Gay marriage ban qualifies for California ballot

[rand0M aXiS]

California's Secretary of State says an initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in the state has qualified for the November ballot.

 

 

 

Debra Bowen says a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough for it to be put to voters.

 

 

The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman.":)

 

 

It would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state if it is approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4. :)

 

 

 

California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications and told local officials to start issuing them to same-sex couples on June 17.

[Baobabtree]

California's Secretary of State says an initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in the state has qualified for the November ballot.

I see hate once again fills people's minds....

[mahak]

Has nothing to do with hate, everything to do with expert politics. By this initiative appearing on the ballot, this ensures McCain to carry California, just as Bush won key states in '04 because similar initiatives were on those state ballots. In fact, Carl Rove specifically has Bush call for the ill-fated constitutional amendment to preserve marriage. Everyone knew this measure would fail miserably, because the Federal civil rights act prevents discrimination due to sexual preferance, but success of the amendment was never the issue with Rove. States have individual rights, and swing states that had the sanctity of marriage issues on the '04 ballot had the usually non-voting churchians go to the polls by church-busload, armed with fire and brimstone, and while they were there, the also punched Bush in, not because they like him or think that he is qualified to run the country, but because he was passionately with them on this single issue.

 

Carl Rove knows how to manipulate the uneducated who get all their information from their preacher.

 

Again, hats off to my enemy, well done, from the act of approving the gay marriage in California to the subsequent outrage. Always remember Orwell's 1984, where thwe opposition to big brother was none other than big brother himself.

 

And always remember, as my friend BB obviously does, that this is simply a show to witness, and to fail to see we are all just temporarily acting in roles and not really participants in the action and reaction that birth in this world of death (Martyaloka), this is where the madness lies. Rove isnt a crazy man, neither is bush or obama or billary, they are actors. If our identification with the movie makes us think any of them make reality, well, see ya at the next star trek convention. Nanu nanu, as mork the ork would say.

 

BB would say, haribol. Mahak would say, "Are you surprised? Im surprised you are surprised, you should know better." Theist would say, "Oh well, from Che to Cheney? So, what, me worry?"

 

Aloha pumehana and haribol, out and about, while breathing is still protected by the constitution.

 

mahaksadasa

[RadheyRadhey108]

Why is it any of our business who people marry? Can anyone answer that? We have a secular government. It is absolutely none of our business what people do in consensual sex. So, how is it our right, in the slightest, to prevent homosexuals from marrying?

[mahak]

IU dont have a right to prevent two people from any relationship they want. However, I do have exclusive and absolute right to do whatever is necessary to stop anyone else from inflicting their trips upon me. As I clearly explained in the other topic, sexual harassment is a crime, and I am a champion of preventing this crime at all times. Any ACTION of a sexual nature that is unwanted, yet forced upon me, is a crime by definition, of harassment. I would be just as adamant against the sexual harassment inflicted by a heterosexual couple who insisted on laying their trips off on me, unwanted yet forced discussion of their sexual proclivities. But this is not an issue, because hetero couples accept each other.

 

Now you may counter that to deny gays the same deal if they kept it private is not consistant with what I say here, but first you have to produce a gay couple who refuse to explain their sexual proclivities, thus sexually harassing me, a third party. Because you cannot produce such a couple, then your argument is moot.

 

The reason gays demand these rights to sexually harass others is not because they want a peaceful life of love with each other. No, their issue is that they want permission to openly recruit, to turn confused pimply teens who cannot find a gal. They want gays to be okay in schools and churches, they want sexual promiscuity to be accepted as normal human behavior.

 

My spiritual master has made it quite clear that the issue is not gay or straight, it is the issue of unrestricted sense gratification., Such activity destroys cleanliness, a pillar of spiritual life. One cannot allow the mind to act like a billygoat and be accepted as a human being. Human means control of senses, not unrestricted activity of rats, dogs, pigeons, and goats. Without sense control, there is no spiritual progress, just as elephants do not clean themselves in the water if they roll in the dirt afterwards.

 

Therefore, shastra affirms the allowed sex life. In fact, such life is said to be Krsna Himself, that sex life done per spiritual code. Procreation, and sanctity of marriage is there in shastra, and there are issues that the gay movement has actually given a devotee some room to think. As mentioned, Im not hompophobic, I support their right to equal protection under the law. They should be able to unite under secular law, secular contract. I even support the marriage to the extent that straight folks fully compliant to scriptural injunction and performing actual devotional service by procreating Krsna consciousw offspring are often denied rights they should have, such as in the case where devotees accept each other yet are not recognized by priests, judges or licensing officials.

 

But, again, I cannot allow my liberalism to cloud my vision of reality. If I wasnt sexually harassed everytime i hear some gay right activist speak, I may favor his position. But I favor no one who is committing a crime against me. This is where me and Random are truely one, you break my law, I break yo face.

 

Haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Now you may counter that to deny gays the same deal if they kept it private is not consistant with what I say here, but first you have to produce a gay couple who refuse to explain their sexual proclivities, thus sexually harassing me, a third party. Because you cannot produce such a couple, then your argument is moot.

There are many homosexual couples who aren't 'out and open' about anything they do in their bedrooms. I'm friends with one couple who are in a lesbian relationship and who have never told me anything whatsoever of anything that they do romantically/sexually in their relationship. So, no, it's not moot. The lesbian couple I just mentioned aren't 'sexually harassing' you by being in a mutual and loving relationship with each other. So, to me, your argument is moot. In fact, I've never actually met a homosexual couple or a homosexual who tells me about anything they do of a sexual nature. However, I have met many heterosexual couples who can't keep their hands off of each other in front of me and who are constantly saying disgusting things in front of me. So, I suppose that since I've had a bad experience with a few heterosexual couples that I should openly protest the marriage of a man to a woman b/c I've been 'sexually harassed' by a few couples (besides that, someone telling me about their sexual experiences isn't sexual harassment... if they asked me to have sex with them, touched me inappropriately, or made sexual comments about me, that'd be sexual harassment).

And, besides that, you have no other argument except for your prejudice (which is exactly what that is, since it's not true about every homosexual) as to why a secular government, as we have in the United States, should prevent marriage to homosexuals just b/c some religious people get 'weirded out', or b/c heterosexuals think what they do is 'icky'.

 

My spiritual master has made it quite clear that the issue is not gay or straight, it is the issue of unrestricted sense gratification., Such activity destroys cleanliness, a pillar of spiritual life. One cannot allow the mind to act like a billygoat and be accepted as a human being. Human means control of senses, not unrestricted activity of rats, dogs, pigeons, and goats. Without sense control, there is no spiritual progress, just as elephants do not clean themselves in the water if they roll in the dirt afterwards.

 

Therefore, shastra affirms the allowed sex life. In fact, such life is said to be Krsna Himself, that sex life done per spiritual code. Procreation, and sanctity of marriage is there in shastra, and there are issues that the gay movement has actually given a devotee some room to think. As mentioned, Im not hompophobic, I support their right to equal protection under the law. They should be able to unite under secular law, secular contract. I even support the marriage to the extent that straight folks fully compliant to scriptural injunction and performing actual devotional service by procreating Krsna consciousw offspring are often denied rights they should have, such as in the case where devotees accept each other yet are not recognized by priests, judges or licensing officials.

Once again, religious arguments that our government doesn't have to pay any attention to, because they're only the arguments of one specific religious ideology. It's not like every religious person in the world thinks that way or has your same guru.

[rand0M aXiS]

Separated at birth?

 

Haribol Mahaksadasa. SIDEBAR: I don't know if you know the Viper Swami, but he was GBC for Seattle and Vancouver in the day, and he looks so much like Rove I wondered if they were twins and separated at birth!

 

McCain is gonna beat the Obamanation like a bad drum come November. I have seen the intel dossiers on this guy, and when they are released, he may not even make it to the August Riots in Denver!

[rand0M aXiS]

BY DAVID BENKOF

 

 

 

...Mayor Gavin Newsom explained his decision in 2004 to grant marriage licenses to San Franciscans in defiance of state law: "We're reacting to the president's decision to use this as a wedge issue to divide people. I think what he's doing is wrong. It's hurtful."

 

 

Newsom told CNN that gays deserved "the same kind of rights that are extended to my relationship with my wife" -- whom, Californians later learned, he cheated on with his friend's wife. I find it interesting that the four most prominent heterosexual politicians supporting a new definition of marriage -- Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his successor, David Paterson -- have all acknowledged committing adultery, in the latter two cases with numerous women. Shouldn't that disqualify them from deciding what marriage should be?

 

 

The theory that marriage initiatives exist to turn out Republican voters in presidential elections is simply baseless. The marriage measures in the states of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin all appeared on ballots that did not contain a presidential general election.

 

 

Despite the paranoia of "marriage-equality" advocates, ballot initiatives to enshrine man-woman marriage in state constitutions are not a political ploy to win elections. They are the only logical response to the constitutional lawsuits funded by the gay and lesbian community that threaten to impose the gay community's definition of marriage on the vast majority of Americans who prefer the traditional definition of marriage.

[RadheyRadhey108]

Once again, why should our SECULAR government be allowed to ban marriage between any two adults who are willing to be married? I would really like an answer. Does anyone have a reason other than, "Well, my guru interpreted this vague scripture verse as...", or "I think that God made it this way b/c..."?

[mahak]

Because the US government is a funny type of democracy, knee jerk at best, satisfied by ten second sound bites and blasts of armageddon from pulpits. Politicians make laws that they think will get them votes, not because they are moral or immoral.

 

Why do liberals support abortion? Liberal means that we are supposed to be compassionate and advocate for those who have no power. So liberals advocate for bugs, ferns, frogs, but there is no advocacy for human beings. The liberals are a fraud and not liberal at all if they support abortion as a means of birth control, support the abortion industry that loves unwanted pregnancy so they can get the goop for scientific research to keep their own useless forms alive.

 

So you cant see why the right wing cant tolerate gay marriage? Weell, maybe you dont understand how the West works. Bush dont care if fags get married, but Crl Rove loves the controversy because it gets the fanatics to the polls where they will vote for the dry drunk while they do their duty as descr5ibed by the pedophile leader of their congregation, thats why. Bush could care less if a black teen on crack opts to kill her offspring, in fact, he hopes they do, but carl rove gets big turnout for this knee jerk reaction to the meaningless word "abortion".

 

You dont get it? Maybe you are still quite young, naive, optomistic, idealistic, etc. Not bad things, but a blast of reality aint a bad thing, either.

 

Gay marriage is not even an issue, but if opposition to such a thing gives power to those who want to wipe out 3/4 of the worlds population by active genocide, against arabs, against blacks, against latinos, against HINDUS (yes, all you vaisnava bush supporters should remember the Sikhs who were slaughtered in Arizona shortly after 911 by fools who dont even know that binladen is a long-time family friend of the nazi-bush clan (or should I say Klan), well abortion and gay marriage are very good things to those who perpetuate the age of chaos, quarrel, and confusion.

 

mahak

[RadheyRadhey108]

Abortion can be refuted by it's cruelty and the harm it causes to both mother and child physically. There are secular reasons for the banning of abortion.

However, homosexuals aren't harming anyone by loving who they love in the privacy of their own lives. There is NO secular reason for the banning of marriage between consenting, adult homosexuals.

[suchandra]

California makes same-sex marriage legal, God responds with 1500+ wildfires!

[jinglebells]

 

California makes same-sex marriage legal, God responds with 1500+ wildfires!

 

And one wonders why the world hates religious people.

[jinglebells]

 

Abortion can be refuted by it's cruelty and the harm it causes to both mother and child physically. There are secular reasons for the banning of abortion.

However, homosexuals aren't harming anyone by loving who they love in the privacy of their own lives. There is NO secular reason for the banning of marriage between consenting, adult homosexuals.

 

If you're pro-freedom, then you ought to be pro-abortion. Otherwise, I'll be forced to call you a nazi.