I just received the picture above from a friend of mine. Yes on 8 protestors are standing at the corner of Bristol and 17th, in Santa Ana. This is the campaign to outlaw gay marriage. It is being run by hard-right Republicans. They are trying to reach out to Latinos. In fact they hired Matt “Jubal” Cunningham’s wife, who is a Latina, to run their public outreach campaign to Latinos. And Jubal’s pal Jeff Flint is running the entire hate campaign.
So I wonder if Mrs. Jubal sent these people to Santa Ana today? Don’t be fooled! These people want your votes today – and later they want to deport your relatives, friends and neighbors.
Latinos are the last people on earth who should embrace a measure that is anti-Civil Rights! Vote No on Prop. 8!
Actually, Latinos, especially older Latinos, are NOT the last people on earth who would be inclined to support Prop 8. With the Catholic church teaching against homosexuality, is it really that difficult to understand how many devout Catholics who cling tightly to traditional church doctrine might be supportive of this measure?
“traditional church doctrine”
Is there another kind of church doctrine?
Anti-civil rights? What garbage. It is an natural born right for a society to decide for itself what its ideals are. Not courts.
This is nothing more than tyranny of the minority.
I can no more marry a man than a homosexual can. Don’t tell me I have more rights. My mother would probably marry her cat and pass on her possessions to him. You have no problem being a discriminating against her. We have no problem as a society being a bigot and discriminating against folks in Utah or cousins in Alabama. You are a hypocrite.
And, I think discrimination means you are using rational thought.
Don’t tell me this is about civil rights. This is about hatret of society. And creating an absence of norms. We are dealing with people who are virtual nihilists, trying to speak for those who admire and appreciate the society they live in. Many don’t think Gay Marriage is even a good idea. Speaking for others is insulting to them. You wouldnt ever speak for me, or I would get in your face and wonder why. Shut your mouth.
This is also about socialism and the elimination of the family unit, to be replaced by government.
“One of its key institutions, the family unit, functions to reproduce hierarchical behavioural patterns and remove much of the responsibility for taking care of the aged, sick and the next generation of workers from society, to the family unit.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007611.asp
If you don’t care about society any more, leave it to those who do. After the November election, there is going to be more than enough mess to clean up we don’t need you in the way.
DAMMIT ART YOU PISS ME OFF!!!!
Jubal,
Yeah, there’s church doctrine that changes and evolves over time. Duh.
This really upset me.
Anyone want to point me to a group that advocates equal rights for ALL, not just a select group (IE Gays), let me know. I want to donate.
Not a single philisophy, religion, or nation in recorded history has EVER advocated that two men are the same as a man and a woman. People who advocate for this are saying the rest of history has been evil and stupid. These people should not even be taken SERIOUSLY. They are a joke.
People have a right to decide their nation for themselves. GROW UP.
Ouch…i must admit that this prop is a very difficult one for me to side with….I’m catholic but I also believe one has the right to choose to whom you want to wed and cohabitate with…
What molds us nature/nurture?… who knows, but what I do believe that it’s not up to my religion to make up my mind
……..BUT…….
I’m also an educator & I believe it is up to the parents to choose if this is something that they want to explain to their own child…and that they do have the right to opt out on this subject for their own child (sorta with the 5th grade lesson about puberty
I WOULN’T WANT educators to be placed on such a difficult subjuect
You have NOT been spending your time in seclusion getting better, Terry.
I can make the same argument those who oppose Prop 8 do, Vern.
I own http://www.citizensagainsthatred.com/
If you oppose me, its because you hate.
Its a stupid argument.
Isela, you seem reasonable. You shouldn’t fall for the propaganda the Proposition 8 folks are pushing. California has different laws regarding education than Massachusetts. As I’ve written elsewhere, “Here, the California Education Code, local school districts, and INVOLVED PARENTS determine what students should and shouldn’t learn about marriage – REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT PROP. 8 PASSES AND WE TAKE AWAY SAME-SEX COUPLES’ RIGHT TO MARRY.”
On top of that, in Massachusetts they weren’t teaching any kids about gay sex, despite all the innuendos you hear, they were just letting kids know that some of their friends might have two fathers or two mothers. Kindergarteners and first graders don’t think about sex!
You don’t hear me throwing around the word “hate,” Crowley, I got way too many arrows in my quiver to bother with that. Your moral relativism won’t work with me.
When do we get to vote on YOUR marriage, Crowley?
You should be worried about Missouri, brother. 100,000 at the St. Louis Obama rally, and 75,000 a few hours later in YOUR BACK YARD.
It’s slippin’ between your fingers, Brother Crowley, you’d better get a good night’s sleep now, there’s a lot of work to do the next twelve days if Western Civilization is to be saved!
Terry Crowley,
What the hell are you babbling about??
“This is nothing more than tyranny of the minority”
Can you explain to my why one group fighting for civil rights is an example of “tyranny of the minority”? As I last recalled, the NeoCons of this country are A MINORITY! It seems to me that their moral mission has been to espouse “traditional family values”, whatever the hell that is, and deny those who seek equal treatment under the law i.e. same-sex couples wishing to marry under a legal definition rather than through a church.
“And, I think discrimination means you are using rational thought”.
I really hope for the sake of your own credibility that I am misunderstanding your quote. If I would to follow along this logic it would make me think that the Holocaust and the Inquisition were events that were brought upon through ‘rational thought’.
“This is also about socialism and the elimination of the family unit, to be replaced by government”.
the State Government is in no way shape or form trying to take over the means of production of key industries. You may argue that this proposition is trying to create an egalitarian society but can you remember that “all men are created equal”. In my mind, this sounds like the founding fathers were thinking along egalitarian thought.
Elimination of the family unit? It is a sociological fact that the family plays a central role in defining a persons identity. No fabrication of man whether religion or the state can take over that responsibility. While both play another role in shaping the identity of a person, it is the family who decides which religion the person will follow (at first if the person decides to convert or still follow) and which school they will attend.
This isn’t an issue that threatens the “sanctity of marriage”. Voting Yes on Prop 8 is an issue that threatens the essence of Liberty. Give me a break Crowley, your arguments make as much sense as the writings of hebephrenic.
Hey Vern did you ever hear of the “Bradley Effect”?? That was Mayor Tom Bradley ahead in all polls going down in flames in his run for Governor. If I were you I would shut my big mouth and pray.
Yeah, there’s church doctrine that changes and evolves over time. Duh.
Like which one, anon? Unless you think everything the Church says is “doctrine.”
Thank you Terry so much.
I have not posted in awhile myself, but you said so many things I could not find the words to say without using alot of cursing.
You have been missed.
Again with the hate speak Art..but your wife can Vote yes on 8, right?? She is the only one though I forgot, Jubal can’t, his wife can’t.
Whatever?????
Oh wait I can VOTE YES ON 8.
Yes Arty it is all a big conspiracy to keep the brown man down. FIRST outlaw gay marriage, second get the brown man outta town. t is written in Prop 8 in the fine print.
Terry, if your mother wants to marry her cat maybe she can find some nut to perform the service. The State can’t recognize it as a legal contract because the cat is an incompetent entity with which to enter a contract – the State can’t arbitrate such agreements and outlaws them. So much for the Chuch Devore – “soon people will be marrying their pets” nonsense.
Your mother can leave her estate to her cat if there is a competent trustee to handle the deal. Maybe you can get the job – if you calm down a bit.
Jubal,
Well, the doctrine of indulgences is an obvious one that comes quickly to mind. And in terms of the future, given the extremely tough time the church is having getting new priests, there is a clear movement afoot to eliminate the celibacy requirement for priests. Don’t be surprised if that changes in your lifetime.
I have to admit I thought that Art might back off this topic not prop 8 all together but this rabidness in his hate of Jubal. Basically because he is asking to be voted in as a public official. People might think well this guy would be representing me and my ward and I’m not sure that I want someone who doesn’t care about what I think being my voice. I think that I don’t want some high school b*tch slapping, getting even kinda guy representing me (and I have never seen Art as that kind of guy).
This really has distressed me seeing that I have been such a strong supporter of Mr. Pedroza and intend on voting for him.
This is not some threat that I am taking away my vote blah blah, its that I seriously think he could do a good job for our city, but this could possibly cause him to lose votes.
I have urged Mr. Pedroza in the previous article on this blog to maybe care how the voters for in his ward may see him. We are looking for someone to REPRESENT all of us, the may different races, religions, political parties etc. we were looking to him for a positive change but he seems to care more about this fight than the bigger picture.
Yes I realize he feels strongly about Prop 8 and intends to vote No and more power to him but the way he is going about it is seriously juvenile. Its SEEMS more about his feud and hate for Jubal than his actual feelings about Prop 8.
Anon (October 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm) said “Yeah, there’s church doctrine that changes and evolves over time. Duh.” And Jubal riposted ‘Like which one, anon? Unless you think everything the Church says is “doctrine.”’
Well, let’s see… in 1974, the Episcopal church began to ordain women as priests– prior to that, their bishops had refused to do so, on the grounds that priests had to conform to the (masculine) pattern of Christ. In 1978, the Latter-Day Saints began to admit black men to the priesthood– prior to that, the Prophet taught that black people were cursed and inadmissable to the priesthood.
But since I suspect that by “Church” you mean “the Christians who obey the Bishop of Rome”… priestly celibacy was not required of Roman Catholic priests until Gregory VII in the eleventh century. Papal infallibility was not dogma until 1870.
Those are just off the top of my head, and I suspect that with some research more changes in doctrine would emerge. In fact, here’s a research challenge for you: when did the Roman Catholic church finally declare that slavery was unChristian? Beware of comments from Popes that condemn ‘unjust’ slavery; that qualifier permitted the ‘just’ enslavement of criminals and captives of war. Here’s a clue: it was after 1866, when the Holy Office issued a statement in support of slavery: “Slavery itself…is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law…The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.”
OC Gator barfs: “If I were you I would shut my big mouth and pray.” But we know that nobody has a bigger mouth than a Gator. “Hey Vern, ever heard of the Bradley Effect?” he brays. Like I just fell off the sweet potato truck in aught-6. So that’s what you and your ilk are hanging your hat on, hoping and trusting in the residual racism of the American people. Nice showing of your colors, Gator. I’m suspecting the slow march of American progress is gonna leave a million footprints all up and down that rancid, scaly, Gator back of yours.
Zenger and Erick, you can spend all day picking out the nonsense and lies from each sentence of a Crowley paragraph, but you begin to feel like a monkey picking out the head lice from another monkey. But I have as little self-restraint in this regard as you two do:
People have a right to decide their nation for themselves.
WTF? Is anyone here trying to call off the election? Or are we Prop 8 opponents not also “people who have a right to decide their nation etc.”? Or is that right, in Crowley’s mind, only reserved for the salt-of-the-earth uneducated Joe-the-Plumbers whom Crowley feels he can lead around by the nose? The folks who constitute Sarah Palin’s “real America” – just the tiny towns!
Of course what Crowley’s really trying to say is he resents the fact that we have a Constitutional Democracy, with judges who can occasionally step in and say a law favored by the majority breaks our highest law, our Constitution. Mourn, mourn, Terry, for slavery and segregation. But be sure to save some tears for the death of anti-gay discrimination!
yeah ok,
I have no animus for Matt. He is what he is. I do however take offense at the fact that the peiple running the Prop. 8 campaign are hard right anti-Latino Republicans. Latino voters should consider this when voting on Prop. 8.
My campaign co-chairs are Republicans. I am a former Republican. I am supported bt many Democrats and endorsed by the Libertarian Party. We all want change in Santa Ana.
“My campaign co-chairs are Republicans. I am a former Republican. I am supported bt many Democrats and endorsed by the Libertarian Party. We all want change in Santa Ana.”
Oh Art you know I know one of your campaign co-chairs very well better than you ever could. He is currently out of town and although I can not speak for him, it is my belief that he would find fault with your current antics.
I’m a republican too, so what? I have gone to your fund raisers and helped out where I could does this make what I say matter now? I know your endorsements and who backs you I don’t need a refresher. I am telling you that you will represent many people and that some of the people you represent will find your current antics offensive. I know that I do. I don’t care who endorses you I don’t vote off endorsements. I vote on who I believe will do the job, and keep “me” in mind in the process (“me” being the people in their ward) Was I mistaken in thinking you were a man “for all people”? maybe
This isn’t about race its about marriage, you make it about whatever you want though if thats your thing. But just because you “think” the prop 8 people are against Latinos doesn’t mean they are, or that Latinos should feel the need to vote no on prop 8 because of this, that is just about as ass backwards as saying just because I’m a conservative republican I have to vote yes on 8. Should they consider voting No because you are filled with hate for the prop 8 people, should I consider voting yes because its whats expected of me.
I guess you find no fault with your antics and thats is fine.
Peace out
Crowley said: Anyone want to point me to a group that advocates equal rights for ALL, not just a select group (IE Gays), let me know. I want to donate.
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FJ_donationhome&s_subsrc=getinvolved_donate_hp
Now put your money where your mouth is, Crowley.
yeah ok,
Prop. 8 has nothing to do with local politics in Santa Ana. And I don’t know anyone on the council or amongst the challengers that is supporting it. I believe that politicians should not be cowards. If they believe something they should say so publicly.
For me, Prop 8 is not about marriage. It is about civil rights. I firmly support the concept of “liberty and justice for all.” If that is going to lose me votes, so be it.
My opponent has helped to drive my city into a 28 million dollar deficit. He has done almost nothing while my city has careened into violence. The Council did nothing over the last few years until now that the election is around the corner. if people want to vote for THAT record because they don’t like my position on Prop. 8, that is their right. But we get the government we deserve.
I appreciate your candor and your support. But I will continue to oppose Prop. 8 and I will continue to remind my readers that the people who are running the Prop. 8 campaign are anti-Latino hard right Republicans. Because they are exactly that.
Well, the doctrine of indulgences is an obvious one that comes quickly to mind.
Really? I’d be interested in your explanation of how doctrine on indulgences has changed.
And in terms of the future, given the extremely tough time the church is having getting new priests, there is a clear movement afoot to eliminate the celibacy requirement for priests.
Nice try, but priestly celibacy is not a doctrine.
“I believe that politicians should not be cowards. If they believe something they should say so publicly.”
I do believe that you should say how you feel about prop 8, I do also however believe that you are doing so in a manor that I and others might or do find personally offensive. You are spreading the hate around nice and thick you ard to the result so hate those you accuse of hate is that positive in any way. You are making all of this personal, thats what I find over the line and offensive. My issue with you is not over prop 8 its about your lack of caring about who you offend. I do not believe the personal attacks that you are throwing around in any way help your campaign as a matter of fact I feel that it is hurting your campaign.
Ok so if you lose votes thats ok with you? You feel that strongly that you have enough votes in your corner already that you do not have to care about those you might lose. What does that say about you? You only care about those that agree to your tone and rhetoric. We want you on the council, that means you need every vote that you could possibly get. Possibly I mistakenly thought that you were serious enough about this campaign to put aside the petty bullsh*t and go for the gusto. Be against prop 8 and say so I’m all for it, but the high school bs lack of respect you have been showing lately hurts.
What you believe to be true and what actually is true could turn out to be two very different things. Generalizing again if I told you I worked on that very same campaign would you say I’m an anti-Latino hater? Do you see where you are taking all of this? This is all so disappointing.
Paul Cook-Giles:
Uh, we’re talking about the Catholic Church, not the Mormons.
And we’re talking about doctrine, not discipline. Priestly celibacy is not doctrinal. And Vatican I didn’t invent papal infallibility in 1870, but clarified the nature of it.
So you might want to drop the Mr. Know-it-all tone.
I do however take offense at the fact that the peiple running the Prop. 8 campaign are hard right anti-Latino Republicans.
That is the biggest load of manure, Art. I never ceased to be amazed at the ease with which you spit out big lies about people you don’t like.
Disregard my comment above, you can only say the same thing so many times. Can’t beat a dead horse right?
Good Luck with the rest of your campaign!
Matt, you’re betraying your Servite education and talking like a Mater Dei grad. Of course doctrine evolves and changes in the Catholic Church–unless you think the Council of Nicaea was just an excuse for bishops to party.
yeah ok,
I do want to clarify something. I have nothing against those voting for Prop. 8 – remember my own wife is in their number. And I have nothing against the volunteers either. I do have a bone to pick with the professionals running this campaign – and yes it is personal.
I was the inaugural Hispanic Outreach director for the OC GOP. But since those day’s most of the party leaders have become Latino haters. It got so bad that I quit the party.
Look at the recent primary campaign between Mimi Walters and Harry Sidhu, for the State Senate. They each attacked immigrants, even though Sidhu IS an immigrant and he is darker than most Latinos. It was sad to watch. I voted for the Democrat rather than vote for Walters.
Matt likes to say he is not anti-Latino. But look at the people he supports. He is a Walters backer.
These Republicans won’t learn until their party is extinct.
There was a time in this country’s history when folks thought slavery was OK. Those that said otherwise were thought to be kooky. Today they are heroes.
I firmly believe that one day we will look back and wonder what the big deal was over gay marriage and gays in general. And we will ask ourselves why so many people expended so much time and money on Prop. 8.
Jubal,
The belief in, and the practice of, the necessity of priestly celibacy is indeed a doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs taught by a church) that is currently a hallmark of Catholicism. Hello!!!
And if you don’t think the belief in the need and practice of indulgences has changed over the years, there’s nothing I can say outside of do some research, dude. Hello!!!
Aww of course here comes Gustavo on his horse, everything comes back to the evil Mater Dei. I am really beginning to think you tried to go there and could not pass the entrance exam.
Seriously, get OVER IT.
From Danielle
Class of 1994 MATER DEI(and proud of it)
EVERYONE passed the Mater Dei entrance exam. If you didn’t do well they made you take LATIN – I could never figure that one out. I was the only student in my Latin class (Sr. Agnes) who was there BY CHOICE. I got pretty popular helping the other kids with their Latin. I’m sure Gustavo would have done well enough that he could have taken Spanish and spent all his time doodling and shooting spit wads.
From Vern
Class of 1978
Sorry Vern.
Not true about everyone passing the entrance exam. I know a few kids that did not when I was going there. Also if you did not pass you had to go to summer school before you could even start.
My niece is a freshman this year(Gustavo get your torch) and she knows some kids that did not get in because they did not pass the exam.
Jubal,
Since you think you’re the expert and we’re all dopes, allow me to send some rather authoritative history on indulgences your way;
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
And one pertinent passage in particular;
“After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.”
Now, if you don’t think the doctrine of indulgences has changed and evolved over time, well, then I’d say you’re lost in your petty little superiority complex and you need to buy some indulgences. Oh wait, you don’t have to do that anymore. Simple repentance will do.
Art said:
“There was a time in this country’s history when folks thought slavery was OK. Those that said otherwise were thought to be kooky. Today they are heroes.”
FYI Art, it was the Republicans who freed the slaves. Thanks for putting Jubal and me in the HERO camp.
Disn’t they teach history at your school?
Frank –
Two problems with your comment:
First, the Republicans freed the slaves 140 years ago and have since gone out of their way to oppress every other minority group they can find because they figured out that prejudice and discrimination are effective motivators of the electorate.
And secondly, we’re all slaves. The sooner we wake up to face that fact, the better. If a $700 billion bailout for the rich handed out while the rest of us are losing our homes and paying out the nose for food and fuel doesn’t prove it, then we as a society are totally screwed. In every system ever construed by man, whether autocracy, theocracy, democracy, communism, whatever, the powerful have gotten more powerful and the poor, poorer. Question: what do all men with power want? I think you know the answer.
In short, the Matrix has you. Take the red pill. Please.
SMS
LAME, URY, LAME.
Republicans have to go back 160 years to prove the Party’s decency? (Not to take away from relatively good Presidents Teddy and Ike)
Since LBJ knowingly lost the south “for a generation” (or more!) by embracing Civil Rights, and Nixon jumped at the chance to attract the disenchanted racist Dixiecrats with his Southern strategy, THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT.
Who cares about ancient history? Lincoln would be a Democrat now, that’s without question.
PS do you know you’re a celebrity here, thanks to the good work of Brother Larry Gilbert?
Anon:
You’re confused about what is doctrine and what isn’t. The Church change the doctrine of indulgences. It reformed abuses of the doctrine. That’s a big difference.
Matt, you’re betraying your Servite education and talking like a Mater Dei grad.
Now THAT’S an insult!
Of course doctrine evolves and changes in the Catholic Church–unless you think the Council of Nicaea was just an excuse for bishops to party.
Doctrine gets clarified and affirmed in the faces of errors and heresies, but doesn’t really change. Nicea, for example, affirmed the nature of Christ’s divinity in order to combat rampant heresies.
Sarah and Vern
Thank you so much for behaving EXACTLY as I knew you would.
ART brought up the slavery issue first in his response. I simply make one comment about it and BAM! I am the lame one bringing it up.
You folks on this blog are like Pavlov’s Bloggers. Jubal and I could select Coke over Pepsi and you all would find some catastrophic moral flaw to attach to it, requiring the purging of anyone who has ever known me from the face of the earth.
And that is what people see, from all of you. Nothing but permanent pessimism and a need to tear down.
And Sarah, thank you for pointing out WHY you are the way you are (as are many others on this blog). If you have no control over your own life, how easy it is to blame others and to just complain. You can do no wrong (including lying about other folks as Art does) and you have none of the blame. How perfect.
I have three kids to raise, how terrible it would be to pass such views on life down to them…
My comment to Anon should read:
You’re confused about what is doctrine and what isn’t. The Church didn’t change the doctrine of indulgences. It reformed abuses related to the doctrine. It didn’t repudiate doctrine about indulgences, but the sale of indulgences.
That’s a big difference.
The belief in, and the practice of, the necessity of priestly celibacy is indeed a doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs taught by a church) that is currently a hallmark of Catholicism. Hello!!!
Anon:
Again, celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine.
Frank,
Abe Lincoln opposed the Mexican American War. He would have been dismayed by the villification of Mexicans embraced by today’s Republican Party.
Frank Ury, (is it Mayor? I forget)
If it were 1860, I would be a Republican and an abolitionist, I am sure of it. I’m the sort (as I believe some others on this blog are) who see injustice and try to correct it, rather than say “that’s how it always has been” or “my church says that’s how it should be.”
Would you have been a Republican and an abolitionist? Only you can say.
And Jubal. Only you could answer this: How many angels can simultaneously split hairs while dancing on the head of a pin?
Vern,
I think you would have been a southerner at the Constitutional Convention talking out of one side of your mouth about how slaves should be “fully counted” while out of the other side you know that that would give the Slave States a majority in Congress.
Its all meally mouthed blather and double talk, designed to undermine what is and what is said to be “right”. Because people like you, Vern, have decided that after hundreds of years of trying, and failing, to reach your utopia where there are NO PROBLEMS, its not doing wrong things thats the problem.
The problem is with people who try to be right.
If no one tries to be right, there’s no conflict. If there’s no conflict, there would be no war. If there’s no war, there’s no poverty. If there’s no poverty, there’s no crime. yadda, yadda, yadda, ad infinitum.
The problem with you Vern, is you’re wrong about EVERYTHING.
Terry, I am trying to find a sentence in your last comment that helps justify your desire to take away the rights of 10% of our population to marry the person they love. Am I missing something? Do I need better reading glasses?
You’re trying to argue with me?
First point: No rights can be taken from, nor given to, anyone. My rights come from my creator. And the laws of the land are set to prevent government from interfering in them. Not to grant them, not to create them. What people like you have never understood is you have OBLIGATIONS.
The real point of what you’re saying is that the institution of marriage of 2000 years was a de facto denial of rights. This is the basic leftist slander. Whatever is, is wrong.
Second point: You pick your words more carefully than the rest of those you dance with, I’ll give you that. I cannot marry my brother. I love my brother. Why should a homosexual be given special rights others do not have?
Third point: This is elemental Vern. You are not advocating new rights Vern. You are advocating for the abolition of the meaning of marriage. There’s no reason to limit the number you love to 1 Vern. NOT ONE.
Final point: Why are you advocating a right that denies my mother the right to marry her pet? Me the right to marry my brother? You are the one who is denying rights Vern, by admitting your agenda. People like you just handpick 1-2% of the population and think you can call yourself moral or liberating by taking their cause. Think of marriage as a line in the sand. All you are doing is erasing that line with your foot and drawing another one. But you cannot “move the line in the sand” without someone like me telling you you’re a bigot for not moving it again. And I will do it in the name of showing your hypocrisy.
Come up with an “Eliminate the institution of marriage” amendment? At least its consistent and honest.
Come up with a Initiative that gives ANYONE the right to grant ANYONE ELSE the right to inherit, raise children, visit in the hospital, et al, I will campaign for it.
You will not answer any point Vern. Will you?
Danielle, are you married?