I don't mean to depress anyone but, technically speaking, The State Constitution still includes Prop 8.
It is currently unenforceable and the current AG is pushing for Counties to issue same-sex marriage licences, but things are not going to be permanent until those of concern who are affected by Prop 8 decide that Their Rights are Inalienable; Non-Tranferable to the judgement by Others, and then tell the government to fuck off.

By All Right, the Prop 8 language is garbage that does not belong in Our State Constitution. We defend Liberty here.

This is the garbage from the official State website:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1



And this is the pause that refreshes:



And just to be clear, there is a long-standing tradition of the fact that the term "We the People" means exactly We in The First Person, and does not include the mob majority, or self-appointed Others who act against our differences. Exhibit A; the State Definition of "The Nature of Property":

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... le=654-663



Which is a damn good reason why Others deciding against The Rights of The First Person is out-of-bounds around here. Allowing any such majority of voters to decide what the private Inalienable Rights of any First-Person Citizen of The State who is only minding their own business are is an Ignorance of the term "Others".

If you happen to be living in California, now you know what to do about "Others".

It depends...

If it is an actual friend and not a facebook friend then no, rather silly to not be friends with someone you know for years over political opinions.

If that was the case I would have to reduce the number of friends I have in half.

IMO we debate the issue and perhaps change their mind and that does work.


Also pretty much there is a long fight ahead but unlike abortion this is a issue of equality where there clearly a right or wrong stance.

So I don't think this will get bog down for decades like Abortion.

I imagine Republicans especially the younger ones will start to come out in favour of gay marriage soon as this is not really a political issue but a generational and culturally issue.

Also I think its a bit mean to say X generation to die off because it has outdated views. I am quite certain when we are 80 we will have certain views that will be seen as outdated by the 18-30 somethings of that era.

The girl I was referring to is not a close friend. Someone I went to college with and haven't seen since.

That was HILARIOUS.

That's my favorite New Yorker cover OF ALL TIME.

They're not gay. Doesn't mean they can't be portrayed as gay. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's called derivative work. SNL does it all the time, parodies of tv commercials, tv shows, movie trailers, etc. It can be used in a creative way like this cover.

Magnus hates teh gays.

In an alternative universe where Congressmen vote against their own self-interest, sure Congress could draft new rules. But many of these legislators are only in office because of how craftily they've gerrymandered districts. Wendy Davis would not have been elected had Texas been allowed to split up minority communities the way North Carolina did (a majority of Democrat votes in their house, 9 out of 13 seats went to Republicans...)

If you look at just 2012 alone, the number of bills that attempted, and succeeded, in racially discriminating and disenfranchising voters was immense. In Arizona alone, Spanish ballots said election day was November 8th. Hundreds of thousands of ballots were disqualified as 'provisional' ballots after robo-calls told people to go to the wrong precincts. People I registered to vote were routinely told that their form had been rejected, so only those who bothered to wade into the state's bureaucracy were able to get their voter ID card.

Racially motivated voter disenfranchisement is alive and well, particularly in the states the Voting Rights Act 'burdened'. Since it's removal, six states are already pursuing racist voter disenfranchisement bills.

Well, THEY DID! Deal with it!

I get that, but do you think the rigging of districts only occurs in the states targeted by the Voting Rights Act formula? It happens everywhere, and stopping it in some states and not others is placing an undue burden on those states, it encroaches on state rights, and is unconstitutional.

You're correct in saying there's a huge problem, but it's much bigger than just these states, and it's unfair to keep targeting just them. Fix the blatant corruption all across our nation, or don't fix it at all. The same thing goes for the Voter ID issue, which is occurring all over the US, not just in these states (it was a huge deal in PA this past election).

This law was a good thing, but in the black and white eyes of the law, it was unconstitutional. If congress gives a shit, they'll write a proper law in it's place. If they don't, maybe people will get angry enough to vote them out, despite the barriers they've created to doing so.

It's a political cartoon. Whether its statement is grand and profound or tongue-in-cheek is up to debate. But either way, I see nothing wrong with the author's use of imagination.