo's because they can't get a man just got strengthened by the picture of that half-ton homo chick.

If they did this in the black community I do believe they would "cap their asses" as they say in the hood with Uzi's, AK-47's and TEC 9's; along with a random assortment of other weapons.

Look at that jerk trying to pull down the fence too bad its not a electric fence and gave that jerk the worse shock in his life that guy is a jerk like all those other jerks around him their totaly stupid

COMMENT DELETED

I'm all for peaceful protesting, but some just get so out of hand and scary as depicted above.

Mormons are looked down upon among many Christians, sadly. Remember when Mitt Romney was running? There were so many Christians that wanted to see a true Christian as their president, and didn't vote for Romney in the primaries because of this. Just think if they did, we might have had a Republican president by now? You never know. But you know when things are really bad here when Christians hate other Christian groups. Nevermind the Muslims and atheists....

Now that President-elect Obama is in the picture, people are realizing that Romney and Mormons aren't so bad after all.

I'm beginning to understand why some cultures used to burn these people at the stake. Maybe they knew something we should.

I'm going to quote Rodney King here and ask, "Can't we all just get along?"

If in fact this issue does warrant serious discussion, wouldn't angry mobs and threats be the wrong way to go about trying to garner any kind of support or respect for their cause?

Remember: children that throw tantrums are usually ignored by their parents until they get tired and knock it off.

I want to know if gays support the right of straight, Mormon men to marry multiple wives. I mean, why not? They're all adults and like the gays say, 'keep your noses out of their business'.

Mainstream Mormons (LDS) gave up polygamy a long, long time ago. It's the splinter groups, like the Fundamentalist Mormons, who practice it.

V the K: And the rumor that most lesbians are lesbo's because they can't get a man just got strengthened by the picture of that half-ton homo chick.

Posted by: Naqamel at November 20, 2008 7:51 AM

--------------

She's more woman than a man could handle obviously. But seriously, doesn't that lezbo look slightly retarded if you look at the face that swollen down syndrome look kind of pops out doesn't it? Are lesbians also retarded too? Should they have been aborted as the left so insinuated against Trig Palin? These and many more questions will go unanswered by rational discourse as the left launches into see we told you they where fascist just look how they are talking and chatting on the net. Blah blah blah, yak yak yak yak blah blah blah blah says the liberal moonbats that will start howling at me for saying this.

Tough shit for them.

Sounds like some faggots need a little "wood shampoo" to rediscover things like courtesty and politeness.

I've lived in utah for some time and there was no cime in the mormon neighborhoods. They obeyed nearly everything, they even had sunday as a near sabath day. The only problem they had was with meth. And I only saw two-three gays outside Salt Lake City. And a bunch of protesters outside the church.

All the bad press the homos are getting is just going to make more of America turn their backs on them. They are isolating themselve by their actions. nanc you make a great point about the black vote. It shows the violent homos don't want to project their wrath on the blacks because they would truly know how fight back. Blacks have been fighting for decades for their rights...human rights. The black community are seasoned veterans on fighting for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

Gays are fighting for bad behavioral rights which I believe many in this country won't put up with. They are cowards. I don't care if anyone is gay just keep it to yourselves and behind closed doors.

I wouldn't paint all gays with such a thick brush. There are your lunatic fringes in every group. Not all gays are freaks of nature as show by the guy trying to push the fence down.

Just like not all conservatives are inbred, toothless, nationalistic, paranoid, arrogant, fat, lazy, vulgar, greedy, racist, spoiled-rich, slutty, ignorant, stupid, humorless, loud, obnoxious, gum-chewing, carbon-emitting, baby-killing, gun-toting, bible-thumping, flag-waving, and self-centered Neanderthal Americans.

However, the red states hold the majority of fat people, so hold it there are the lezbo-liberal fat comments.

Some of you get carried away here and identify groups by their extremists without looking that the BIG picture.

virgomonkey is right. Just like all libtards aren't socialists, queer, unpatriotic, feminine, inbred (more libs than conservatives), pagan worshippers, bad businessmen, traitors and baby killers.

virgomonkey = DINO same speech he gave yesterday. Goodbye Dino.

Yes virgomonkey, let's look at the big picture.

Prop 8 never would have have passed without the assistance of Democrats. Blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8. So what do these short-sighted queers do? They spew hate at white churches, specifically white Mormon churches. Logically, gays will never get white Mormons to vote in favor of redefining marriage and giving gays more rights than non-gays. They would be much better served if they campaigned, reservedly and politely, to bring minorities to their side. Instead, they alienate the only groups that could ever help them by acting like...well...raging homosexual animals.

I've never seen a group so hell-bent on destroying support for their cause.

Correct me if I am wrong, isn't the most bigoted religion AGAINST homosexuals Islam? Doesn't Islam still hang and stone homosexuals? Didn't the leader of Iran proudly announce they had NO homosexuals in Iran during his last visit? Why aren't these people prancing nude in front of a mosque? Why aren't they marching in robes and white faces through a mosque? Why aren't they carrying signs encircling every mosque they can find?? Why aren't they DOING EVERY THING THEY CAN TO INSULT ISLAM!!

Can someone give me a REASONABLE answer that!?

I want to see the news footage of THAT!

If the Mormons are to blame for prop 8, why aren't the brave, tolerant homos NOT marching on Salt Lake City? Oh yeah I forgot, it's a state issue and the homos are cowards.

TED- 100% of Muslims in California could have voted for prop 8 and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the totalitarian, hate-filled, intolerant homos. As far as they're concerned, the White, Christian boogeyman is the source of ALL evil in the world

I've never known a gay man but if we go off on what the radicals are doing I never want to. But that dosen't mean I'm a racist, Dino.

I have never known a religious fundie - but if I go off what they do in the middle east or how they have destroyed the GOP in the USA - I don't want to.

http://graphjam.com/2008/11/19/song-chart-memes-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

But do those decisions imfringe on the RIGHTS of others? Is it proper to grant "rights" to certain groups that are NOT GRANTED to other groups?

These are the questions that you should be asking.

FWIW: this is the official LDS position on homosexuality. I defy anyone to find anything in it that says ghey people should be hated, attacked, or abused.

It's pretty stupid to kick a hornet's nest, and then whine when the hornets sting.

The religious right decided to declare war on gays. When 9/11 happened, Robertson and Falwell and Dobson and others said it was God's revenge for gays. When Katrina happened, pastors like John Hagee said it was God's revenge for gays. The pulpit declared across the land that gays were enemies of God, and therefor, theirs as well.

When Obama won, liberals were declared enemies. Conservatives around the country said that we were now at war, and liberals were the enemy.

From moonbattery:
"This is a day of celebration for everyone hostile to America and the principles of individual liberty for which it stands. Enjoy it while you can.

There are people lowdown enough to know in advance who and what was elected yesterday, and to have voted for the Moonbat Messiah anyway. What they have done to this country is beyond forgiveness."

Problem was, you guys thought gays and liberals were a bunch of pussies, and that you wouldn't have a culture war, you'd have a culture genocide. You'd just get to do and say whatever you wanted and we'd just cry to our mothers about it. Guess what bitches? Turns out we can fight after all.

Maybe if you don't want a war on your hands, you shouldn't declare one

"As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

But do those decisions imfringe on the RIGHTS of others? Is it proper to grant "rights" to certain groups that are NOT GRANTED to other groups?"

But you don't LOSE any rights by gays being able to marry. Just because before only you can do something, it is not "taking your rights away" when it is no longer only you who can do that thing. You can still get married, therefor you are not losing your rights. The fact that your religion may forbid it doesn't matter. It would ONLY be taking your rights away if the government then forced churches to marry gays themselves, because the government has no say as to what a church can or can't do within their own flock. There is a separation of church and state. Jewish communities don't try and have pork illegalized. It is giving that right to another.

This was decided in the Loving vs Virginia case which federally legalized interracial marriage. Back then, white people argued that interracial couples were trying to redefine the definition of marriage, and therefore were imposing on the rights of religious people who thought marriage had to stay within the races. The court decided that it is not taking a right away from you to change things to give people the same opportunities you have. Freedom from being morally offended is not considered a civil right in this country.

I say NONE of the Gays gripes are VALID until they start protesting at the Mosques. Until they prance nude in front of a mosque? Until they march in robes and white faces through a mosque? Until they carry signs encircling every mosque they can find?? Until they DO EVERY THING THEY CAN TO INSULT ISLAM ALSO!!

Until then they can just shut the Hell up!!

Until they are EQUIL protesters of all faiths that deny them they are NOT serious.

"TED- 100% of Muslims in California could have voted for prop 8 and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the totalitarian, hate-filled, intolerant homos. As far as they're concerned, the White, Christian boogeyman is the source of ALL evil in the world"

I know anon, THAT is exactly my point.

"Problem was, you guys thought gays and liberals were a bunch of pussies"

WE STILL THINK THAT - YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO COME FORWARD UNTIL YOU GOT YOUR "BOY" IN POWER. NOW YOU THINK YOUR DEPRAVITY CAN'T BE STOPPED - HIDE AND WATCH!!

Just because your election says majority remember a HUGE percentage of that was FRAUD! The Majority of America is STILL not as STUPID as you liberals.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

Attaboy, let nine wankers in robes override the judgment of 35 million people.

Maybe if you don't want a war on your hands, you shouldn't declare one

I'd feather that talk if I were you. If it came down to a war, there wouldn't be a fag left in California in 24 hours and you know it.

To TED:
It is safer and more satisfying to attack groups that 'turn the other cheek', rather than 'slay the infidel wherever you may find them'.

And THIS is what the left want in our streets...everywhere.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php

Why do these perverts think this vote for Prop 8 was about anyone's rights being infringed upon? The issue of domestic partnerships (civil unions) was not even addressed in the proposition. You're still free to have your union recognized by the state, along with all the benefits that go with it.

No, this was about granting more rights to you whining imbeciles. Not only do you want the state to recognize your unions, you want religious institutions to do the same. Marriage is a religious institution, period. That's the entire reason behind having "domestic partnerships." It appeases the incessantly obnoxious minority yet attempts to maintain the sacred institution that is marriage.

But no, that's not enough. You queers have to have your cake and eat it too.

You are being ridiculous. If you think the end result of taking this to the courts in order to override the will of the electorate won't ultimately be pastors forced to perform same-sex marriages under threat of lawsuit, you're delusional to the extreme.

Should that happen, believe me when I tell you you'll have your little war. We have all the guns. Bring your slingshots, bottles, rocks, whatever. You will be slaughtered.

Hey did you know that from classic STAR TREK the starship USS ENTERPRISE can use stun from orbit THATS WHAT THEY NEED TO QUELL RIOTS A ORBITING STARSHIP THAT CAN USE STUN and under GENERAL ORDER 24 that from that same orbit the USS ENTERPRISE can with in a 24 hours can wipeout a entire planet

TED,
Two reasons I can think of why they protest churches rather than mosques:
1. Ignorance. They believe that Muslims are innocent, oppressed victims of the mean old U.S., and that they love gay people. They believe that only Christians have a problem with homosexuality.
2. The same reason why comedians love mocking and blaspheming Jesus, but wouldn't even think of insulting Mohammad in such a way: Fear. They know Christians are easy targets, because Christians tend to believe in love, mercy, and nonviolence. In contrast, Muslims have much less tolerance for those who blaspheme their faith, and are much less hesitant to resort to violence against the blasphemers.

Mr. A at 2:46 p.m. I have a message for you: KISS.MY.ASS. I'm just voiceing my thoughts and I get browbeat.

It is Thursday, 20 November, the year of 2008 of our lord, and, oh, Gays still can not marry in CA.

Posted by: Anonymous
"Freedom from being morally offended is not considered a civil right in this country."

Exactly. So why do we have people being harassed and comdemned for free speech? Remove 'morally' from the above statement and repeat daily.

"Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult.

This is why activist judges regularly 'expand'
the Constitution and circumvent the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states what powers the federal government, including judges, have. But that doesn't stop federal judges and even Supreme Court judges from making laws, rather than interpreting laws.

Ther are 40 empty federal judges seats for Obama to fill. Since he believes the Constitution is flawed, you can bet your ass he'll appoint like-minded judges.

From Chuck Norris' column in Human Events.



If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy

Posted 11/18/2008 ET


Protestors of Proposition 8 in California (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross. They reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the woman.


Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted brutally while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.


Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop. 8 petitions.


Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI said the substance was nontoxic.)


The 25-year artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.


A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service and flung fliers and condoms to the congregants. They also hung a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit.


And lastly, the tolerance-preaching activists also have taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas ranging from burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop. 8. You even can find donor blacklists online. The lists include everyone who financially backed Prop. 8 -- even those who gave as little as $46 -- with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.


What's wrong with this picture? Lots.


First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken twice, through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles County) voted to amend the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage.


Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.


What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?


There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.


I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."


Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.


The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.


On Nov. 4, the pro-gay community obviously was flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened; the majority of Californians -- red, yellow, black and white -- voted to define the margins of marriage as being between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election.

Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.

Awesome, Murff, thanks for posting it. I always like reading Norris' articles when I come across them.