roachboy

well, this isn't really a matter of popular opinion in general...like any vote, it's a matter of which political machine was able to use the question of gay marriage to mobilize more people from within its base. the idea that in american pseudo-democracy any particular vote represents "the will of the people" seems goofy to me as a simple function of the number of abstentions. the illusion that things are otherwise follows from the fact that when an election result is tabulated, the total number of votes cast is taken as 100%. from there it kinda follows, this theater, that the percentage of that 100 represents the whole of the population. but it doesn't. it never has. think the first reagan "landslide" electrion that was based on 27% of the registered voters.

there's alot of problems that slide around beneath this surface charade of continual legitimation of the existing order by substituting the total number of people who vote in a particular election for the population as a whole. for example, it gives the impression that somehow or another the american system remains a healthy democracy. which it isn't---think about the quality of information that's generally available. without good information, there can't be rational deliberation. without deliberation, there's no democratic process. this isn't to say the opposite, that therefore there's no democracy--it's just a strange, rickety affair. so any knee-jerk populism seems to me simply naive.

in this particular matter....and this will kinda go against the above, but no matter (it's possible even ordinary to hold multiple viewpoints about the same situation)...what seems to me at issue here is probably self-evident, but to say it anyway: a complicated political and cultural conflict over questions of sexual orientation has condensed around the question of which groups get to control the definition of marriage. words do not remain stable in their meanings (150 years ago, a gig was a two-wheeled wagon that kids for example would cavort about in. now it's a term for a job that a musician might get. for example) one of the few aspects of the american system i think a well-engineered thing is the precedent system and its institutional infrastructure because it allows for adaptations. i think we're in the middle of a process of adaptation of shifts in understanding that center on matters of sexual orientation as a generally public matter. (i say this because it's self-evident that homosexuality is not an invention of the northern hemisphere since, say, stonewall).

what's at issue in this particular fight as it will play out across the court system is basically the same as was at issue in the referendum that passed prop 8---which groups have mobilized better, which have had more power and have been able to effect that power through placement of individuals on the supreme court (say) and the extent to which these broader cultural conflicts percolate into the court, what the arguments are, etc.

it's certainly not the last word on this question, whatever the ruling is.

personally i see no reason at all why people who happen to be gay should not be able to avail themselves marriage.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

FoolThemAll

I can't help but view abstentions as implicitly willing one's vote to whichever side shows up more often. I don't see the goofiness you see.

I also have a hard time seeing abstentions as a bad thing - abstractly, at least - as those would-be voters are more likely to be uninformed or badly informed, making the right or wrong decision on the flip of a coin for uniformly bad reasons. There should be more abstentions.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

ratbastid

I think the turnout for Prop 8 reflects the average Californian's assumption that the "NO" side was obviously going to win and didn't particularly need every single vote. I think California drastically underestimated the ability of a vocal fringe to turn out single-issue voters.

I don't have any evidence of that, that's just based on my read of the reaction I saw to it.

filtherton

I don't think that there's a correlation between showing up to vote and being well informed. Most campaigns depend on actively misinforming voters and the winner is usually the candidate who can trick the most people.

pan6467

I think in a lot of cases it could be. BUT, to berate the voters call them ignorant and so on INSTEAD of educating them in a better way, to me, is worse than their voting. People make mistakes and learn from them, that's human nature and voting is a something that plays on human nature. Candidates and people pushing issues know this and play to people's emotions, not intellect. But, I believe the ones going for intellect and perhaps change may suffer at first, but if they educate and work WITH voters they get the results they want.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

FoolThemAll

Oh, those who show up are probably badly informed more often than not, sure.

I just think that increased voter participation would exacerbate that problem.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Cimarron29414

Like voting in Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG!!!!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

ratbastid

So now I can't make the obvious observation, instead I have to go on some Voter Education Crusade.

I'm just posting on the damn internet, okay?? Would it be all right if I just had an opinion?

Wes Mantooth

I've always been of the belief that its a terrible idea to encourage as many people to vote as possible. Some people are just so grossly uninformed on the issues that not only are they screwing up the vote for everybody else but probably voting against their own best interests as well. Educating the voters would be awesome and I wholeheartedly support doing so, however so much misinformation is passed around beforehand that I believe its nearly impossible to do.

It would seem no matter what you do propaganda passed around by talking heads and political leaders will almost always defeat rational thought. They pray on our basic emotions and whip the voter base into such a frenzy that it closes them off to anything the other side has to say. In the end a seething mob of voters crowd into the polls full of so much piss and vinegar the question itself almost doesn't matter, they just want to win.

I'd never dream of taking away somebodies right to a vote but I wish we'd knock off the "get out and vote" campaigns and start encouraging people to stay home if they haven't taken the time to educate themselves on the issues before hand.

__________________

pan6467

Not true. The CIvil Rights movement and MLK had the right idea. Their actions and the way MLK gave speeches, his dedication to a cause and his belief.... helped to educate a populace to vote and to create needed changes. He didn't talk down to anyone, belittle or talk about voters being "ignorant"... The news sources at first portrayed him as a rabble rouser, people laughed at him, government and some churches scorned him calling him a "radical" and trying to defame him..... BUT he stayed the course and changes came. Racist politicians that would never have voted for Civil Rights either did or were voted out of office.

It's the same about Vietnam. The populace became educated and voted in people to end the war. Lennon educated people with his art and voice.

The press always has an agenda, the politicians always have agendas.... BUT THE PEOPLE when educated, when someone stands up and says "ENOUGH" and has the charisma, conviction and faith in his beliefs the people will follow regardless of what their churches, politicians and government say.

There are lots of examples in small cities, states and nationally of people standing up, doing what was needed to educate the voters and changing laws (good and bad).... So again, I say it is easy to sit there and to denigrate the voters, it is easy to cry foul and talk about how bad the media, politicians and government is because the people are "so misinformed".... but those with true belief in their cause, those who have faith in their fellow man and believe that we can and will do better.... those men and women will do whatever it takes to lead people and educate them to help the cause.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ratbastid

The winners write the history books, pan. True in war, true in politics.

pan6467

True winners fight battles that may take years to win but have lasting effects and write tomes of their struggles. Those who fight for instantaneous results write short term essays.

MLK fought battles that took years but the effects of the battles he fought and eventually won are with us today and are now a part of not just the USA but of many countries.

See, this is what the Dem party I belonged to taught us in the 80's and early 90's. Now.... it's all about now and power and screw the voices. They have outdone the GOP when it comes to this.

Rat... you can frame it however you like, but I'd rather be on an MLK's side fighting for the voices to be heard and for lasting change than those in power today. Prop 8 is a great example of the power plays and short term and short effecting wins that do not win the battle, just distance the people.... I'm old school, fight the battles and win the war and the people's support.

And yes, I said Prop 8 was a win for some, who claim it a defeat. It allows more government control, more government period. And that unfortunately is what some desire more than anything. They find that if the degrade the voters, humiliate, and denigrate the voters it'll bully people into voting the way those people want... it'll allow "losses" to becvome court victories that put more government into our lives and take away more rights and liberties.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Wes Mantooth

But how did civil rights changes ultimately come Pan? It certainly wasn't the people that overturned Jim Crow laws. Most of the Jim Crow laws were overturned in front of the supreme court (brown vs board of edu for example) and not by voters who had been enlightened on the issue. JFK when spearheading the Civil Rights act had to appeal to mostly northern congressmen to pass it and met heavy opposition in the process especially from the south. Johnson himself feared the act would be so unpopular that he would lose the southern democrats all together and it probably played a large part in his not seeking a second term. I believe he's quoted after signing the civil rights act as saying "We have lost the south for a generation.". Civil rights weren't brought about just by education and elbow grease alone, it certainly brought the issue to the forefront but ultimately an act of congress was needed as the idea was still very unpopular.

I agree with you in theory Pan but I don't think your stance really reflects our political atmosphere. Lets no forget that history is also filled with examples of people being prone to mass hysteria, public/moral panics, emotions, peer pressure, and bad decision making and this is further exacerbated by a political climate designed to evoke that kind of behavior in the voters. Thats not denigrating voters, calling them ignorant or crying foul its accepting reality. With such a history its perfectly reasonable to question weather or not leaving major issues up to the masses is in the best interest of our country.

__________________

pan6467

The South wasn't that lost for long and while courts may have had to overturn old laws, the new ones got written because of people like MLK doing the work, being heard and showing the way to make lasting changes.

There were some who knew that had they not voted for the changes they would lose their seats. Old leaders like LBJ made way for new dems that were more prone not to look at Civil Rights as a losing proposition but as a building block to a better society and they were elected. A battle may have been lost here and there but because of MLK's and others who went out and demonstrated and fought not with fists or names but through intelligence, teaching and respect, the war was won.

IProhibition is a great example of what you are talking about. There was a group that used mass hysteria, religion, everything they could and won a battle... but in the end they lost the war because scaring the people, tricking the people and so on only works until the people have a voice that speaks out and rallies for them. And throughout our history we have had voices come out and speak.... those who fought Standard Oil and the Monopolies of the late 1800's and early 1900's.... those who fought for unions, for an FDA to make sure the food we ate was inspected, and so on. All those battles started with much greater powers against them but in the end they won the wars. Not by treating voters as less than... but by educating, standing up and yelling and finding followers that believed in the right thing.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

I think you will find, pan, that the vociferous folks to which you are referring were in the minority. And that the majority of the changes that they made were the direct result of laws being changed, not by a majority of voters but by a vocal minority that found a voice in government that was willing to stand up and speak for them.

I would wager that prior to those laws being altered, if any of those issues had been put to a referendum it would have not gone down the same way.


In Canada, gay marriage did not become acceptable in the eyes of the law until the previous laws were challenged in court and struck down because they did not meet the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the issue had been put to a majority vote, it would not have changed. The ideals (and laws) of the Charter are what are paramount, not the will of the people. It was the will of the people that created the Charter. It serves as a legal buffer against a tyranny of the majority. Not everyone is going to be happy with these sorts of laws being enacted. But then, justice is blind.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Wes Mantooth

Pan - (sorry for the quote boxes missing I keep messing them up, its getting late and I'm new at this and all )

I'm not sure I agree with your first point the South has been lost for democrats for decades now I don't think they've had strong support here since (with the exception of Dixiecrat candidates)

Its debatable weather or not MLK had any strong impact on the supreme court, while he did help bring the issue to the forefront, largely the Supreme Court ruled on interpretations of the law and constitution. Which is how the supreme court should function, away from outside influence and public opinion. I would agree however that it was people like MLK that helped put those cases in front of the Supreme Court to begin with. Which is very important.

The Civil Rights act was in response to a better educated society but I disagree with you in what way. This discussion started over weather prop 8 should have been decided by a referendum or by representative democracy. Yes education did bring about enlightenment on civil rights but not nearly enough to sway state voters, especially in the South. In this case I would argue that using referendums and waiting for the voters to come around would have taken decades if not generations and it was simply unfair for African Americans to wait that long for a real response. In this case our representatives took control in an environment better suited for an issue like this.

I think were getting lost in two different discussions here Pan. I agree with you on your last paragraph but again those examples aren't a reflection of referendum voting (to the best of my knowledge, I'm rusty on some of those subjects). It was our elected officials who ultimately made the changes based on laws and the constitution after an issue was brought to the forefront and debated in the public forum. My position is that Prop 8 shouldn't have been decided by a referendum, there were simply too many variables involved (as I've outlined above) and that a better atmosphere for ruling on the issue would have been the State Legislature away from (ideally) the problems encountered through a vote by the people.

Sometimes even the hardest of work and best intentions aren't enough to make the changes needed quickly enough. Again I think its unfair for homosexuals to have to wait out a drastic change by the public (generations?) before their rights are granted. Sure the supreme court or congress might rule the against them but I think the ruling will not only come quicker but be backed up by a much more sound opinion.

Anyway I'm enjoying your input on this, its a nice change of pace to have a rational discussion on this issue for a change. You seem like a very passionate person the world needs more people like that.

__________________

pan6467

No problem.

I think it wasn't just Civil Rights but the anti-gun message from the Dems and Jerry Falwell's introduction of the "Moral Majority", that really helped the GOP in the South. At first Civil Rights may have affected the ultra racists down there, but I think that making sure the black population voting offset that loss. That is one reason, perhaps arguably, the Dems became the Civil Rights party. To offset the losses from perhaps racist groups.

The Dems could not and cannot battle the NRA and what's left of the "Moral Majority", tho. Plus in a state like North Carolina or Kentucky,you had the Dems going hard after their Tobacco industries. So, of course that is going to affect votes.

I would argue that MLK perhaps inspired the lawyers to put more into their cases. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be political, but it is and it is very much influenced by public opinion on the major cases it'll hear. (Abortion, for instance.) Up until Reagan, the Dems had loaded the courts. They were more liberal in their interpretations of the Constitution... and perhaps in a vast majority, rightfully so.

Again, I point out, that I have said let the lawyers take it to court and argue.... but instead of sitting there waiting for the courts to rule, go out and educate the voters. That way if Prop 8 is upheld, perhaps you can get a ballot that reverses it passed by having those voters educated.

My problem is that some here will tear down voters for elections they don't like and brag about how the voters were so smart when they get what they want. You can't have it both ways. You believe they are smart or you believe they are mass induced ignorant. It's one or the other... Me, I believe it's all about educating the voters. Don't sit there waiting for something to happen get out and make it happen. So the opposition has more money and better press.... MLK faced the same problems at first. You overcome the odds when you do the work you believe in.

Elected officials are just that...elected officials. We may think they are out of touch and 99% of the time most are. BUT if the voices are loud enough and the threats real, they will cave in to public pressure to keep their seats, or they and that party lose the seat. (This is well seen by the election in Mass.... although the Dems will spin it in other ways, I'm sure there are some that are definitely looking over their shoulder and thinking about thier direction now.

The problem with a state or the US legislature just making the decision in a case like this is, it's volatile. My guess is that even though the vast majority of Dems in Cali stated support and said all the right things, they truly didn't want to touch this issue. If they had wanted to pass it they would have long before now. They wanted to be able to blame the people.

Personally, I think it's a crime to not let people marry whomever they are in love with. But, the majority that voted, at least in Cali. don't agree with me. Blacks had to wait generations... I am in no way saying it is fair, because it isn't. However, I don't see this lasting generations, maybe a couple of elections. It all depends on if people get out there and start educating and demonstrating and making their voice heard for a just cause. Sitting back degrading voters and waiting for the courts to do something, will prolong this.

Look, 10 years ago this would never even be a thought for anyone to even talk about. Now, it's a reality that is very close. I have no question it would not take much to change enough voters minds to vote to overturn prop 8. It may take an election or 2 but, if enough people do the footwork and do what needs to be done (petitions, sit ins, PEACEFUL demonstrations, debates, parades, fundraisers, the need for those that support the issue to go out and vote...etc), it'll be overturned by the voters.

Again, that beats just sitting there bitching about the voters and waiting for the courts to decide.

Thank you. It's a strong issue that I support. I just disagree with how some would rather sit and bitch and wait for something than to go out and show their support. I think that shows weakness and no conviction for the issue. "Let someone else do all the work, I'll watch and bitch or celebrate... but I don't want to do anything otherwise."

I think that is the problem as a whole in this nation. Everyone wants to bitch, no one wants to do anything. They'd rather just have a ballot and vote or have the city/state/fed vote and then bitch or praise afterward.

Our country is founded NOT just on voting but by demonstrating and being able to speak out. If we do not do that, if we just sit back and watch and complain..... then our votes don't matter because we lost those rights by attrition. And once those rights are gone, the government will decide what we vote for and eventually we'll lose even that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

The status quo is crumbling, California....


CTV Winnipeg- Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote - CTV News

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

19 demonstrations that the united states is a backwater:

Les dix pays qui ont intégralement légalisé le mariage gay - LeMonde.fr

(10 countries which have legalized gay marriage plus 9 that have recognized civil unions.)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Hey, now, roachboy.... at least the U.S. has decriminalized homosexuality. It wasn't so bad. They did so two years before Canada legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The U.S. isn't that far behind....

Right...?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Seer666

Funny you should say that. McDonald v. Chicago found the Chicago handgun ban to be....... Unconstitutional.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

Willravel

Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. Justice has won out over ignorance and hatred today.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15677141?nclick_check=1

FuglyStick

This thread comes to mind...

Anyone honestly believe an amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman wouldn't be attempted if the Tea Party held any power in the legislature?

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Tully Mars

Any odds on this ruling surviving? Not even sure the 9th will up hold it. Almost certain the SCOTUS will reverse it.

Hope I'm wrong but with he Con make up of the courts I don't see this standing.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

FuglyStick

Stranger things have happened. Just ask Arizona.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

filtherton

The SCOTUS might punt it, too. Either way, it is interesting to note the right's attitude towards "judicial activism" with respect to this issue vs. "Obamacare".

roachboy

i'm pleased with the ruling.
i expect that conservative court-stacking---done of course in the name of preventing court-stacking with "activists"---could be a problem.

but for the moment, i would like to stand to the side and with some gusto tell the church of latter day saints to fuck itself.

and maybe now it's possible to dream up a way to get those fascists out of scouting.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Oh my god, you need to read the full text of the ruling. The judge holds nothing back.

Baraka_Guru

Well, it's at least another step in the right direction.

I still like to hope that one day the entire United States will stop upholding the heterosexual monopoly on marriage.

One day at a time, I guess.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

Wow, prop 8 wound up in front of a Judge? AND was overturned? Color me both shocked and dismayed.

__________________

Willravel

Dismayed that we don't allow the tyranny of the majority to overrule the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Color me disagree-with-you blue.

Seer666

About time a good piece of news came out of that state. hear this piece of crap got over turned put a smile on my face.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

Tully Mars

Yes it is, but then he went and issued a stay on his own ruling.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Cimarron29414

The sooner to SCOTUS, the better. I don't see how anyone could concoct a Constitutional argument for excluding gays from "marriage". Generally, the court is split 5-4 conservative. My hope is that one of the five will have the courage to recognize the fact of the matter. I love arguing this issue with my socially conservative friends. Even the best of them can only hold off for about 30 minutes before confessing their objection is based soley on the fact that man/man love is just icky. As soon as you get them there, they won't argue anymore - primarily because they know the Constitution even protects the "icky".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

the Republican butthurt (pun intended) today is great. Newt Gingrich is calling for "immediate action from Congress to define marriage as One Man/One Woman."

This from the guy who has had 2 divorces, 2 mistresses, and gave one wife the divorce papers while she was getting chemo from breat cancer

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Cimarron29414

My friend who is the most vocal opponent to "gay marriage" is against it because she says inclusion of gays will destroy the institution of marriage.

She does not see the irony in that position considering she is an AVID watcher of the bachelor/bachelorette series. For those who are unfamiliar with the shows, they basically parade in candidates like cattle and let the "prize" fuck them all until he picks his bride. All of this occurs in front of a national TV audience. This, of course, does nothing to diminish the "sanctity of marriage".

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Baraka_Guru

I never understood this. It must come from a position of complete ignorance. I imagine these same people haven't actually met gay couples, let alone gay families.

As someone who has, I will tell you, gay marriage will only enrich the institution of marriage. This is because it leads to the inclusion of families that have been (or were) otherwise shut out based on sexual orientation.

If you ask me, the opposition to and the barring of gay marriage is an assault on the the concept of family.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

No, no I think this is a great thing. Quite honestly I think it's ridiculous for this issue to be decided as a referendum anyway as it deals with rights of others that the majority shouldn't be voting on (tyranny of the masses and all that). Its just amazing to me that people didn't think the issue was going to wind up in front a judge and overturned from the very beginning.

Great ruling and I hope it gets the ball rolling for the rest of the country.

__________________

Tully Mars

I worked with a guy who was so anti-gay "agenda" (as he put it) it really consumed way too much of his time, IMO. Oregon Citizens Alliance (anti-gay group) signs filled his lawn every election season. As a group we all went Reno one year. After a night of loosing cash and getting a little drunk at the tables most of us made our way to the nearest strip club. I found myself sitting next to him near the stage. At some point two girls came out on stage and started the bump-n-grind while removing most of their clothes. In Reno they don't (didn't?) get completely naked. They were required to leave their panties on by law. You can have prostitution- but strippers must leave their underwear on, whatever. Anyway these two girls started making out and preforming simulated sex on stage. I looked over at my co-worker and said "bet this makes you want to leave." "Why?" "Umm, because their behavior is pretty graphically homosexual." "No it's not... it's two chicks." Ok, I always thought you were a whack job, now I have no doubt.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Wes Mantooth

It still amazes me that after all the time this issue has been in the public spotlight I've yet to hear one single compelling argument as to why gay marriage shouldn't be made legal. Not one single reason that doesn't boil down to "I don't like it" or its "gross". Its like the opposition isn't even trying build a case. Usually with any issue both sides can put together compelling arguments, you might disagree but at the very least they have something to work with, here you have nothing.

Its really something else that this issue has been around for so long considering how little the opposition has given us to work with. Really what are we actually debating about at this point? The right not to be creeped out by others?

This issue is going to make for some REALLY confused history students in about 100 years.

__________________