NationStates Jolt Archive

In 2000, conservative interest groups mounted a well-funded proposition campaign that passed an law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In campaigning for the proposition, the proponents repeatedly emphasized they were not seeking to discriminate against homosexuals, but only to "preserve the sanctity of marriage." More specifically, voters were assured that the initiative would not effect domestic partnerships.

The Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund, however, has since gone into court and argued that the amendment did outlaw domestic partnerships.

Luckily these lying scumbags have had their asses handed to them by the courts. So much for conservative "values" with these folks. (Note: not all conservatives are liars like these guys. I am specifically complaining about the hypocritical lack of values of the supports of proposition 22.)

Here is background information:
California court upholds domestic partner law (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/05/domestic.partner.law.ap/index.html)
Law giving rights to gay couples is illegal, court told (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050326/news_1n26domestic.html)
Text of Proposition 22 (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/calprop22.html)

It's truly a shame that anybody could ever think that marriage could possibly be anything other than the union of a man and a woman.

It's truly a shame that anybody could ever think that marriage could possibly be anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
And this has what to do with the topic?

It's truly a shame that anybody could ever think that marriage could possibly be anything other than the union of a man and a woman.

That was quick.

Get 'em C-T

And this has what to do with the topic?

Nothing, other than the fact that I think we know who the true hypocrite is.

Now, now. everyone is eentitled to their own views and opinions, regardless how ill thought out and asinine. wait. no. fuck 'im.

Oh boy, here we go again...

Nothing, other than the fact that I think we know who the true hypocrite is.

Who?

I know the answer will be asinine. But please explain anyway: (1) who is the hypocrite and (2) why.

And, if you'd care to address the topic, isn't saying you are doing one thing and then doing the opposite -- which is what the Prop. 22 proponents have done -- the very definition of hypocrisy?

Nothing, other than the fact that I think we know who the true hypocrite is.
Perhaps we should first lookk at the definition of 'hypocrisy'.
hy·poc·ri·sy Audio pronunciation of "hypocrisy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
Where is it that you see hypocrisy?
Because to me, it looks like you are just trying to anger people here by steering this thread off-topic and attacking others.

Oh boy, here we go again...
We actually haven't had a gay marriage thread in a few days.

We actually haven't had a gay marriage thread in a few days.

Albiet naive in hindsight, I had not even intended a gay marriage thread.

My point was (a) here were conservatives who won't even allow civil unions or domestic partnerships and (b) here are anti-gay advocates that lied in order to get a supposedly non-discriminatory definition of marriage passed.

im sorry, ive tried, but you know, i just fail to see how two other people getting married to each other affects your marriage in any way at all.

kinda like saying if i pray to cthulu, your prayers will be meaningless/intercepted/loose stock value/whatever, and therefore i should not be allowed to pray to cthulu.

I just have a real problem with people trying to affect other people's private lives. with rare exceptions, most people want the same basic things, to be happy, to be with the people they love, etc.

and frankly i feel the definition crap is a bunch of hooey. definitions are malleable, and change over time. marriage used to be the exchange of property(the women) from the previos owner(the father) to the new owner(the husband). thankfully, we have managed to drag ourselves away from that one(at least some of us...)

on a related side note, i recently read that interracial marriages were not legal in all states (take a guess at which ones...) until 2000, when a federal ruling 'forced' those states to recognize such marriages.

and during the whole arguments for legalizing interracial marriages, the same excuses/arguments were used as now. some almost word-for-word. rather scary, IMO.