Nah. I can name you quite a few gay elected politicians, but can't think of one atheist.

Buchanan, who never married and hung around with another unmarried man most of his life, probably was. The evidence for Lincoln, who was married and had quite a few children, is very very thin.

I bet that there are a few atheist politicians. They just have to pretend, something much harder to do for a gay person.

Really...

Well because we are looking at History, here a lot of people you think were not gay but are...




Alexander the Great

Emperor Hadrian and Emperor Caligula

Well Caligula was not a surprise, but Hadrian is a shock considering he is considered one of its best and fair emperors.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla or "Sulla"

King Edward II of England
Epaminondas the Theban
Sir Laurence Olivier


Barrack Obama's father was a public atheist
Pete Stark is the only US congressman who is Atheist
Clement Attlee was one and he defeated Winston Churchill in 1945 elections and well is nowhere as well respected as Churchill or as popular or known as Thatcher and Blair, he is ranked very highly by scholarsr.

this shit won't last right? they're going to take this to court, right?

No.

I believe they would have to do another vote. The courts can only change something if they find it unconstitutional, and this whole measure was to specifically amend the consitution so they couldn't do that with same-sex marriage.

EDIT - I think they could appeal to the Supreme Court. But that seems very unlikely.

It is already being challenged, under the basis because of the nature of the change to the constitution(removing rights) the original draft should of been pushed through the legistalature and then presented as a ballot. It will most likely fail.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10906871

[/quote]

That's a bit of a stretch, although it does expose yet another lie from the anti-gay bigots. That such laws should be decided by the legislature, not the courts. In fact, the legislature voted to allow gay marriages TWICE. Both times they were vetoed by Schwarzenegger, who said that such a matter for was NOT the responsibility of the legislature.

Schwarzenegger urged a No on 8 vote.



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



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Liberty





Inalienable Rights such as Liberty, Privacy, and The Pursuit of Happiness are Rights which cannot be transferred or surrendered, or put to a vote, or rejected by others, including The Majority. Inalienable Rights are owned by the Individual.
Liberty is not the Right to Rule others.
'Nuff said.

The problem is a lot of Judges would believe the Gay marriage is not an inalienable right.


A Lawyer can easily argue that Gays never had the right to marry under the constitution, as it was not changed. It was merely an interpretation of the constitution that allowed it.

One can argue when these rules were made, gay rights were not considered.

The constitution had to be changed before this vote would be considered invalid.

Trust, me the movement is dead for now.



About Obama on this. He said in the debates that he does not support such propositions or having the rights of minorities based on the will of the majority.

I doubt such a thing would be allowed in Canada ever.


Nevertheless, do not be hypocritical as if this had passed you would be singing the praises of this system.

A ray of hope?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... -lega.html

Yeah ... but the situation would be much better if the Supreme Court had said that it needs 2/3 of the votes before the election was done. I am pretty sure that if the Supreme Court does anything now the pro 8 will exactly say that "They would have had to say that with the 2/3 before voting".

As the issue is one of Liberty without definition, any Judge who believes in such and rules by 'tradition' is wrong and should be removed from hearing the arguments.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =3509-3548

Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
But all the people can't be all right all the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,"
I said that.

Very clear, straight-to-the-point Opinion article which I liked quite a bit. Could never had stated my sentiments this succinctly, but then again, that's why I am not a journalist.

Equality's Winding Path



But, take heart guys. Amidst all the negativity, it was overlooked that CT voters actually struck down (by about a 20% margin, too) a removal of equal opportunity for marriage in their state constitution. That 'constitutional convention' ballot question was a thinly veiled attempt to allow the legislature to remove the recently obtained gains in this issue. So, yay New England.

The reason it lost in California is only because of how progressive the bill is. They didn't go half assed civil union style which would easily have passed, they went for marriage for everyone, define marriage as between any two individuals.

If you're talking about the Prop, that's not true. We did not put out the prop. THEY did.

yeah Eagle, u lost me.

the prop came from the evangelicals.

Would this make you less sad?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ ... 2626.story

I think Eagle means the bill that was passed in the CA legislature for Gay Marraige.

there are some major differences between civil unions and marriage anyway. legal ones.

and i don't think its fair to say "take it, it's better than nothing"

anyway, well done to CT.

hopefully, the rest of New England approves it.

hm.....Florida and Arizona did the same I heard.......lets hope not more staates will follow.

Civil Unions are the biggest "separate but equal" bullshit since segregation.

When the California Suprememe Court made their ruling, they made a very progressive ruling. The prop was to reverse or override that ruling, and because it was so progressive, it didn't pass.