Gays revolt!

They are very angry. They expected a different outcome after dumping bucket loads of money into this.  I can only imagine how bad it would have been had Obama lost.  Riots were expected and promised. 

It doesn't really matter anyhow.  My guess is Obama is going to overrule the state's rights with a Federal decree regarding both abortion and homosexual laws. 

I know you consider gays to be slightly worse than serial killers, but really, I couldn't imagine gays rioting. I would be very surprised if they had it in them.

It's tough when there are so many and well organized against you. Gays might start to feel persecuted.

Yea, you would have thought it would be SF.

Maybe a little bit. But they're (probably) less than 10 per cent of the population and militant gays even fewer. You really need some critical mass to get a riot going properly. Otherwise it's more of a brawl, a fracas or a ruckus.

It might surprise you to know that blacks are only about 12% of the population, and militant blacks a lot smaller percentage.  Are you saying it is inconceivable for blacks to riot?

Ya, what the Federal, State  and District courts won't hand them on a silver platter, Obama is expected to,  by way of executive order...I read to expect lots of them coming from him.

Only time will tell how much and in what way Obama intends to pay back the special interests (and that's what the "gay" militants are) who will most assuredly be knocking at the White House door.

How many more times will it take for gays to realize that even in one of the most liberal states in America, the plain folks are not willing to give up TRADITIONAL marriage just to please a very tiny percentage of the population? Why can't they accept the civil unions and just go away?

Good article LW....(and btw, I've been keeping you in prayer concerning your upcoming medical needs.)

It sure was good news that California, Florida and Arizona passed amendments to their state constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. These make 30 states that have done so! The Florida amendment required a 60% vote and they exceeded that and I heard that California passed their amendment by over 500, 000 votes.  So, LIBERAL California isn't so liberal when it comes to setting the record straight as to what constitutes lawful marriage.

If the law was changed so that YOUR marriage were anulled and deemed illegal by the government, would you just sit down quietly and say

"oh, okay. Sorry, guess I was being a whiner there!"

LOL!!!!

For one moment please try and put yourself in someone elses shoes.

In case ya didn't know it, these kinds of laws allows the creation of legal discrimination, creating a

two-tiered society

In which you have one set of rules for the "normal folk" and one set of rules for "them"

Them can change, but it's always got to be a specific group like a race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.

So, you mentioned the "plain" folks, which right now qualifies as what? Men and women in hetero relationships?

What if, down the line, a vote is taken of the populace and states start passing laws that only Christian men and women can legally get married?

Or, due to the fact that we seem to be blaming all of the problems of society on the poor, that you won't be legally able to wed unless both you and your partner each make more than 100 thousand per year??? It makes sense after all, cause  anyone who makes less than 200 K per year combined has got to be too dumb to be allowed to breed and not able to burden the responsibility of marriage right????

No, government should respect marriage between gays, just as they should respect marriage between consenting adults regardless of orientation, race, income, etc etc.

Long story short- the government should have no place in the bedrooms of the nation!!!

If you're referring  to California....

Am I missing something? When was there ever a "law" in California that allowed two people of the same gender to marry in the first place? Since when can California Superior court justices make law?

No, government should respect the will of the majority of the people...the judicial part of the California government didn't and that's what caused this mess.

MM POSTS:

Good question.

Civil unions in truth are simply "gay marriages" by another name. So it isn't really about equality at all.

It's about 2 things....the effort of a few to radically redefine marriage and their yearning to create a society where all have to not only accept, but to celebrate high risk, unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors as normal and equal to natural expressions of human sexuality. Their goal is to have a society that completely eliminates gender distinctions and God's design of human sexuality is replaced by moral relativism.

It's like you said the plain folks just aren't buying it...and many thanks to them.

No sale. People who describe themselves as homosexual have the same laws as every one else. They have equal rights from the day they were born guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions. What homosexuals get are the same rights as the rest of us. no more, no less.

I tend to agree, and in some ways they have more protection and rights than others, at least in the freedom of speech area.  Someone a post or two back mentioned Civil Unions.  That would be a wonderful idea but that does not seem to be what everyone wants.  Why redefine something when you can get the same benefits via a civil union?  Assuming of course civil unions = marriage in court.

So no discrimination huh? How about Uncle and nephew, or Aunt and niece? There is no biological consquense for these relationships to not be allowed except that it does not promote breeding.

 If these people too get to marry why shouldn't father and daughter or mother and son? No discrimination right?

interesting--I just wrote a blog on this called A Case For Preservation.  It looks at the word marriage from a linguistic and historic view and explains why a gay concentual contractual relationship can not be a marriage.  It seems the water has become very muddy regarding this issue.

JOA

(Joans Jousts and Jests, A Case For Preservation posted yesterday)

I am not sure this is true.  The fact is that many of the priviledges afforded married couples are not necessarily passed on to those joined under the civil union clauses. I am not sure why this is.  It may simply be that legal language and description of rights and benefits doesn't include civil union or it may be that there is actually a distinction being made.  None the less, it is not apples for apples.

Perhaps the reason for all the hub bub is the struggle for a sense of legitimacy.  That somehow were gay couples' uinons to be acually called marriage the struggle, which i believe to be deeply personal for gay folks, for approval would be over.  I am not sure.

JOA

Most of the homosexualists activists anger has been taken out against the LA Mormon Temple in Westwood.

LULA POSTS:

C'mon, I think under California law, even the arrangement of "domestic partnerships" are entitled to nearly all the legal privileges accorded to married couples ...at least in matters as taxes, estate planning and medical issues.

Gays gone wild again....  http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369

This will win people over, idiots.

For what it's worth, I've been trying to read this, but just get a blank screen every time I try.

Without doubt, check history....it's always been and this time is no different.....whenever the "gay" agenda is thwarted, violence and chaos shows itself. Note the violence is perpetrated against Christians who resisted same sex "marriage" in a very lawful and respectful manner.

Has anyone else noticed that instead of the victory of Prop 8, the mainstream media coverage focuses primarily and, in some cases, completely on the side of those asserting that same-sex "marriage" is a right?   

A majority in liberal California voted to uphold marriage is indeed a very big deal......but the media gave platforms to disgruntled homosexual activists and not to any supporters of Prop 8. Surprising? Nah, not at all.    

Latest blogs from the lunatic left sites - they are calling the blacks in California niggers (for voting against this), after voting for Obama.  Hmmm.....it seems we now know who the real racists are.

no kidding.  Where are the interviews with the family advocates?  You know..... the side that was victorious?   Usually the winning side of anything gets all the glory.  But not when the winning side is conservative I guess.  Nope.  In this case the whining losers are getting all the press.  Now,  look at Obama's victory.  Who's getting the press there?  Not us....the losers or even the whining losers although we don't whine even remotely like the liberals do.  They've got it down state of the art.  See how this all works?  And who dare says the media isn't left biased?   

I remember James Dobson from Focus on the Family writing about how he was always invited to Washington to discuss family values and such for like over 20 years.  If he wanted to speak with a Senator or Congressman he never had any trouble.  They always cleared their schedule for him.  That sure changed when the homosexual activisim started really heating up.  Now, they avoid Dobson like the plague and it's not easy making an appointment with the same leaders that had wide open doors before.

My, my how our world has changed and not for the better in my opinion.