Choice or not should be irrelevant. But it is the anti-gay marriage group that likes to say it is a choice. In the end it doesn't matter which one is correct it all swings back and forth it used to a inherited malady with distinct phenotypes and now it is back to choice. Before it was vice cersa.

The real science behind this doesn't care about what is more beneficial to argument X at the time. It is the twisting of proponents and opponents that do. There are of course plenty of biased studies but this is usually the case for any research.

Choice or not the argument behind rights of a genetic disposition is that for a pair of consensual adults it is not natural for them to be with someone of the opposite sex. It used to be a choice that people make to be themselves.

The argument for choice with the opponents of gay marriage is that it means the homosexuals are socio paths and deviants. It used to be genetic or a sickness that turns people into a mutant John Waters.

However I think enough evidence is out to strongly suggest that it is in fact not a choice. I also think enough evidence is out that it is in fact genetic.

and the genetics argument will? my problem with the genetic argument is 2 fold

- It has already been countered by anti-gay people with a simple "fine we believe you like we believed evolution. And just how we took evolution and turned it to creationism, we have taken your genetic stance and said you still have a choice in your actions.
- This is what bothers me the most. What will win this fight one day is not changing people's minds but a whole new generation of people who are 'open minded' as they grow up in newer times. and sadly, everytime i hear these kids defend gay rights, their argument is that its genetic and not their fault. Do you not see the problem with this reasoning that i do? Seriously, do you not? Is THIS how you want gay people to get rights? You can see this attitude in our own freaking forum when gay rights are being defended, and i see this from people on our forum who themselves are openly gay...

Drew Barrymore at a rally


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_gMH2tyMI

Anderson Cooper 360: Things get heated!

Tony Perkins is a liar and a disgrace to Christianity.

Who? Cooper? I don't think so. If he has, it was verrry silent.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811120010?f=h_latest

I was pretty upset with last week's VIEW talking about Prop 8 because ALOT of stuff was flying around about priests being sued or jailed and this and that, all of which were false, but I felt no one had done ANY research on it and it looked very bad for our side to people watching who also didn't know the facts.

I'm really glad they brought it up this time with most of the facts. I hate that they didn't have time to look up the education stuff because that was the cornerstone of the YES campaign and arguably why they won. And they lied and manipulated the truth on that too. I can tell you exactly what the "Yes" side would say if they went to them for "the other side" and I have the rebuttal for that too, proving Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or education.

But what REALLY pissed me off was Elizabeth towards the end. It was very understated but she kept saying 62%. That was the 2000 vote and after rewatching it, she is clearly talking about Prop 8 and not Prop 22. This was either a god honest mistake or a blatantly intentional lie overstating the support behind the ban. And given Elizabeth's past on the show, my personal opinion is she got away with what she knew was misinformation. If challenged, I don;t doubt she would clarify or correct herself but it worked in her favor that no one caught it.

Damn, why don't the protesters picket at The View studio?
Get Elizabeth to retract the misinformation and go after these media dogs like Fox, etc,
or file a Writ of Prohibition against her/their misrepresentations.

Elisabeth is a robot, programmed to defend and support GOP propaganda at all costs.

It's hilarious how she can insert a Republican talking-point into pretty much any conversation, regardless of context. She looks like a damn fool, completely removed from reality.

So I heard on the Internet you can read now who gave money for Prop 8. Protest and boycot everywhere.

I think it's only those who gave over $1000.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

I didn't browse heavily, but I read up on my areas and I saw a bunch of $100 donations so that site seems to be good for the "smaller" donations as well.

Fun fact: I found out that this douche from my high school donated $100. I kind of hope I bump into him or something.

Actually, you have always been able to look up that info. It's at LA Times website. I could find the link.

I searched my zip code like 2 weeks ago and found that Dana Delaney (wow, she lives in my same zip code!!!!) donated $5000 to NO on 8.

Hmm, I looked up supporters from Pennsylvania to see if I could find Limbaugh on the list.
I didn't find him, but I did find The Templeton Foundation officially and as individuals donated $1.2 Million to pass it. They are purported to be a scientific organization with reported 'Right-Leaning ties" according to wikipedia, but with these donations I think their scientific cover is blown and someone should update their wiki.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appS ... 8955917928

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templ ... troversies

it appears new voters may have causes this as well.

My cousins in rural California voted for the first time and voted for Obama but voted Yes for the ban.

They are rural folk you know...

according to this, 18-29 yr olds voted no 61-39 (with 18-24 yr olds 64 percent no).

Of course, I dont know how accurate that is, and cant find any other info.

So what happened was that conservative Turnout was still very strong, but it was matched by a ton of new young voters for Obama.


The x factor was Blacks and Latino's still find gay marriage to be as some young people would say "gay".

The new talking point among Prop 8 supporters seems to be that the recent protests expose the gay community as being intolerant towards minorites and religion.

Yep, just like civil rights protests in the 1960s exposed the black community as being intolerant towards whites.

I think it's safe to say that this is one culture war battle that the wingnuts are going to lose, and I think they know it. The gay community and those who support equality are awakened by the Prop 8 set back, but it was just a set back.

It must be true, because if anyone knows what intolerance is, it's the Prop 8 supporters!

I think the Gay community took the vote for granted and underestimated the power of the dark side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean the Mormon Church.


If they fought this hard before the election they would have easily won.

I think the best course of action, would be to have this on the 2010 ballot and the No side should go 100% and take nothing for granted.

Well in case anyone didn't already know, there were nationwide protests yesterday against Proposition 8. There was nationwide coverage of these events as well, and overall they estimate 250,000+ people attended (though by far the highest concentration was in California).

In Atlanta (which I was one of the main organizers), we drew around 1500 to an afternoon protest/rally at the State Capitol and then another 1000+ to a candlelight vigil and roadside protest.

The proposition had caused controversy as well in Canada.

It has made many people oppose for ever putting issues like these to popular votes. There was a movement heading towards that method, because a lot of Conservatives were angry at the govt and the Supreme Court deciding these issues without any say from the people.



It is dangerous to have such votes, because I know the death penalty would be approved in Canada, hands down!!!

Gay Marriage would still be allowed, but it would be close. These votes allow people's inner secret feelings to be expressed and you can easily have results that would go against what you think is true.

Why?
1. There is a ton of support from Conservatives
2. People in Canada are lazy to vote and the Conservative turnout would be high.

However, I respect the vote and I think the best course is to start a massive campaign for 2010 to finally resolve this issue.

I know majority votes suck and guys think the Govt should dismiss the people's views. However I would not be so quick to give govt such powers all the time.

Yes, they did take it for granted. I know this for a fact from alot of people. And yes, we are actually already planning for 2010 should the lawsuits fail.

But with all due respect to you, I don't know how you can say you respect the vote. Something like this should not be on the ballot. The checks and balances and especially the courts are supposed to protect things like this, rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. There is NO excuse. One's personal and religious beliefs should NOT be able to decide what rights are allocated to what people. I can't believe how little coverage the separation of church and state argument has received.

It was a very lengthy process in Canada as well, with long list of provincial supreme courts that ruled in its favour before it was legalized nationally. I think it basically came down to the fact that marriage for same-sex couples could be allowed under the equality provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the federal government had the authority to redefine marriage.

There was a vote in the house of commons though, and it was pretty close. I'm not sure if it would have mirrored the popular vote or not.

Looking south of the border, I'm happy that this issue is behind us now. Although I do support the ongoing initiatives to legalize it in the USA, it's a sad sight to see all the hate flying around. I was worried about another flare up in Canada when Harper unilaterally re-opened the issue, but I was happy to see that most people had moved on and accepted it.

I thought courts [both state and federal] were supposed to interpret laws duly enacted so long as they don't violate the Constitution(s).

One's personal and (maybe) religious belief's are the reason that all laws are enacted. The personal belief of the majority of people is that drugs are bad and should be illegal and therefore they are (with limited exceptions). So if I like drugs, I have no "right" to go do them unless I want to face incarceration. If I don't want to wear a seatbelt, personal, in the aggregate, (maybe economic) beliefs force me to wear the seatbelt unless I want to face a fine.

If you want to argue that the law is unconstitutional federally or at the state level, fine, but you seem to have no respect for the rule of law whatsoever. You're measure is purely arbitrary "protect the minority." Who knows how such a vague and (unfair?) standard could be applied. We don't live in a purely Rawlsian society.