People React to Prop 8 Upholding

Christopher Rice: Stop Prop Voting

Click the byline to view more stories by this author.

“The California supreme court and the gay and lesbian residents of the state are the victims of a backward proposition system that must be abolished if the state is to be restored to social and financial stability. Proposition 13 had done untold economic damage to California’s infrastructure, and now Proposition 8 has reduced us to a cultural backwater and created a bewildering two-class system of gay and lesbian people that is profoundly un-American by its very nature. Even worse, Proposition 8 exemplifies the degree to which obscenely wealthy interests from outside the state can manipulate the proposition system to enable religious radicals to enforce their social agenda on the majority of America’s West Coast. Let no one for a minute paint this as a war of believers versus nonbelievers. Any Christian with a good conscience knows Jesus weeps for those who willfully restrict the right of others to engage in peaceful, largely interior acts of self-realization that pose no physical threat to other members of their community. The hostility toward gay and lesbian people exhibited by the supporters of Proposition 8 originates from those who feel a sense of powerlessness and frustration over the endemic social problems within their own communities, be they working-class Latinos or Orange County Republicans. Denying gays and lesbians equal protection under the law will never restore the semblance of order to social communities that have been upset by financial inequality or spreading social enlightenment among younger generations. This absence of self-awareness combined with a gross perversion of religious principles deserves to be called by no other name than what it actually is — mental illness.”

– Author Christopher Rice on the California supreme court’s decision to uphold Prop. 8

Cynthia Nixon Reacts

“Upholding the discriminatory Proposition 8 marks May 26, 2009 as a dark day for the people of California. The idea that gay families like mine should not be included in our country’s promise of equal rights for all citizens is deeply un-American. While California has taken a giant step backwards, states like Maine and Iowa (and soon, I hope, New York) are leading with way towards a fairer and better tomorrow.”

- Cynthia Nixon on the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop 8 

Fred Karger on Prop. 8

Click the byline to view more stories by this author.

“As the country moves forward on gay and lesbian equality, our supreme court took a giant step backwards. One year ago the California supreme court showed great courage and conviction in recognizing equal protection for all.  Now we must regain marriage equality and immediately go back on the ballot to repeal Proposition 8.”

– Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, which launched an all-out effort to uncover those behind Proposition 8, especially leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He assured others that the organization will continue to move forward in making the next steps to gain marriage equality in his state.

 

UCLA’s Brad Sears on Prop. 8

“I think it’s disappointing that the court has decided to uphold Prop. 8. The core of its decision runs counter to its analysis a year ago where it held that the term ‘marriage’ is extremely important and degrading if not applied to same-sex couples. In this decision, they hold the opposite, that as long as you protect the underlying rights and protections of a family relationship, whether or not you call it ‘marriage’ is not so important. And therefore when voters took the name away, there is now no significant fraction on same-sex couples written in the California constitution.”

– Brad Sears of UCLA’s Williams Institute, a research center for LGBT issues

 

Melissa Etheridge Reacts

“So, will anyone be sleeping better tonight? Those full of hate and fear will surely be disappointed that 18,000 same-sex couples will be living in wedded bliss, kissing their spouses goodnight, checking off those little ‘married’ boxes on all those forms we fill out nowadays. That’s really going to drive them crazy. Then there are those of us like me who still dangle in ‘domestic partnership.’ We can adopt our own children, but we can’t bring our partners who might be citizens from out of the country, here. We can’t file joint tax returns. I could go on. Who will be happy tonight?

“How do I explain this to my children? ‘Well, you know Ellen? She is married, but Mommy and I are not.’ That is liberty and justice for all? I am hopeful as I see more and more states turn to the inevitable future of equality, California will get there. Change takes time.”

– Melissa Etheridge on the California supreme court’s decision to uphold Prop. 8

 

“The decision the justices made was a weak and safe one as they hold positions that can be recalled.  They also flip-flop around which is dangerous as it’s their job to protect ALL Californians.  Today they did not do that.” 

Judge Judy Encourages Americans on Larry King Live

Viewers have learned that television’s no-nonsense Judge Judy cuts through the bull and gets to the heart of the matter. Judge Judy says Americans have the fortitude to get through this economic crisis.

On Monday night’s “Larry King Live,” Judge Judy turned her sharp legal mind to matters of the economy, sharing why she thinks Americans have what it takes to navigate the hard months ahead. And she also has some advice for President Obama and sharp-worded assessments of Bernie Madoff and AIG bonuses.

The following transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity:

Larry King, host: The polls show the public worried about the economy. You had Warren Buffett on, and we had him on. And he called it an economic Pearl Harbor. When you look around, what’s your take?

Judge Judy Sheindlin: A lot of people are scared. A lot of people who had money don’t have money anymore. A lot of people who didn’t have a lot of money have a lot less. And I think everybody is frightened because for the first time — at least in my memory — people like Warren Buffett are saying that this is not a good thing. However, I do believe that this is a great country. And I do believe that. I think the fundamentals of America are strong. This country has a wonderful spirit. And I think that, in the end, the spirit will take it through. It may take a couple of years. I wish I were younger so that I would have more years to enjoy it. But I think we’ll be fine.

King: Do you think the president is setting the right tone?

Judge Judy: I resent it when any part of the government refers to people who have money in the pejorative. When states and cities and our country say we’re going to tax the rich — and that word rich or wealthy doesn’t sound like it comes from success of hard work, but from something negative — I resent it. …I don’t mind paying more taxes. It’s not going to impact on my lifestyle. I would say we respect those people who realized, through their hard work, the American dream. And what we’re asking them for is a little more of a sacrifice, because the people at the low end can’t give anymore. That would make me at least feel as if I was giving more, but it was appreciated.

King: So don’t seem like it’s a slam at being rich.

Judge Judy: Right.

King: The top-named villain of the piece, when the history of this era is written, will be Bernie Madoff. What do you make of that whole story?

Judge Judy: I think he has — or had — the ego the size of Noah’s ark and very little conscience.

King: Why do you think he confessed to all this? He could have gotten on a plane and gone to Brazil, where we don’t have an extradition treaty. … And so he [gets] life in prison

Judge Judy: Maybe he never thought it would happen. I don’t know. I think that the book hasn’t yet been written on Bernie Madoff.

King: Anyway, we’ve got a King Cam question relating to the Madoff case. Let’s watch and then we’ll get Judge Judy’s answer.

Randy: Hi, Judge Judy. My name is Randy. And I just wondered what kind of sentence would you give Bernie Madoff if you were giving him a sentence?

Judge Judy: Well, Bernie Madoff is 70 years old. And I think if he’s sentenced to 30 years in prison, that’s an appropriate period of time. And if he lives to be 100 and he is eligible for parole and makes parole, so be it. … I was surprised he didn’t kill himself, quite frankly, weren’t you?

King: Yes, I was. … We took King Cam to the streets to see what all of you are talking about. Most people wanted Judy to answer one thing in particular.

Debbie: I was just wondering what you think about the AIG bailout and giving over $160 million in bonuses?

Judge Judy: We now own, you and I, 80 percent of AIG. And the excuse given for paying out these bonuses were that they were contracts and you can’t void those contracts without consequences. And I think it’s sort of interesting that you can’t void contracts because these people were engaged in actions that were irresponsible, reckless and caused substantial damage. How can they void the contracts of police officers and firemen and other civil servants who they’re forcing to take furlough days despite the fact they have contracts? They’re forcing them to take furlough days to make up budgets.

King: Are we going to get it [AIG bailout money] back?

Judge Judy: I don’t think you’ll ever see it back. I think that these people know that money is never coming back. But it seems to me if a company isn’t working, there comes a point where you have to say that’s what Chapter 11 is for.

King: Your parents were shaped by the Great Depression, right? How did they handle money?

Judge Judy: My parents were generous. My mother always said it’s nice to give with a warm hand. So I think that that shapes the way I deal with my children and money. … I think that maybe we’ll get back to more basics. Maybe people will understand that they have to have something in the bank because in hard times, you never know when they’re going to turn around. Never. And I also think that while banks and financial institutions have to bear a great deal of the blame for where we are, I don’t pass over the individual and individual responsibility. If you’re earning $50,000 a year, you have no business buying a million dollar house. …

King: Proposition 8, it bans marriage of two [people of the] same gender. The high court of the state of California heard the appeal of the vote of the people. What do you think?

Judge Judy: We’ve got a lot of trouble in this country. We’ve got a lot of trouble in the world. Why the state should be interested in proscribing the word marriage from two people who love each other, who are responsible, tax-paying, productive people, who have created a family … why the state would have an interest in proscribing that kind of conduct, I don’t understand. I understand the anger about poverty. I understand the anger about AIG. I understand the problem about the banks. I understand the problem about Afghanistan and the Taliban and everything else. But I don’t understand the preoccupation with gays being permitted to marry.

Senator Chris Buttars Forced to Resign for inciting HATE

A picture of what most Republicans, Conservatives and Yes on 8 supporters look like now or will look like when they get older, sexy huh:

Welcome to The Senate Site

Friday, February 20, 2009 For the Record By Chris Buttars State Senator, District 10 I was disappointed to learn of the Utah State Senate’s censure on Feb. 20, 2009. However, this action will not discourage me from defending marriage from an increasingly vocal and radical segment of the homosexual community. In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled “haters,” and “bigots,” and are censured by their peers. The media contributes to the problem. Increasingly, individuals with conservative beliefs are targeted by a left-leaning media that uses their position of public trust as a bully pulpit. This pattern of intimidation suppresses free speech. For the record, I do not agree with the censure I see it as an attempt to shy away from controversy. In particular, I disagree with my removal as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since my work there is entirely unrelated to my opposition to the homosexual agenda. Still, I’m a grown man and I can take my knocks. When it comes right down to it, I would rather be censured for doing what I think is right, than be honored by my colleagues for bowing to the pressure of a special interest group that has been allowed to act with impunity. Thanks to the many citizens who have written and called to express their support. Please know that I’ll live through this to fight another day. In years to come, we’ll all look back at this point in history and see it as a crossroads. I have no intention of resigning.” Previously: Buttars also came under fire after earlier this month speaking on the floor about a school-funding bill. “This baby is black,” he said according to the Salt Lake City Tribune. “It’s a dark, ugly thing.” The local NAACP demanded that he resign, calling his words “despicable.”

Donated to Yes on 8

Who donated to Yes on 8? Who donated to increase hate and discrimination in this country?

Playa Del Rey, California had no Yes on 8 supporters.  Playa Del Rey is officially Hate Free!

Westchester is another story, but westchester you’re going into more of a poorer area that contains many minorities, foreigners, blacks and latinos, so it’s not surprising they waste money on ridiculous causes while kids are hungry and on the streets.

 

DO NOT SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE OR THEIR BUSINESSES!  These are horrible people and I pray that the good people of this country do not ever have to encounter such vile creatures.  And if you disagree with me, I really don’t give a fuck.

WESTCHESTER YES ON 8

Mrs. Elizabeth Tanner
Librarian
County Of Los Angeles Pub Lib.
$200.00	8/31/2008

 

Mr. Joseph Czyzyk
Businessman
Mercury Air Group
$99.00	10/4/2008

 

Mr. Kenneth Bartholomew
Media Market Research Director
Otx-Online Testing Exchange
$500.00	9/14/2008

Mr. Kenneth Bartholomew
Media Market Research Director
Otx-Online Testing Exchange
$500.00	9/14/2008

Mr. John Lee
Chemical Engineer
Chevron
$500.00	8/5/2008

Mrs. Debora Robinson
Homemaker
N/A
$250.00	8/20/2008

Westchester

EL SEGUNDO – YES ON 8 donators

They tend to be old, retired or foreign, minority, mexican.  Not a surprise.

Mr. Juan Acuna
Driver
Sparkletts Water
$150.00	10/2/2008

Mr. Darryl Amour
Self – Darryl Amour
Amour Way Limousine & Travel
$100.00	8/1/2008

Mr. Joseph Czyzyk Businessman

Mrs. Karene Hansen
Homemaker
N/A
$95.00	9/4/2008

Mercury Air Group $99.00 10/4/2008

Mr. Casey Tennyson
Cpa
St Cloud Capital
$50.00	10/11/2008

Mr. Kevan Shurtliff
Audiologist
Kevan L Shurtliff, M.S.
$250.00	8/28/2008

Mr. Craig Layne
General Contractor
Cc Layne & Sons, Inc.
$200.00	10/1/2008

Mr. James Haugen
Officer
Us Air Force
$250.00	10/17/2008

Mr. Allen Carlson
Retired
N/A
$300.00	9/30/2008

Mr. Richard Searle
Retired
N/A
$1,000.00	8/12/2008

Mrs. Marian Goyette
Homemaker
$200.00	3/28/2008

Mr. Allen Carlson
Retired
N/A
$300.00	9/30/2008

Mr. Fred Horton
Retired
N/A
$100.00	7/23/2008

 

Donna Hepworth
Homemaker
Homemaker
$250.00	10/9/2008

Mr. Lloyd Carlson
N/A
Retired
$50.00	7/21/2008
$25.00	8/4/2008

Mrs. James Stewart
Account Assitant
Manning, Selvage & Lee
$100.00	10/2/2008

Mrs. Nancy Whitney
Retired
N/A
$200.00	9/11/2008

Mr. David Curcillo
Realtor
Shoreview
$30.00	5/21/2008

Mrs. Leeelle Tullis
Asl Interpreter
Ucla
$100.00	10/2/2008

Mr. Doug Hillhouse
Trim & Drill Operator
Northrup Grumman
$125.00	6/18/2008

Mr. Dan Chatwin
Physical Therapist
Pt Plus
$100.00	8/5/2008

Mr. Damon Chambers
Engineer
Northrop Grumman
$500.00	10/5/2008

Mr. Jim Johansen
Engineer
Aerospace
$500.00	6/19/2008

 

Mrs. Barbara Vidmar
Retired
N/A
$500.00	8/21/2008

Mr. Steven Adams
Lawyer
Musick, Peeler & Garrett Llp
$300.00	8/13/2008

Mr. Rand Putnum
Physicist
Boeing
$250.00	9/3/2008

 

MANHATTAN BEACH yes on 8 supporters:

They include a lazy fucks who sit at home all day and contribute nothing but money towards causes that increase hate in this country and take rights away from people.

Mr. Christopher Watkins
Law Enforcement
Department Of Justice
$100.00	8/28/2008

Mrs. Annie Han
Homemaker
N/A
$500.00	10/11/2008

Mrs. Cynthia Strand
Homemaker
N/A
$100.00	7/11/2008

Natalie Foley
Homemaker
N/A
$100.00	8/25/2008

Linda O’Brien
Owner Of Lazy R Christmas Tree
Self-Linda E O’Brien
$100.00	10/16/2008

Mrs. Jesse Mcclure
Homemaker
N/A
$500.00	10/17/2008

Mr. Michael Kurz
Administrative Law Judge
State Of California
$100.00	9/6/2008

Mr. Peter Williams
Pilot
Mc Group
$200.00	10/13/2008

Mr. Edward Millwski
Computers
Coastal Interactive
$100.00	10/14/2008

Cheryl Yee
Homemaker
N/A
$100.00	10/12/2008

Mr. Dale Ford
Analyst
Isuppli
$250.00	10/7/2008
$250.00	8/14/2008

Mr. Jacob Hodgman
Finance
H & G Capital
$250.00	8/19/2008

Mr. John Sterling
Retired
N/A
$30.00	10/16/2008
$25.00	8/1/2008

Mrs. Mary Zapf
Homemaker
N/A
$50.00	10/17/2008
$50.00	10/1/2008

Mrs. Karen Westover
Retired
$100.00	3/20/2008

Mr. David Dameron
Engineer
D. Consultants
$200.00	9/22/2008

Mr. William Loucka
Not Employed
Not Employed
$100.00	5/19/2008

Mrs. Lori Stark
Homemaker
N/A
$1,000.00	8/26/2008

Mr. Dale Ford
Analyst
Isuppli
$250.00	10/7/2008
$250.00	8/14/2008

Dorothy Egger
Homemaker
N/A
$50.00	8/11/2008

Jeff Kreager
Commerical Banker
Union Bank Of Ca
$100.00	10/16/2008

Mr. Edward Millwski
Computers
Coastal Interactive
$100.00	10/14/2008

Mrs. Kristin Palmer
Physical Therapist
Pediatric Therapy Network
$620.00	9/3/2008

Mr. Clarence Dickson
Retired
N/A
$500.00	9/9/2008

Mrs. Shirley Borden
Retired
N/A
$100.00	10/11/2008

Mr. Robert Sullivan
Retired
N/A
$250.00	8/4/2008

Linda Kaeoing
Retired
N/A
$50.00	10/9/2008

Mr. John Dowd
Software Tester
Volt Resources
$35.00	10/5/2008
$50.00	8/10/2008

Mr. Ramon Giuliani
Linguist
Mvm, Inc
$300.00	10/9/2008

http://www.eightmaps.com/

Yes on 8 Supporters Get Slap On the Hand

Resolution Opposing Prop. 8 Introduced in California Legislature

 

It looks like all those Yes on 8 supporters are on their way to finally getting that hard slap in the face they all deserve.  Justice is on it’s way and is going to be served, because any kind of hate is intolerable, and voting to take rights away from a group of American Citizens is not only disgusting, but it’s inexcusable in the eyes of the law. 

 

Members of California’s senate and assembly introduced a resolution on Tuesday, opposing the passage of Proposition 8. With the resolution, sponsors Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both San Francisco Democrats, suggest that Proposition 8 represents an improper revision of the state constitution. They maintain that both houses of the California legislature must approve any proposed revision to the constitution by a two-thirds vote before it can even go on the ballot, which was not the case with Prop. 8.

 

The California supreme court is slated to hear arguments for and against the proposition in March 2009.  Legal and civil cases and suits have been filed with the Supreme Court on November 5 and since challenging the validity of the marriage ban. The suit was filed even before Equality California, the official group that organized to defeat Prop. 8, had conceded defeat.

The court has repealed only two ballot measures in its history, a 1966 law that would have allowed racial discrimination in housing, and an anti-immigration proposition passed in 1994, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The resolution is a public decree, showing that the state legislature takes an official stance on an issue, and not actual legislation. While the document has no law-binding power, it is likely to be directed to the supreme court as it make its decision next spring.  This is only the beginning in a long line of justice serving retaliation against the Yes on 8 supporters to put an end on hate.

Florida Court Strikes Down Gay Adoption Ban!

In the Wake of the horrible Proposition Hate, I mean Proposition 8 passing, courts across the country begin striking back against the people of this country who are on a rampage to take rights away from individuals who are more capable then them to be in relationships and to adopt.  We begin seeing the first of a long line of goodness coming down from the United States Courts, beginning with the State of Florida.  What a beautiful surprise this was.

Florida Trial Court Opens Way For Lesbians And Gay Men To Adopt

 

Court strikes down ban, ruling Two Foster Children Can Be Adopted by Gay Foster Parent

 

November 25, 2008

 

MIAMI – A Florida circuit court today struck down a Florida law that bars lesbians and gay men from adopting.  The court granted adoptions to a gay man, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, who has been raising two foster children since 2004. 

 

“Our family just got a lot more to be thankful for this Thanksgiving,” said Martin Gill, a North Miami resident who is raising two brothers, four and eight, with his partner.  “We are extremely relieved that the court has recognized that it is wrong to deny our boys the legal protections and security that only come with adoption.” 

 

The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it singles out for different treatment gay people and the children they raise for no rational reason.  The court also found that the ban denies children the right to permanency provided by federal and state law under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

 

“While the decision will be welcome news to many lesbian and gay Floridians, the children in Florida foster care are the real winners today,” said Leslie Cooper, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project and a member of the legal team that tried the case.  “The court put the interest of the children first, recognizing that the gay ban served no legitimate purpose and only made it more difficult for the state to find homes for the many children in foster care.”

 

The court’s decision comes after a four-day trial in October where the court heard from experts on children’s health and development and listened to the justifications offered by the state for the ban.  In reaching its decision, the court rejected the false assumptions and stereotypes about gay people presented by the state, holding that many “reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”

  

The court also rejected claims by the state that children do better when raised in homes with a mother and a father and that children raised by gay parents face social stigma.  The court found, “. . . the professionals and the major associations now agree there is well established and accepted consensus in the field that there is no optimal gender combination of parents.”

 

“Judge Lederman made clear today that it violates every rule of decency and fairness to threaten to tear a four-year-old boy from the only home he has ever known, and to send him to strangers who don’t even know him simply because his beloved Papi is gay,” said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the LGBT Project of the ACLU of Florida and one of the attorneys who tried the case.

 

Martin Gill and his partner of more than eight years became foster parents to the two boys on December 11, 2004.  The couple, who had been parents to seven other foster children over the years, was initially told that the placement would be temporary, but a plan to place the children with their grandmother fell through.  Both boys had significant health problems when they arrived in the home.  The older boy, who was four at the time, was withdrawn and didn’t speak.  Today both boys are healthy, have lots of friends and are doing well in school.  The older boy started out behind educationally and had to repeat the first grade, but with the couple’s help, he has progressed significantly. 

 

The Florida law barring lesbians and gay men from adopting is the most expansive anti-gay parenting law in the country.  It was passed in 1977 in response to an anti-gay crusade led by former Miss America and Florida orange juice spokesperson Anita Bryant. 

 

In addition to Cooper and Rosenwald, Gill is represented by James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project and Shelbi Day, a Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Florida.  The children are represented by Hilarie Bass and Ricardo Gonzalez of Greenberg Traurig, and Charles Auslander, an attorney and former District Administrator for Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF).

 

For additional information about the case, including a video and podcast of Martin Gill talking about his experiences as a foster parent as well as a copy of today’s decision and a copy of the trial transcript, visit www.aclu.org/gill.

 

##

California Senator Dianne Feinstein supports Gay Rights

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has long been a supporter of gay rights.  In an interview for NBC Nightly News with Maureen Dowd she talks about her decision to speak out against Prop. 8 in California and her evolving views on same-sex marriage.

“I think as more and more people have gay friends, gay associations, see gay heroism, that their views change,” Feinstein said. “I think people are beginning to look at it differently, I know it’s happened for me.

“I started out not supporting it. The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to a life. Many adopted children who would have ended up in foster care now have good solid homes and are brought up learning the difference between right and wrong. It’s a very positive thing.”

Feinstein had previously said that while she would not endorse a statewide ban on same-sex marriage, she supported civil unions over “redefining” marriage.

Proposition 8 – Successful Financial Companies DO NOT support Yes on 8

One of the most horrific displays of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Humanism in History came on November 4, 2008 when 51% of Americans voted to take rights away from a minority group because they disapproved of their lifestyle.  Nevermind that their lifestyle wasn’t hurting anyone, they still felt it best to strip away rights from them just to be nasty.  Plain and simple.

The demographics on who voted Yes on Proposition 8 were very clear, most who voted Yes were statistically uneducated and never voted before.  They were also religious, black, minorites themselves.  Whereas the ones that voted No registered statistically as far more intelligent, college graduates, young, rich and even more powerful.

Read on…

Although thousands of individuals, organizations, and businesses donated to the Yes on 8 campaign, not one Fortune 500 company is among those names. But on the opposite side, the side of fairness and basic rights, you’ll find some of the nation’s most successful and powerful corporate players.

It was communities of faith, who with breathtaking efficiency raised millions of dollars to enshrine discrimination into the Golden State’s constitution.  They forgot the basic teachings of faith that included thou shall not judge and thou shall exhibit compassion, and turned to evil and were a big chunk of the reason for the ban’s passage; and the lasting ramifications of those premature, divisive, and ultimately false assertions that they preyed on the most innocent and unintelligent voters who now regret check marking the Yes box next to Proposition 8, unaware of what they were doing until it was too late. 

Although thousands of individuals, organizations, and businesses donated to the Yes on 8 campaign, not one Fortune 500 company is among those names. But on the opposite side, the side of fairness and basic rights, you’ll find some of the nation’s most successful and powerful corporate players. The popular vote was lost, but the steadfast backing of one important segment — the nation’s largest employers — remains.

American corporations have gone beyond the four walls of their headquarters, factories, and retail stores and made a firm commitment to equal treatment of LGBT people. The nation’s largest and most successful businesses are not just fostering inclusive and safe work environments– they’re taking the fight for full equality to the streets and the halls of government. Though it may still be a struggle to capture 51% of the popular vote, same-sex marriage and other manifestations of equal rights have already won the vote of corporate board members and CEOs.

Although the Yes on 8 voters and supporters just want the No on 8 voters to sit silently and accept defeat, they are angered even more into bitter territory that this isn’t happening.  Yes on 8 voters and supporters want LGBT people back in the closet and to keep quiet while they rule the way they want to rule, which is through hate and discrimination.  Unfortunately for them, although they have a temporary win, the United States and California laws have clauses written in the books that prevent this kind of dispicable and callous thought process.

According to a Witeck-Combs/Market Research.com study, the buying power of the LGBT community is estimated to be $759 billion in 2009.  During difficult economic times, our nation’s businesses know that every dollar spent by consumers figures into the success of their organization.  The LGBT community has proven to be the top dollar bread winners, more successful, financially and the biggest contributors to boosting the economy, but trying to explain those numbers and figures to the less evolved Yes on 8 supporters and voters is like trying to explain something to an adult with the mindset of a child. 

What does Prop 8 really mean? How do Yes on 8 supporters really feel?

What is Proposition 8 really all about?  Everyone keeps threading and debating and attacking and it’s so exhausting.  More for the people that are affected by it.  Affected by it because of assholes.  Point blank.

The debate goes around and around, the church says, God says, the blacks say, the whites say, it’s the same thing over and over.  What it really boils down to and is really all about is the Yes on 8 people when they hear same sex, there dirty, kinky little minds go straight to the sex.  They have a problem with two men fucking each other.  That’s the bottom line, that’s all this is about.  They only want to see a throbbing, hot, hard cock sliding into a woman’s cunt, pussy hole, that’s it.  That’s all it’s about.  Unfortunately, they have it so completely backwards, and no nothing about what that lifestyle really is.  They also couldn’t possibly every understand it, because they got lucky, life made them heterosexual and attracted to the opposite sex, well aren’t they fucking lucky.  They know nothing about walking in someone else’s shoes and never will while they’re here.  They’re parents fucked them up and raised them completely wrong.  It’s a cycle that keeps getting repeated generation after generation, abuse and hate continue to be passed on.  The ones that stop the cycle are the intelligent ones, the ones that think for themselves.

I saw this stupid, dumb black woman in South Central outside of her loving Church, “Two men are not supposed to have sex, it is not the same thing with my color, I can’t choose my color.”  Yeah.  But someone who is gay can choose to be gay?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Why would a human being choose a lifestyle or choose to be attracted to their same sex when they know society is going to ostracize them?  How on God’s fucking Earth does that make sense to this stupid Church woman?

Eeesh!

Chuck Norris – the homophobe hypocrite

Who supports Proposition 8, but let’s dissect him for a minute, cause it’s so much fun:

Chuck Norris is already out the door, the guy is 70 years old and fits that majority that he talks about, ya know, sticking to rules that existed 5,000 years ago, he said it!

 

This coming from a guy who had a child out of wedlock one year after he had another child with his wife.  Yes!  He had an extramarital affair!  And he’s the one lecturing us all on marriage, what a joke!

 

He also married a woman thirty years younger than him, oh that’s normalcy for ya.  Someone younger than his daughter.

 

He’s also a devout Christian, oh hell how did I know that!

 

He talks about anarchy, but he’s also the one in support of owning a gun.

 

He was also the speaker at that fat ass, Jerry Falwell’s funeral, figures this dude would write an article like this, they all hang out together in the sauna room discussing on who to crucify next, they already did a pretty good job with Jesus.

 

Not to mention, read 3 of his 10 personal commandments:

 

#4 – I will look for the good in all people and make them feel worthwhile.

 

#5 – If I have nothing good to say about a person, I will say nothing.

 

#7 – I will maintain an attitude of open-mindedness.

 

Uhh, you don’t think he forgot his own commandments when he wrote this do you?  He seems to be a lot like those Yes on 8 supporters…they’re called “HYPOCRITES!”

“If Democracy Doesn’t Work, Try Anarchy” by Chuck Norris

Read it here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy?page=full&comments=true