Comments on: Proposition 8 Arguments Seem To Favor Supporters http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/ An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:16:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: HemmD http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/comment-page-1/#comment-175453 HemmD Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:52:10 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/#comment-175453 Amen GS<br><br>This majority rule-over riding the minority is identical to the anti- biracial laws of our recent past. Preachers then too quoted the Bible to support the position that whites and black should never be allowed to marry. Kind of ironic now that Obama is now Pres.<br>How about an Amendment to outlaw the self-righteous? Amen GS

This majority rule-over riding the minority is identical to the anti- biracial laws of our recent past. Preachers then too quoted the Bible to support the position that whites and black should never be allowed to marry. Kind of ironic now that Obama is now Pres.
How about an Amendment to outlaw the self-righteous?

]]> By: Chop Suey for a Friday http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/comment-page-1/#comment-175437 Chop Suey for a Friday Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:33:12 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/#comment-175437 [...] to prohibit previously-legal same-gender marriages.  Patrick Edaburn at The Moderate Voice notes with some disappointment that the debate suggests a 5-4 ruling upholding the validity of the Proposition.  He also [...] [...] to prohibit previously-legal same-gender marriages.  Patrick Edaburn at The Moderate Voice notes with some disappointment that the debate suggests a 5-4 ruling upholding the validity of the Proposition.  He also [...]

]]> By: greenschemes http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/comment-page-1/#comment-175411 greenschemes Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:38:19 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/#comment-175411 Two things always come to mind for me about prop 8 in California.<br><br>The fact that the people actually voted to deny same sex marriage in California and a quote from Thomas Jefferson.<br><br>A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. Two things always come to mind for me about prop 8 in California.

The fact that the people actually voted to deny same sex marriage in California and a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

]]> By: StockBoySF http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/comment-page-1/#comment-175393 StockBoySF Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:54:35 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/26945/proposition-8-arguments-seem-to-favor-supporters/#comment-175393 I'm not hopeful about the outcome either. And I think the judges are seeing the trees instead of the forest. I think the big picture is this: when (or why) does a certain group of people get to dictate what others do simply because a certain group of people don't like another group? In this ase rights are being taken away from lesbians and gays because some people do not want gays and lesbians to have those rights. And futhermore Ken Starr said that gays and lesbians had rights under domestic partnership laws, which I think actually makes my point stronger.... In this case the intolerant people want to limit the freedom of gays and lesbians to worship and celebrate life how they want to. Marriage is a sacred bond between two people (and in God's eyes). So why does a certain group of people have the right to limit personal expression when there is no compelling public interest to do so? Starr in my mind watered down his legal argument. He said gays and lesbians have legal rights... so really the only rights being taken away are basic rights of expression and religion, which Starr thinks a majority of voters can do.<br><br>It's like me saying that I don't think people with bad breath should marry because they stink and I don't like them. (An example only, not what I believe should happen.) The taking away of these rights is based on some arbitrary criteria, criteria which does not harm the public or injure anyone else, but is based on personal bigotry or hatred or simple dislike. I'm not hopeful about the outcome either. And I think the judges are seeing the trees instead of the forest. I think the big picture is this: when (or why) does a certain group of people get to dictate what others do simply because a certain group of people don't like another group? In this ase rights are being taken away from lesbians and gays because some people do not want gays and lesbians to have those rights. And futhermore Ken Starr said that gays and lesbians had rights under domestic partnership laws, which I think actually makes my point stronger…. In this case the intolerant people want to limit the freedom of gays and lesbians to worship and celebrate life how they want to. Marriage is a sacred bond between two people (and in God's eyes). So why does a certain group of people have the right to limit personal expression when there is no compelling public interest to do so? Starr in my mind watered down his legal argument. He said gays and lesbians have legal rights… so really the only rights being taken away are basic rights of expression and religion, which Starr thinks a majority of voters can do.

It's like me saying that I don't think people with bad breath should marry because they stink and I don't like them. (An example only, not what I believe should happen.) The taking away of these rights is based on some arbitrary criteria, criteria which does not harm the public or injure anyone else, but is based on personal bigotry or hatred or simple dislike.

]]>