Prop 8

[Ambitions]

Exhibit B is clearly inferior to exhibit A, unless you believe that a father and a second father and a mother are interchangable in every respect. That is what you support if you support gay marriage.You are arguing that it is perfectly legitimate and of equal value for a child to grow up without a mother or father.

No. No your fucking not. You saying its okay for them to get married. Since when does "get married" mean "have kids"? Do you know how to fucking read. Really.

 

[DT]

I don't get the whole point of this prop marriage is religously based, the government is in fact suppossed to allow:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

this prop violates ones right to marry who they like it violates some Theoglogical veiws such as Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve, but government is not supposed to influence the Theological beliefs of american people the issue on child care is a totally different issue, but no1 should have the right to interfere with someone's elese union. To people who strongly oppose i say is it so wrong to seek out the one you were made for and even it is one of the same sex? With 50% of marriages failing anyway why not allow Homesexuals couples to take a crack at it they seem alot happier than my parents do, and most married people.

Adding on they already had the right to be married taking away a right already implied by the Californian Constitution, my general opinion is that our country needs to be alot tolerant I have no problem with gay people or gay marriage, not so long ago we thought it was ok to revoke African Americans their rights, not so long ago we thought it was ok to enslave another race, not so long ago we thought woman didnt deserve the same rights as men when is this country going to realize that we dont have the right nor need to opress our brothers and sisters, what's is going to take a Homesexual president?

 

[evolutia]

I would like to touch upon the issue of homosexuals adopting. I think it's absolutely despicable that anyone would deny a child a "chance" at a good home. The same people that say to give the unborn a "chance" at life even though they may be predestined to repeat the same mistakes their parents made due to being born in inadequate circumstances. It's absolutely selfish. I am a child of adoption and if a willing homosexual couple wanted to adopt me I would be grateful. The adoption homes are not the best place for a child to grow up, any willing loving couple heterosexual or homosexual wanting to accept that child into their home to give them a chance at a better life should be commended.

 

[Syberia]

A homosexual couple can adopt a child, what Deck Knight had a problem was forcing a religious institution to violate their own beliefs and hand over a kid to a gay couple. There are plenty of non-religious adoption agencies a homosexual couple can go through to get a kid.

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

If kids in Catholic adoption agencies are denied a loving home because of religious prejudice, that's an issue.

 

[Trax]

This thread has so much crying in it, I'm just posting to say how fucking sad it is that anyone who isn't gay even gives a shit.

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

Sometimes people can be nice to people who aren't identical to themselves

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Saying that Exhibit B is clearly inferior and then acknowledging that the only differences between the two were gender and sexuality, you did a pretty good job of demonstrating your own blind hatred.

Good job, you made our argument for us.

Although I know I can't speak for everyone, if I was an orphan, I would be pretty damn happy to have parents that actually cared about me...especially since my godly heterosexual parents were obviously not up to the task!

 

[akuchi]

Trax; it's now sad for someone to give a shit about things that don't directly involve them?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Exhibit B is clearly inferior to exhibit A, unless you believe that a father and a second father and a mother are interchangable in every respect. That is what you support if you support gay marriage. You are arguing that it is perfectly legitimate and of equal value for a child to grow up without a mother or father.

Name one thing that only a father can do for a child that a mother cannot. Name one thing that only a mother can do for a child who is not an infant (in other words, not breastfeeding or giving birth) that a mother can do for a child that a father cannot. I am not saying to name things that a mother typically does or that a father typically does. I'm saying name things that one parent is absolutely unable to do. Name things that are so intrinsically motherly or fatherly that the other parent is simply unable to ever provide those capacities in any way.

My personal experiences suggest that there's a lot of variance family to family. My father did most of the cooking and the cleaning; we was more concerned about the cleanliness of the home than my mother, and he was a radically superior cook (his stuff was excellent; hers was pretty mediocre). When I got older and discussion about sex became appropriate, I seem to recall my mother being more involved in that than my father with me. My father is a firefighter so he was home 2/3 days and then 1/8 of every working day (and that's before you factor in vacations and sick days). He was a very regular presence around the house, and he was the guy you (for most of my younger years at least) depended on to be around. My mother worked in the food industry on the other hand, and she was at work a lot more frequently. While my father did make more money than my mother (the firefighting job is a pretty sweet deal in general if you're into that sort of thing), the way they were around reversed the feel of who was "staying at home" and who was "out providing" relative to the cultural norm.

My parents are both complex people who aren't going to fit any stereotypes for personalities all that well, but if I had to say one was "motherly" and one was "fatherly", I'd definitely reverse them. Both were pretty quick to anger, but my dad would always come by your room later to talk about it and try to make sure everyone was able to forget and forgive. My mom, on the other hand, had a penchant for holding nasty grudges, but as I've become older, it has become clear to me that she wanted to try to make sure my sister and I would be strong enough to look out for ourselves in the future (she's overprotective in other ways though... it's pretty funny). And, well, let's just say that if someone messed with me or my sister enough that parents had to get involved, it wasn't my dad they were likely to be seeing, and my mom wasn't going to go with the intention of having a calm conversation...

Parenting is a complex thing, and I'm not even sure how you are supposed to define success and failure (if a kid is a total screw up, should we come to you with the blame?). What I am sure of is that every family is very, very different, and that the unique circumstances of any family might lead any particular aspect of raising a child to be handled by either parent. There's just no reason two women or two men couldn't raise a child just as well as one man and one woman; the only thing that would be required would be that the adoptive parents were as dedicated to doing a good job raising their kids as an other parents (I see no evidence to the contrary on this one).

Also, here's a fun question to those who might be opposed regardless. Let's pretend that it really is better to have one man and one woman raising you as opposed to two men or two women. Now, what if the choice is between a gay couple adopting or a straight individual? Now the choice might be between having two "moms" or just one. What should be done in that case? What if we look at the way adoptions tend to go and realize that there are more kids who could use adoption than candidate families by a big margin? Would you rather these kids be raised in non-traditional homes or in things that aren't homes at all? It's hard to prove that a set of parents of the same sex causes damage to a child. It's really easy to prove that a life as a ward of the state does. So, for any child for whom only a gay couple wants to adopt them, what is the fantastic proposal to make them have a better life? The laws against the adoption suggest the proposal of "let the state handle them". Is that really what you want?

 

[Deck Knight]

Name one thing that only a father can do for a child that a mother cannot. Name one thing that only a mother can do for a child who is not an infant (in other words, not breastfeeding or giving birth) that a mother can do for a child that a father cannot. I am not saying to name things that a mother typically does or that a father typically does. I'm saying name things that one parent is absolutely unable to do. Name things that are so intrinsically motherly or fatherly that the other parent is simply unable to ever provide those capacities in any way.

My personal experiences suggest that there's a lot of variance family to family. My father did most of the cooking and the cleaning; we was more concerned about the cleanliness of the home than my mother, and he was a radically superior cook (his stuff was excellent; hers was pretty mediocre). When I got older and discussion about sex became appropriate, I seem to recall my mother being more involved in that than my father with me. My father is a firefighter so he was home 2/3 days and then 1/8 of every working day (and that's before you factor in vacations and sick days). He was a very regular presence around the house, and he was the guy you (for most of my younger years at least) depended on to be around. My mother worked in the food industry on the other hand, and she was at work a lot more frequently. While my father did make more money than my mother (the firefighting job is a pretty sweet deal in general if you're into that sort of thing), the way they were around reversed the feel of who was "staying at home" and who was "out providing" relative to the cultural norm.

My parents are both complex people who aren't going to fit any stereotypes for personalities all that well, but if I had to say one was "motherly" and one was "fatherly", I'd definitely reverse them. Both were pretty quick to anger, but my dad would always come by your room later to talk about it and try to make sure everyone was able to forget and forgive. My mom, on the other hand, had a penchant for holding nasty grudges, but as I've become older, it has become clear to me that she wanted to try to make sure my sister and I would be strong enough to look out for ourselves in the future (she's overprotective in other ways though... it's pretty funny). And, well, let's just say that if someone messed with me or my sister enough that parents had to get involved, it wasn't my dad they were likely to be seeing, and my mom wasn't going to go with the intention of having a calm conversation...

Parenting is a complex thing, and I'm not even sure how you are supposed to define success and failure (if a kid is a total screw up, should we come to you with the blame?). What I am sure of is that every family is very, very different, and that the unique circumstances of any family might lead any particular aspect of raising a child to be handled by either parent. There's just no reason two women or two men couldn't raise a child just as well as one man and one woman; the only thing that would be required would be that the adoptive parents were as dedicated to doing a good job raising their kids as an other parents (I see no evidence to the contrary on this one).

Also, here's a fun question to those who might be opposed regardless. Let's pretend that it really is better to have one man and one woman raising you as opposed to two men or two women. Now, what if the choice is between a gay couple adopting or a straight individual? Now the choice might be between having two "moms" or just one. What should be done in that case? What if we look at the way adoptions tend to go and realize that there are more kids who could use adoption than candidate families by a big margin? Would you rather these kids be raised in non-traditional homes or in things that aren't homes at all? It's hard to prove that a set of parents of the same sex causes damage to a child. It's really easy to prove that a life as a ward of the state does. So, for any child for whom only a gay couple wants to adopt them, what is the fantastic proposal to make them have a better life? The laws against the adoption suggest the proposal of "let the state handle them". Is that really what you want?

Your question is easy to answer: It is not about what they can do individually, it is what they can do together. Assignment of household duties has nothing to do with it. In regards to the scenario, Catholic agencies don't adopt out to individuals either. But at least an individual can get married and restore that balance of experiences. Gay couples are already paired and their child will lose out on the experience of a parent. The child will survive of course; you don't get killed simply because you don't have a regular family, but it isn't a model that promotes proper development and perspective regarding the other gender. Being a ward of the state has its own problems, but you don't, as an agency, lower your standards for an insignificant good. Of the few monogamous gay couples there are, even fewer want to adopt.

Together, they have both male and female experiences. Together, one knows how to deal with childbirth and the other one knows what it is like when your wife is going through childbirth. It's about the different experiences they bring to the table as a whole. It is about having a real diversity and not a fake one. A gay "family" isn't diverse, it's two gay men with the gay male experience, wholely ill-equipped to give experiential knowledge on anything like loving people of the other gender, for example.

That's what people aren't getting about marriage. That is what gay activists refuse to get about marriage. It isn't about two individuals. If it were then it would just be contract law, and no one would care.

But I suppose I mispoke. Even gay activists know marriage isn't the same as contract law. Otherwise they would be content with civil unions. But they aren't, because for them it is about forcing everyone else to view their choices as normal. I'm sure I've said this and I'm sure it will be ignored again just for another "lol Deck Knight is a bigot pc++ yay" post, but the proclivity to be gay is not a choice. Acting on that proclivity is a choice. Marriage is an act, and in a democracy people get to determine which acts they condone in a civilized society.

I take heat for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. I think the comparison is perfectly valid. People are genetically predisposed to both and acting on the genetic predisposition has negative long-term health effects. If an alcoholic gets alcohol in their system they are prone to wanting more and more of it. The answer to alcoholism is to keep the alcoholic from drinking alcoholic beverages, not reward them by saying "alcoholism is just another perfectly legitimate lifestyle, people can't help it if they are predisposed to alcohol addiction" and throwing them a beer.

Obviously the point of enforcement is different. It isn't right or sensible to prosecute people for a genetic predisposition. Nor, as I've said before in other places, is it right or sensible to use the police force as the health squad (that's for Liberals like Trans Fat Banning Bloomberg). Most of the dangerous elements of alcoholism come from the beverage itself. In Homosexuality, it's the culture that causes most of the trouble. Stuff like the Folsom Street Fair where SF has people screwing in the streets in broad daylight. The general lack of emphasis on monogamy or long-term relationships. The fakery and fleetingness of serious relationships.

Some have made the specious argument that gay marriage will help fix "gay culture" by giving it a reason to emphasize monogamy. This is erroneous logic, itself defeated by another argument for gay marriage that attacks heterosexuals for their lack of monogamy, as indicated by the divorce rate. [The answer to both, btw. is to get rid of no-fault divorce.] The gay culture is often toxic, and the more politically active the more violent, as observed by some Prop 8 opponents threatening to burn down churches. LDS churches and the Catholic Churches of course, given that torching down all the protestant black churches would not be "touting diversity," despite the fact the African American vote is undeniably what won it. Since people didn't want to research it earlier (they pretend blacks think every pet cause activists name a "civil right" matters to them):

CNN Prop 8 election results:

Vote by Race: Yes-No

Whites (63%): 49-51

African American (10%): 70-30

Latino (18%): 53-47

Asian (6%): 49-51

Other (3%): 51-49

So in other words, it would appear most African Americans, at least in California, don't believe gay marriage to be the most epic civil rights issue to ever face the nation, a few anecdotal detractors aside. Or I suppose you could argue like some Huffington Post commenters have that blacks are simply stupid people that buy lies that are fed to them.

Either way it doesn't really matter. Gay marriage bans have a perfect record in winning ballot initiatives. Most of the people who support gay marriage don't even have families. Check the CNN election numbers. As age increases, support for Prop 8 increases. In the first brackets, the ONLY Age Group that voted no was 18-29. In the second brackets, 18-24 and 25-29 voted no. Once you hit 30 and have a family, your support for gay marriage seems to disappear.

The Income tables are also interesting. It seems the middle class opposes it while the poorest, probably on welfare of some kind and the super rich who can afford such frivolities support it.

So again, you call 52% of Californians bigots, or call me a bigot, or whatever, but don't pretend you're attacking a bunch of rich pasty WASPS. Rich pasty WASPS are the primary supporters of gay marriage.

 

[Wakaka]

I take heat for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. I think the comparison is perfectly valid. People are genetically predisposed to both and acting on the genetic predisposition has negative long-term health effects. If an alcoholic gets alcohol in their system they are prone to wanting more and more of it. The answer to alcoholism is to keep the alcoholic from drinking alcoholic beverages, not reward them by saying "alcoholism is just another perfectly legitimate lifestyle, people can't help it if they are predisposed to alcohol addiction" and throwing them a beer.

Oh you HAVE to be kidding. You are really trying to tell us, that it's unhealthy to live the way you want to (the way you feel like) in contrast to lead a life of lies and denial?
Think for one freaking second before you answer: How does being gay involve any "negative long-term health effects"? Seriously "the answer to homosexuality is to keep the homo from having sex with other homos"; that's what your analogy is getting at and it's really really really stupid. It's not like I wouldn't accept your views if they weren't so outright retarded, but as it stands your answer to homosexuality is to deny them love or any rights to "keep them healthy".
Bravo.

 

[sanjay120]

wholely ill-equipped to give experiential knowledge on anything like loving people of the other gender

My parents were both only children so they are wholly ill-equipped to give experiential knowledge on anything like having a sister. And don't pull bullshit about how knowledge of the opposite sex is necessary. I'm perfectly happy not dating any girls and if I did want to I know what they're like from my experience, not from what my parents tell me (which is that they are short tempered bitches who can't take a joke and suck the fun out of everything; yes that is how I see my mom I still love her though). I would rather go on the internet than to my parents for dating advice, they rarely understand how my mind works and so their advice is likely to be useless.

acting on the genetic predisposition has negative long-term health effects

Actually ignoring, denying, and hiding homosexuality is a lot more stressful than being out and usually does no one any harm.

in a democracy people get to determine which acts they condone in a civilized society

Woah, really? In that case I'm so glad we live in a republic instead of a true democracy.

 

[Eki]

Once you hit 30 and have a family, your support for gay marriage seems to disappear.

Or, once you were born and raised in an other generation. I doubt most who voted no will change their minds just because they get a family.

 

[evan]

Who the fuck cares that Black people don't care about gay rights? You know who was against abolition and black suffrage? Women. And then they got their civil rights movement later.

Also, comparing homosexuality to a disease? You have got to be one of the most despicable people I have ever interacted with in any way.

 

[akuchi]

oh.. and um. if lesbianism is so bad, why do they have the lowest STI transmission rate?
and should straight people who fuck up the ass be told they're unnatural too?

 

[Cynthia]

Obviously the point of enforcement is different. It isn't right or sensible to prosecute people for a genetic predisposition. Nor, as I've said before in other places, is it right or sensible to use the police force as the health squad (that's for Liberals like Trans Fat Banning Bloomberg). Most of the dangerous elements of alcoholism come from the beverage itself. In Homosexuality, it's the culture that causes most of the trouble. Stuff like the Folsom Street Fair where SF has people screwing in the streets in broad daylight. The general lack of emphasis on monogamy or long-term relationships. The fakery and fleetingness of serious relationships.

Ooh, so you're admitting it's a genetic predisposition, progress has been made.
Anyway, I'll admit there is a problem with monogamy in the gay community, even though there are thousands upon thousands of homosexuals looking for/in serious relationships that would beg to differ. The point stands that if gay marriage were legal, there would be more monogamy. Also, quoting a specific event is an irrelevant example, I could find similar heterosexual events(and more of them I wager), so your point is moot.

Are you suggesting that the gay community is dangerous and militant? That is preposterous, this is by far one of the most peaceful movements for civil rights there has been in history.

Also, African Americans are generally opposed to gay marriage because African Americans are overwhelmingly Christian.

 

[Firestorm]

Either way it doesn't really matter. Gay marriage bans have a perfect record in winning ballot initiatives. Most of the people who support gay marriage don't even have families. Check the CNN election numbers. As age increases, support for Prop 8 increases. In the first brackets, the ONLY Age Group that voted no was 18-29. In the second brackets, 18-24 and 25-29 voted no. Once you hit 30 and have a family, your support for gay marriage seems to disappear.

Nice spin. What it means is that the older generation grew up around values that are no longer considered acceptable. You don't "change" your stand on gay marriage when you turn 30. I can't wait for the hardcore religious zealots to die out. Use religion as a guideline, not as a rule.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

That's what people aren't getting about marriage. That is what gay activists refuse to get about marriage. It isn't about two individuals. If it were then it would just be contract law, and no one would care.

Marriage isn't about two individuals? what? Every time your outrageous reasoning gets disproven you just come back with a different definition of marriage, even though I never assumed that we would break through whatever brainwashing you have been subjected to, its starting to get to the point where your naivete has crossed the line from funny to seriously threatening.

But I suppose I mispoke. Even gay activists know marriage isn't the same as contract law. Otherwise they would be content with civil unions. But they aren't, because for them it is about forcing everyone else to view their choices as normal. I'm sure I've said this and I'm sure it will be ignored again just for another "lol Deck Knight is a bigot pc++ yay" post, but the proclivity to be gay is not a choice. Acting on that proclivity is a choice. Marriage is an act, and in a democracy people get to determine which acts they condone in a civilized society.

You're right, we should be content with a separate but equal policy, since even gay people know that we are inferior and do not deserve the same legal benefits as our supreme hetero masters. Why can't we just be straight and all of these arguments will just go away? If sexuality is actually a choice, why don't we just all go bi? oh, wait...I forgot that sexuality is not a choice so you can't mandate it like it is one.

Again, your solution is "since being gay is not a choice and I hate gay people, I think it would be best if they just kept themselves hidden and out of my democracy". This hasn't worked and it won't keep working. If you really can't understand why your proposition here doesn't work then I suggest opening your eyes to the real world.

Also, you're right, if most people condone unfounded hatred towards an innocent group of people, that should be condoned. I don't know what I was thinking.

If you want homos out of your hair...why don't you just give us equality and be done with us? We'll stop bitching AND you get to feel like a liberator!

I take heat for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. I think the comparison is perfectly valid. People are genetically predisposed to both and acting on the genetic predisposition has negative long-term health effects. If an alcoholic gets alcohol in their system they are prone to wanting more and more of it. The answer to alcoholism is to keep the alcoholic from drinking alcoholic beverages, not reward them by saying "alcoholism is just another perfectly legitimate lifestyle, people can't help it if they are predisposed to alcohol addiction" and throwing them a beer.

Being gay is not a long-term negative health effect. You sitting here and seriously suggesting that it is is leaving me at an absolute loss for words.

If "I want to keep gay people healthy by eliminating their culture and their STD loving lifestyle" is really your argument, then Akuchi's point about Lesbians having a significantly lower STD rate comes into play. Do you support lesbian marriages?

And to pre-empt the inevitable bullshit you will spew if you ever decide to man up and actually respond to someone that is proving you wrong, of course if you go around and have sex with dozens of partners then the chance of having a disease skyrockets. This is no different from promiscuous heterosexuals.

Obviously the point of enforcement is different. It isn't right or sensible to prosecute people for a genetic predisposition. Nor, as I've said before in other places, is it right or sensible to use the police force as the health squad (that's for Liberals like Trans Fat Banning Bloomberg). Most of the dangerous elements of alcoholism come from the beverage itself. In Homosexuality, it's the culture that causes most of the trouble. Stuff like the Folsom Street Fair where SF has people screwing in the streets in broad daylight. The general lack of emphasis on monogamy or long-term relationships. The fakery and fleetingness of serious relationships.

The culture isn't the problem, promiscuous sex is. Promiscuous sex is no more a part of gay culture than it is of straight culture, assuming that we are now seriously stooping to associating everybody with their stereotypes. I shouldn't have to explain why saying that "gays have a high STD rate, therefore being gay is the problem" has no weight in any real argument.

There's a difference between saying "gay is ok" and saying "go fuck every butt you can see, boys!". Apparently, you aren't mature enough to make such a distinction...

I did love your Bloomberg reference though. Hey, something we agree on!

Some have made the specious argument that gay marriage will help fix "gay culture" by giving it a reason to emphasize monogamy. This is erroneous logic, itself defeated by another argument for gay marriage that attacks heterosexuals for their lack of monogamy, as indicated by the divorce rate. [The answer to both, btw. is to get rid of no-fault divorce.]

You seem to be painting a picture of how homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, and that those choices should impact how they are treated. With this in mind, how can you say that gays are automatically going to have an embarassing 50/50 divorce rate, just because straight couples do? Your disproof of the claim here really calls a lot of your other claims into question.

So, you say that gays will act exactly like hetero couples do if they are granted marriage? So why don't we just give them the same priveleges and incentives? Oh wait, being fair means that gay culture is forcing us to be normal, and not our own stated declarations of equality and justice.

The gay culture is often toxic,

Thanks

Most of the people who support gay marriage don't even have families.

Because they are gay and have been forced into not having families by society?

Deck Knight is either a posterchild for the scariest majority belief in America or one of the better trolls this board has seen in a while. Probably both =\

 

[Firestorm]

By the way, what the fuck does having a family have to do with supporting gay marriage? This isn't a "Yeah, well if you had kids you'd think more about violence in media" kind of thing. This is recognizing minority groups as equals.

 

[Mekkah]

I take heat for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. I think the comparison is perfectly valid.

Wow. I'm at a loss of words here. Until you're actually going to respond to people like jrx7 with proper arguments rather than tonguetwisting around, I won't tolerate this bullshit.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Oh, but first I'd appreciate knowing what, precisely, these serious health risks I am taking are. Sure, gay people in lower socio-economic demographics than me have some very bad habits, so do straight people in the same dire circumstances. They're worse in the States, because in the States 'universalised healthcare' is (stupidly and innaccurately) equated with socialism. Any issues surrounding gay health have a lot more to do with class issues than with homosexuality itself.

But then, DK, you're not particularly critically-minded, are you? I'm guessing these health risks are the same ones produced by a society that stereotypes and pidgeon-holes gays as reckless and unhealthy to begin with.

Obviously all I need is a twelve step programme. Oh, and maybe a poster of Jesus' naked torso.

 

[shipship]

Quoted from the Wikipedia article on Dan Savage, an openly gay American columnist:

Savage's home state of Washington allows gays to adopt, but does not legally recognize gay marriage. Savage engaged in an action in March 2004 intended to push forward gay marriage in Washington. After his co-worker Amy Jenniges was denied a license to marry her girlfriend Sonia, Jenniges and Savage obtained a license to marry one another. He wrote at the time, "We emphasized to the clerk and her manager that Amy and I don't live together, we don't love each other, we don't plan to have kids together, and we're going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married. So could we still get a marriage license?" According to Savage, the license-department manager replied, "Sure. If you've got $54, you can have a marriage license."
Savage and his partner (since 1994) Terry have one adopted son, and were legally married in Canada around the beginning of 2005.

Yep, this is the "sanctity of marriage" that supporters of prop 8 want to defend.

 

[Firestorm]

Good video, but a little late: MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage and more

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Time to break from religion, much?

Seriously, folks, if we're going to break any barriers, religion would be at the top of the list. Religion influences so much, like this gay marriage issue, that we should destroy (yes I meant that word) any and all religious affairs that filter into government. Somewhere I read only 4% of the electoral college would vote for a non-Christian. 4%!!! Black-white nothing! Obama is President-to-be. How many Presidents have been Protestant? ehhh... All but less than a handful. It is illegal for the joining of church and state, and so no church affiliated ideals can be in government yet we see it happen time and time again.

Its a pity this passed (I'm pretty sure it did). It just shows what a grip the church has on society, in the age of revolutions and freedom, no less!