Ever since i was a small child, i recognized i was quite different than other children. All my friends had pets but me…however, I knew at a very early age that i was different from all them. You see, I never wanted a pet. I have always felt that animals needed to be free to run wild and grow up in their natural habitats. My feelings are strong and I’m petitioning the government and civic leaders to make it legal for pets to be free from human owners. I hope to have it on one of the next upcoming ballots. If my bill is past all you pet lovers will have to release your pets into the wild. It will be a beautiful thing! I have waited so long for this day when animals can be treated equally and freed from human ownership.
I don’t care that humans have had pets since caveman days…animals have their rights! And all you who just want to keep the system the way it has been for millenia are all Bigots!!! Can’t you see this beautiful love I have for these animals…they need to be free! Your wanting to continue to allow people to have pets is infringing on my civil rights. Its hatred! You animal rights haters!!!!

A marriage certificate is a secular document that, when signed by two people in front of a licensed officiate and witness, creates a valid government-recognized marriage.
This is the same document that is signed when two Mormons marry in their Church; or two Catholics in theirs; or a divorced-Catholic re-marrying outside their church (which refuses to re-marry them); or an Atheist couple getting married in a Court House; or a drunken couple of strangers at a Vegas drive-through; or a death-row prison inmate who met some person in a personals ad who agrees to marry them via phone (despite the fact that they will never physically tough); or an infertile couple who are either beyond child baring years or otherwise incapable of reproducing.
It is the same piece of paper.
However, 2 people in a loving, committed relationship are treated like strangers under the law for no other reason than their matching gender.
And Mr. Banack says that it is a-okay.
The people who voted for Prop 8 did so without a passing glance at the rule of the law. They voted for reasons that would have disqualified them from serving on a Jury; bigotry, misguided desires to force their religious beliefs into secular law, spite, misunderstanding of the issue itself (the pro-8 crowd did a great job lying to the public about what Prop8 stood for), etc.
And Mr. Banack says that it is a-okay.
Well, Mr. Banack, to you I say; Supreme Courts around the world are disagreeing with you in an ever-increasing number. From Canada to Europe, from India to Israel, what you are defending here and now is being called bigotry and discrimination. Sooner or later you are going to wake up. Or not. Your white-collar bigotry cannot last, because even when a majority of people are on your side, it does not make it right. The Rule of the Law – that was created to protect minorities from the tyranny of majorities – is not on your side.
I don’t think the Mormon Church is solely to blame, however they did make the conscious decision to pick up the reigns and lead the charge; and now they can reap what they sow.
But if anything has been proven about the Mormon Church in the wake of Prop8 protests, it is this adage; scratch a bully find a coward.
The Mormon Church helped orchestrate stripping 18,000 couples of their Civil Secular Marriages, and when those couples, and their friends, and their families, protest… the Mormons cry ‘victim.’
I’d laugh if it weren’t so pathetic.

“Scratch a bully find a coward?” What in the world does that mean? What a ludicrous thing to write. Where is your evidence?
“Mormons cry ‘victim’” How absurd! Again, where is your evidence?
If you are going to make such accusations, please back them up. I have not read such poppycock in a very long time.

Jer,
Maybe you haven’t read the news lately; Nightlad’s comments made perfect sense to me. If you can’t understand the depth to “scratch a bully find a coward” you aren’t going to understand the depth of the rest of the discussion.

NightLad, the gays are the bullies here. They are the ones who are boycotting businesses because one person working there donated money to oppose gay marriage. They are the ones uncivilly protesting to engender fear.
Mormons aren’t sending white powder thought he mail to cause fear.
Mormons exercised the rights of a free people. The right to express their political views.
The “right” to gay marriage was denied by the people of the state of California (and 29 tother states too), but forced on them by judges acting outside of their authority. The people had to vote a second time to make thier wishes known. Judages bully, gays bully, but Mormons were not the bullies here.

Anon – When you understand the checks and balances we have in a system with a legislature and a judicial system, come back and discuss this. Until then, don’t bother.

Bobd: When you understand constitutional law and the amendment process, come back and discuss this. Until then, don’t bother.

john doe, your post was so simplistic and misses the point. You bgan your ‘argument’ with saying you never “wanted” to have a pet. That is not the same thing as being (or not being) “allowed” to have a pet. Get a clue. (I’m assuming “pet” is a metaphor for equal treatment before the law, something you have always had, whether you wanted it or not.
As for (from the aricle) ‘the will of the people must be respected’, would anyone argue that the will of the people forbidding inter-racial couples from marrying had to be “respected”? Such utter nonsense the ‘right’ mistake for logic.
jer,
“Scratch a bully find a coward?” What in the world does that mean? What a ludicrous thing to write. Where is your evidence?”
It means that bullies – those who would impose their beliefs on otherrs not of their faith – are too cowardly to abide by the Constitution and work to get enough of their like-minded buddies to take away the rights of others. The evidence is in the column. Andin the news reports. Not “ludicrous” at all.
“Mormons cry ‘victim’” How absurd! Again, where is your evidence?”
Read the other column about the poor Mormon restaurant owner crying “victim” because gay people are boycotting her store because she supported prop H8. There’s our evidence.
“If you are going to make such accusations, please back them up. I have not read such poppycock in a very long time.”
We didn’t have to make anything up; please read the articles referenced. No poppycock here, jer.
Anon,
“the gays are the bullies here. They are the ones who are boycotting businesses …”
Does that mean that the “religious” “right” who called for boycotts on Disney, Ford, McDonalds because of their support for equal rights are also “bullies”?
”
“The “right” to gay marriage was denied by the people of the state of California”
It was taken away UN-Constitutionally. The CA Constitution guarantees equal protections for all citizens.
“but forced on them by judges acting outside of their authority.’
Wrong again. The judges’ responsibility is to ensure that voter-initiatives do not abridge Constitutional guarantees. That is their very job. It’s called protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority, just like they did in the Loving case, despite the “will of the people”. Get a clue.
“The people had to vote a second time to make thier wishes known.”
And the courts will have to act a second time to enforce the Constitution, despite the “wishes” of “the people”.
teancum,
It seems it is you who does not uunderstand the “amendment process”. Tha California Constitution cannot be changed by mere majority vote. It must be done in the Legislature and get a 2/3 majority. Besides, this in no way ‘amended’ anything. Amending something implies making it better. Enshrining discrimination into law doesn’t make it better.