<-----------this is me... on a glacier in New Zealand... great for weddings!!!!!!!!!!!!

it looks so warm for a glacier!

It was, I got sunburnt!!!! It was the middle of summer!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Court will rule within less than 90 days... glaciers, suntans, or weddings aside.

I believe it will get overturned soon. The debate in CA's state legislature can be found on Calchannel.

You guys have much more faith than I do on that one.

hey i just learned something today, life isn't fair! waaahhh

Don't feel bad t2d! We can't all be quick learners.

i did forget to put the disclaimer that lets the reader know that it is sarcasm for those who don't read between the lines especially good.

I personally dont have an opinion about the gay marriage issue. My problem is that there has to be some sort of change to the way the referendum issue is dealt with. If you have a referendum pass then overruled by a court, then re passed, and possibly re overruled where does that leave the entire referendum process?

It has to be the dumbest thing ive seen in some time.

so if majority says you and those you know should be forced into servitude it should happen

or slavery should be reinstated if majoriy says they want it so

the constitution is !!!!SUPPOSED!!!! TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY AQND THE SUPREME COURT IS SUPPOSED TO ENFORCE IT

i don't think some people get it

Some folks don't get it because they just don't care to, doesn't affect them so why figure it out. When something does affect them then they will be in the same position wanting action.

Some are just control freaks and love to see people squirm, they love to maintain control by not allowing others control of themselves, or trying to prevent it by calling on the manipulative power of the church.

Personally I think the church is most of the problem, they feel justified in not allowing it. After all if it's legal it condones it, and it removes power from the church. Who's gonna follow you if they find out they have manipulated you. Wouldn't want people thinking for themselves now would we, where would their control of you be if they were wrong in the first place. And of course WE are wrong because some dusty old book says so, and some invisible entity demanded it. It's hard enough following the manipulators I can see, with out those I can't see.

I believe one day people will take back what the church stole from them. Their imagination and their spirit as well as other things.

Just going to take generations to die out. Hate to say it but my own generation as well.

Ya, I know, I'm just bitter. Actually not so much after 59 years, more like hopeful for future generations.

Ack I feel heat coming...

when they come for their rights maybe they will figure it out

but

by then there will be no one left to help them cause everyone else has been run over by the steamroller of govt persecution

the govt should not treat the people like children the govt is not our parent and even our parent lose there rights (the ones they have left) that give control of their children

Ya, by the time I was 15 I had already pretty much decided what path I would take, it didn't dawn on me that I would not have the same rights as everyone else soon after. Go figure.

can someone enlighten me as to what the law of california is on the matter? was it challenged and then found unconstitutional by some california court, and that is why the orignal prop was put forward?

Don't know if this will help Invictus, didn't have time to scan it, and some don't think wikipedia is a good source, but what the heck. Some one here following it might have better answers. I stopped following it shortly after the whole Rick warren deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

for heavy info.......

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

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

la times

""""""
Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times
People gather to watch a large television screen at City Hall prior to the California Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriages in San Francisco.
California Supreme Court looks unlikely to kill Proposition 8
Outside courthouse
Email Picture
Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times
People gather to watch a large television screen at City Hall prior to the California Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriages in San Francisco.
State justices appear unwilling to overturn the gay-marriage ban but suggest that pre-vote weddings are valid.
By Maura Dolan
March 6, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married."""""""""


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court6-2009mar06,0,798075.story

I though this interesting and wondered myself if it might be the case, considering the part of me that thought it unbelievable in this day that it should have turned out as it did. Not living in California I don't know how the ballot was worded or defined...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the fight over Prop. 8, confusion reigns
Some voters are uncertain whether yes means no or no means yes on the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
By Jessica Garrison
October 31, 2008


Speaking out recently against Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown made an appeal for the importance of protecting the rights of same-sex couples. And then he urged his audience to vote yes on the proposition.


Brown misspoke. He intended to advocate a no vote. But he isn't alone in confusing which side is which. As election day nears, both supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 worry that voters will be confused by a choice that can seem counterintuitive: Voting no on the initiative means voting yes on gay marriage, while voting yes means gay marriage would be disallowed.

"There is confusion on both sides over yes meaning no and no meaning yes," said West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran, who is helping campaign for No on 8. He added, jokingly, that he has heard supporters of the proposition say, "I'm opposed to gay marriage, so I'm voting no, and I'm like, 'Yes, vote no.' "

In recent days, both campaigns have taken steps to educate their faithful to make sure they vote the right way.

"We changed our advertising to make sure people understood what a yes means and what a no means," said Jeff Flint, strategist for the yes side. "We were getting a lot of people who were saying, 'I'm against gay marriage, so I'm voting no.' "

Opponents have undertaken a similar effort.

Both sides are urging volunteers to make sure the people to whom they reach out understand which way to mark the ballot.

In general, political experts say, the "no" side on ballot measures has a slight advantage because many voters instinctively chafe at the idea of new laws and their default instinct is to oppose them.

As the race over the most hotly contested social issue in the nation heads into the final stretch, both sides also ramped up their campaigns in recent days, with bus tours, rallies and volunteer efforts to get out the vote, along with fundraising pleas, e-mail blasts and an explosion of advertising. And, of course, accusations of malfeasance on both sides.

The no side this week began airing an ad from Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the state's most popular politicians, in which she says it "would be a terrible mistake for California. . . . No matter how you feel about marriage, vote against discrimination."

Then, on Thursday, a group of Silicon Valley heavyweights, including founders and executives at Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Adobe and other companies, announced they were taking out a full-page ad in the San Jose Mercury News urging people to vote no.

The campaign also continued to release a flurry of e-mail blasts, including an announcement that a group of pediatricians was voting no and that women politicians were holding a candlelight vigil in East Los Angeles to oppose the measure.

Officials on the yes side, meanwhile, said they expected more than 50,000 volunteers to work to get out the vote from now until election day.

Supporters of the measure have also been gathering on street corners with signs urging people to vote yes.

Garrison is a Times staff writer.
Article found here:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/31/local/me-yesno31

personally I think the gay community is going about this all wrong

the bill passed by 57%. just squeaked by.

the gay community should be charming and convincing to win over the vote.
instead they are being militant and angry and alienating those who might vote for them