Why are the Prop 8 gay haters afraid of publicity?

[markymark69]

California's Prop 8 (homophobic anti-gay marriage law) is in federal court.
The judge in the case as ordered the case to be pod casted and placed on youtube.
For some reason the gay haters are against this and went all the way to the US Supreme Court to block this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Why are the gay haters objecting to civil proceedings placed on youtube for all to see?

[b.spencer]

California's Prop 8 (homophobic anti-gay marriage law) is in federal court.
The judge in the case as ordered the case to be pod casted and placed on youtube.
For some reason the gay haters are against this and went all the way to the US Supreme Court to block this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Why are the gay haters objecting to civil proceedings placed on youtube for all to see?

One does wonder why those people would so strenuously object? I would think that they would see this as a great boon to prove to the people, in a court of law, how evil homosexuality is and how much "it" threatens every heterosexual couple and young child everywhere. But, no, they want it all in secret.

Perhaps it is like the Gitmo military tribunals. The evidence they "have" against gay people is so secret that it cannot be revealed to the general public as it is to sensitive to the security of the human race.

-OR-

They gay haters just do not want to be put on the record in front of the population about what they really believe and why they believe it. Not the sanitized, commercials against prop 8, but putting on the stand those very same people who have influenced the Ugandan government to entertain the idea of execution and life imprisonment of gays, jail sentences for straight people who knowingly transact daily business with gay people, who do not report gay people -- i.e. a anti-homosexual Gestapo. Perhaps they are afraid that if everyone sees their twisted "arguments" and sees what is the outcome of them, the general population will finally see the anti-gay cabal for what they are.

[Barry Bonds]

You have to hate gays to be against gay marriage?

Ooops, I forgot.

That's how you roll.

Everyone that's not for your viewpoint is a "hater."

[ZenBowman]

You have to hate gays to be against gay marriage?

Ooops, I forgot.

That's how you roll.

Everyone that's not for your viewpoint is a "hater."

Isn't that how your god rolls brah? Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets to burn in hell?

[Captain Harris]

Funny how much some of you take things that far out of context.



Opposition to gay marriage = evil homophobic redneck who wants to exterminate gays

[KiloNewton]

You have to hate gays to be against gay marriage?

Ooops, I forgot.

That's how you roll.

Everyone that's not for your viewpoint is a "hater."

What reason is there for opposing gay mrriage besies bigotry?

[Irezumi]

What reason is there for opposing gay mrriage besies bigotry?

Religion. Oh sorry, you said besides bigotry.

[MrGuitar]

California's Prop 8 (homophobic anti-gay marriage law) is in federal court.
The judge in the case as ordered the case to be pod casted and placed on youtube.
For some reason the gay haters are against this and went all the way to the US Supreme Court to block this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Why are the gay haters objecting to civil proceedings placed on youtube for all to see?

Loaded question is loaded.

[Kiknskreem]

Funny how much some of you take things that far out of context.

Opposition to gay marriage = evil homophobic redneck who wants to exterminate gays

Opposing gay marriage is no different than opposing interracial marriage.

Pretty fukcin despicable.

[Blindead]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

[ksheab]

Opposing gay marriage is no different than opposing interracial marriage.

Pretty fukcin despicable.

lol, whats amazing is when someone makes a ridiculous statement like the one you made and actually thinks a valid point was made.

pretty flappin unbelievable, but, predictable.

[Kiknskreem]

lol, whats amazing is when someone makes a ridiculous statement like the one you made and actually thinks a valid point was made.

I'm sorry, what were your valid reasons for opposing gay marriage?

Edit - don't bother, because I think we all know there are none. You have to be retarded not to understand how the two situations are analogous.

[MrGuitar]

Isn't that how your god rolls brah? Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets to burn in hell?

lol.

in b4 this thread becomes another "atheist alliance vs god" thread and gay marriage isnt even discussed.

[Irezumi]

lol, whats amazing is when someone makes a ridiculous statement like the one you made and actually thinks a valid point was made.

pretty flappin unbelievable, but, predictable.

You want to know whats even more amazing is when idiots actually think gays choose to be gay as apposed to being born that way. Pretty flappin unbelievable indeed.

[Skunk]

Maybe the gay haters believe that if it is watched on youtube, people will be infected by the "gay virus"? I dunno, but that's usually the sort of hokus-pokus stuff that they believe in...

[all pro]

I can't find the section in the US constitution that regulates marriage at the federal level. Can someone help me out with this?

[Blindead]

People are people, rights are rights. When anyone comes up with a quantitative ananlysis as to why the right to marriage exists in cases of race but not sexual orientation (both of which are innate qualities) I'll actually treat anyone opposed to gay marriage as someone worthy of debating, rather than a hateful sack of ****. The only possible argument is that people choose to be gay...but people also choose their religion. It's also pretty much acceptable by the entire scientific community that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

[ksheab]

You want to know whats even more amazing is when idiots actually think gays choose to be gay as apposed to being born that way. Pretty flappin unbelievable indeed.

even more slappable are the idiots who believe that one is born gay.

[Irezumi]

even more slappable are the idiots who believe that one is born gay.

You go ahead and believe whatever your comic book tells you to mkay.

[ksheab]

I can't find the section in the US constitution that regulates marriage at the federal level. Can someone help me out with this?

lol, exactly.

[DinoT1985]

Isn't that how your god rolls brah? Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets to burn in hell?

being a gay hater and religious dont always go hand in hand. i know a few gay bashers that are atheist or agnostic.

[voltio8836]

I can't find the section in the US constitution that regulates marriage at the federal level. Can someone help me out with this?

Why does this matter? If marriage is to be regulated at the state level, there is still no good reason to be against gay marriage.

[Ryan1985]

I can't find the section in the US constitution that regulates marriage at the federal level. Can someone help me out with this?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

ill help you out:

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.

and

U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21 -- Civil Rights (FindLaw)
Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code prohibits discrimination against persons based on age, disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion (among other things) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, access to businesses and buildings, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 is where a number of federal acts related to civil rights have been codified -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21

John can marry Jane, but Jane cant marry Susy. Seems pretty discriminatory to me

[Blindead]

I can't find the section in the US constitution that regulates marriage at the federal level. Can someone help me out with this?

Check the part called Amendments. I know you like to pretend they don't exist but...sorry, they do.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This was already guaranteed by the constitution at the federal level.

[all pro]

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

ill help you out:



John can marry Jane, but Jane cant marry Susy. Seems pretty discriminatory to me.

FAIL
1 The US constitution doesn't address the institution of marriage straight or gay.
2 It says you can't discriminate based on sex. It doesn't say anything about sexual deviation.....oops I meant orientation.

[Blindead]

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

ill help you out:



and

U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21 -- Civil Rights (FindLaw)
Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code prohibits discrimination against persons based on age, disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion (among other things) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, access to businesses and buildings, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 is where a number of federal acts related to civil rights have been codified -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21

John can marry Jane, but Jane cant marry Susy. Seems pretty discriminatory to me

stop posting, you have no idea what you're talking about, you're making us look like idiots.

[Captain Harris]

Opposing gay marriage is no different than opposing interracial marriage.

Pretty fukcin despicable.

I think it's great that I live in a country where I can not only oppose certain things, but vote on them too!

[ksheab]

Check the part called Amendments. I know you like to pretend they don't exist but...sorry, they do.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This was already guaranteed by the constitution at the federal level.

so, are you saying that the voter-passed constitutional amendment in california is unconstitutional?

[Blindead]

so, are you saying that the voter-passed constitutional amendment in california is unconstitutional?

Yes. Federal amendment supersede State amendments.

[Grinners]

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness"