Vote No on Prop 8: Family (Molly Ringwald)

What do you mean ur kids?! What about family?!

Prop 8 will be overturned. This IS discrimination in plain sight. Too many old conservatives made it pass -_-'. I blame health care. If it wasn't there, more oldies would've been dead, and it very well may have failed. Okay, that was a little severe. Oh well.

I voted no.

-I'm Riboflavin, and I approve of this message.

What do you mean ur kids?! What about family?!

Prop 8 will be overturned. This IS discrimination in plain sight. Too many old conservatives made it pass -_-'. I blame health care. If it wasn't there, more oldies would've been dead, and it very well may have failed. Okay, that was a little severe. Oh well.

I voted no.

-I'm Riboflavin, and I approve of this message.

Great propaganda, but misses the point. Why do gays want 'marriage'? Civil Unions are one thing. Equal rights for hospital visitation, health insurance benefits, wealth transfer at death...fine. But, why insist on the religious term of marriage as it's understood in American/Jewish history? Can't three people love each other very much and want to be married?... more >

Great propaganda, but misses the point. Why do gays want 'marriage'? Civil Unions are one thing. Equal rights for hospital visitation, health insurance benefits, wealth transfer at death...fine. But, why insist on the religious term of marriage as it's understood in American/Jewish history? Can't three people love each other very much and want to be married? Silly liberals...

I am upset that there was even a vote about taking away gay marriage.
It was found to be unconstitutional not to allow gays to marry by our state supreme court. One of the purposes of the constitution is to protect minority rights, and when the majority can go ahead and take those rights away, our democracy begins to fall apart.
Which minority is going to... more >

I am upset that there was even a vote about taking away gay marriage.
It was found to be unconstitutional not to allow gays to marry by our state supreme court. One of the purposes of the constitution is to protect minority rights, and when the majority can go ahead and take those rights away, our democracy begins to fall apart.
Which minority is going to have their rights taken away next? Will it be bi-racial couples? Or how about taking away hispanics' right to marry, because one of them might be an illegal?
The proper way to contest against the state supreme court's decision would have been to take the case to a higher court, the Supreme Court of the United States, NOT have a vote. The Majority will always vote against the minority, and we have set a dangerous precident here in California to allow the constitution to be circumvented by Mob Rule.
Minorities everywhere should be watching their back. They could be next.

Pierogi, no wowrries. Here's how it goes for Plankton.
If the vote would have resulted in the opposite (in favor of his/her agenda), then he'd be singing the praised of how great this country is and how democracy really works.

But it didn't go hie/her way and now democracy is an evil thing and MUST be done away with immediately! Such is life where libtards are... more >

Pierogi, no wowrries. Here's how it goes for Plankton.
If the vote would have resulted in the opposite (in favor of his/her agenda), then he'd be singing the praised of how great this country is and how democracy really works.

But it didn't go hie/her way and now democracy is an evil thing and MUST be done away with immediately! Such is life where libtards are concerned.

BTW plankton, can't you do better than a cut and paste answer to two totally different postings by me?? Or was that all you could strain out? PUH-LEASE.

Prop 9: The expulsion of libtards! Anyone for it? Lets start with Planton

mteda: All I can say is APPLES AND ORANGES. You won't see that though and I won't go further with it. If the vote had gone the other way, you and Plankton would have been heralding how great this was and the doing the victory dance.

But someone disagrees with you and such tolerant things like ignorant and such come spewing out of your tolerant little mouth. Keep up the good work

*Smooch*

Maybe that will make you feel all nice and warm and fuzzy.

Like I said in my other posting, people want to sit and say that it is OK for two homosexuals should be allowed to get married .....

mteda goes on about how people are created equal blah blah blah ... But like I said in my other posting:

"On the Polygamy/Poly Amory issue ... who does it hurt if a bunch of people wanted to marry each other? That argument is the exact same that homosexuals use against defining a marriage?

What if two women love the same man and WANT to marry? Why should marriage just be defined as TWO people?? "

So metad the wise? what about that? Should a group of people be allowed to inter-marry? At that point who is married to whom? What LEGALLY constitutes cheating in said situations? Who gets what in a divorce?

And as I said in another posting, 2 lesbians marry and use a sperm donor to get one of them pregnant. When they divorce, who pays child support???

You see, you sit and say I am ignorant, but you hide your head in the sand and ignore these things. As it stands now, some donors can be sued for support. Even if there is a contract signed by all parties involved.

You see, Lesbian A has the child. Lesbian B divorces A and says "I have no biological ties to this child. Why should I pay support?"

Its all fine and dandy when they are playing house and all is well. BUT when all hell breaks loose and they divorce, some poor soul who dontaed sperm thinking they were going to be helping someone else, is now stuck paying child support because they decided to quit playing house.

How right is that??? YOu want equal rights and all then by gosh step up to the plate and be responsible!!!!!
Pay that support! It was OK when you were a couple!