What is Digg?7 Comments
- lydecker, on 10/21/2008, -0/+7Well whether you like it or not, that vote was unconstitutional, because a vote at that level could not overturn rights protected by the Constitution.
It is only a proposition about whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be written into the California Constitution. - inactive, on 10/21/2008, -0/+5What a tired old yarn you're spinning! First, let me express how pleased I am that you attribute a respect for our rights and dignity to the liberal faction. Second, wasn't that vote nearly a decade ago? Times change and opinions change. Third, as for your argument that opposing gay rights exposes a person to ostracism and personal attack, how is opposition to gay rights any different to, say, advocating racial segregation? It still deals with stripping human beings of their rights as citizens of this country, and it's not okay. I thought that "conservatives," who tend to be the folks supporting this horrid amendment, wanted companies to be totally autonomous and not have any government interference - so what are you getting at with your complaint that bigots who express their hatred at work might be asked to pack up their things and find an office more suited to their juvenile feelings? "Personal attack, ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment" all fall under our personal rights as citizens. We can (but probably shouldn't) personally (verbally) attack you for being a bigot under the First Amendment, we can choose not to spend our time around hateful people like you because we have freedom of association, and we can choose to hire more open-minded people than you because we are the owners of our companies. If you don't like it, you can start your own gay-unfriendly business and see how far that gets you.
Hypocrisy sure stinks, doesn't it? - DigiDave, on 10/15/2008, -0/+5That's why the voting no guy is the cool mac one and the voting yes is against civil liberties.
- fffangold, on 10/15/2008, -0/+5Yup, that's exactly what's going on. Voting yes changes the law to not allow gay marriage, while voting no keeps the law the same to continue allowing gay marriage.
- gbarberi, on 10/15/2008, -0/+5I thought it was legalized in California already and that the proposition is aimed at removing it from the state constitution.
- inactive, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3this is funny
- greenjello54, on 10/15/2008, -6/+0No, that's not what's going on. Californians already voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. 4 liberal judges overturned the vote. Now it is back to make it a constitutional amendment so that the judges can't force their opinions upon the people.
Bill May said it well: "the court elevated same-sex marriage to the highest legal class possible: a protected class. That means when the rights of people opposed to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds conflict with the rights of same-sex couples, the courts will almost always side with same-sex couples because of the protected class status conferred by the state Supreme Court. Even expressing a view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attack, ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they understand to be true about marriage. This goes beyond acceptance and tolerance."
It's not just about marriage but also about judicial tyranny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q4V8WNF6k
Whether you like it or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto
It's already happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4
Men in Black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpDCRE-zJu8&feature ...
Video - Why California needs Proposition 8
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid11 ...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is