After a contentious fight, as blogged previously, supporters of Prop 8 declared victory in California on yesterday. Proposition 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively banning gay marriage in California.
Expect to see this one in court soon – likely on benefits and economic grounds. A federal challenge to the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) has already been brought in Tax Court.
I knew going into this that the GLBT agenda wouldn’t quit even if they were beat fair-and-square. Once Obama takes office I’m sure that he as well as congress will make repealing DOMA one of their first priorities. Funny thing is it was Clinton that signed that act into law while he was in office. The Democratic party has been hijacked by the far-left liberal loons, and its heading for the cliff as quickly as it can. Anarchy and loss of free speach will be next.
Personally, I’m still waiting for my tortoise.
I”m pretty sure history will actually show that it’s the far right that’s hi-jacked the Republican party and that’s why y’all lost in a resounding landslide.
One of the points the framers of the US constitution felt was important to make is that the minority need to be protected from the majority, and you can’t simply vote away the rights of groups of people’s you don’t like, even if that’s what the “fair and square” majority want.
The biggest debate re: Prop 8 seems to be about what tangibly would happen if it did or did not pass. The British press painted a pretty fascinating picture of the direction in which allowing gay marriage would lead us.
http://irrationalpublicradio.com/pe6.html
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for whats for dinner.
Steve, why are you opposed to same sex marriage?
Sadly, a loss of freedom for one person puts all of our freedoms in jeopardy. I don’t want the government telling me who I can marry. My freedom to marry who I wish will always be at risk as long as the gay community does not have that freedom. What next, will only people who can procreate be able to marry? Maybe we should only allow people to marry who we think will make good parents or maybe we should match people so there is “ideal” genetic matching. Maybe we should demand that people be with in a certain age of each other before they can marry? Or perhaps we shouldn’t let people marry who have been convicted of a crime. Or, should we keep people who have already gotten divorced from marrying? There are many, many ways the government can interfere with our freedom of association, yours could be threatened also.
Joe, I listened to the “news story” you posted a link to. That isn’t the British press painting a picture where same sex marriage would lead us. It is a satire site and the story is making fun of people who oppose same sex marriage.