[IntoTheSun]

Originally Posted by BEERfortheBEAR

Here's a fun trick; next time that you're defending homosexual marriage, and someone throws out the obligatory 'What!? Are you queer or something?!' (so long as they are the same gender as you) lean in and whisper, right in their ear, in the most sensual voice you can muster, 'Yes'. Then pull back, and as seriously as you can, just stare them in the eyes like you're trying to penetrate their soul.

Nothing like a homophobic douchebag having to leave the conversation because of how uneasy you make them.

Hahaha, that cracked me up. My friend has a crazy ass neighbor who hoses his lawn at two in the morning, and he had a Yes On Prop 8 sign in his frontyard. When my friend and his mom came home from school they stopped by his yard and took it down :x Not sure if that's allowed, but oh well!

[BEERfortheBEAR]

Originally Posted by IntoTheSun

Hahaha, that cracked me up. My friend has a crazy ass neighbor who hoses his lawn at two in the morning, and he had a Yes On Prop 8 sign in his frontyard. When my friend and his mom came home from school they stopped by his yard and took it down :x Not sure if that's allowed, but oh well!

Who gives a shit if it's allowed? Rosa Parks wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus. East Germans weren't allowed to hop the wall. When something's fundamentally right, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if what you do to combat it is 'allowed'. (Of course, there's lines, but that's within your own morality...for instance, I wouldn't kill someone who opposed gay marriage, but pulling down or spraypainting over homophobic signs...)

[IntoTheSun]

Originally Posted by IntoTheSun

Hahaha, that cracked me up. My friend has a crazy ass neighbor who hoses his lawn at two in the morning, and he had a Yes On Prop 8 sign in his frontyard. When my friend and his mom came home from school they stopped by his yard and took it down :x Not sure if that's allowed, but oh well!

Originally Posted by BEERfortheBEAR

Who gives a shit if it's allowed? Rosa Parks wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus. East Germans weren't allowed to hop the wall. When something's fundamentally right, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if what you do to combat it is 'allowed'. (Of course, there's lines, but that's within your own morality...for instance, I wouldn't kill someone who opposed gay marriage, but pulling down or spraypainting over homophobic signs...)

read again :)

[BEERfortheBEAR]

Originally Posted by IntoTheSun

read again :)

Oh, I assumed you guys did it, I was just making the point 'who cares if it's allowed'. If denying people their obvious human rights is 'allowed', and even encouraged, then I think the rules have changed.

[Machu505]

Was this a constitutional amendment or just overturning the law?

[sarahsarahsarah]

Originally Posted by Machu505

Was this a constitutional amendment or just overturning the law?

They repealed the law :/ Complete bs considering people should be able to marry whoever they want and I don't get why other people care so much.

[bernie16wb]

Does anyone here have a problem with civil unions among gay people to be set up to have the exact same legal/tax/custody rights of a marriage without it actually being called a marriage?

I feel that would certainly be easier to pass through a vote.

And I'm not taking the side of protecting marriage I'm just asking for curiosity's sake.

[Machu505]

Originally Posted by bernie16wb

Does anyone here have a problem with civil unions among gay people to be set up to have the exact same legal/tax/custody rights of a marriage without it actually being called a marriage?

I feel that would certainly be easier to pass through a vote.

And I'm not taking the side of protecting marriage I'm just asking for curiosity's sake.

It would be a separate-but-equal system and therefore of an inherently lesser quality.

[bernie16wb]

Originally Posted by Machu505

It would be a separate-but-equal system and therefore of an inherently lesser quality.

Very true, although maybe proponents of gay rights should push for the type of legislation I described. If they achieved that then they could have what should be an easily winnable case seeing as there is already precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court that separate but equal is unconstitutional.

[BEERfortheBEAR]

Originally Posted by bernie16wb

Very true, although maybe proponents of gay rights should push for the type of legislation I described. If they achieved that then they could have what should be an easily winnable case seeing as there is already precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court that separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Nope. That's the same as saying that mixed race marriage back in the day could have been called a 'globetrotter' instead of marriage. Didn't work there, and doesn't work here. The people that need to change are the bigots, not the targets of bigotry.

(I know you don't feel that way, so it wasn't directed at you.)

[crackedthesky]

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't cross an ocean and fight for years so we could build a country that caters to bigotry.

[bernie16wb]

Right or wrong, it's wrong but I like that phrase, I see gay rights taking a similar path to acceptance as woman's rights and rights of African Americans. It'll incrementally work towards acceptance until the ACLU or someone can "case shop" the right case to take to the Supreme Court and win a victory that sets a precedent for the other courts.

Actually, has there been any Supreme Court decision on the matter?