mondo joe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-11-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #60 |
| 68. The the court will say so, won't it? |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-11-08 01:34 PM by mondo joe
?
|
| -Lawmakers join call to overturn Prop. 8 |
DogPoundPup |
Nov-10-08 07:45 PM |
#0 |
 -
Hooray! This is good news. |
123infinity |
Nov-10-08 07:48 PM |
#1 |
| -
Most Excellent |
SoCalNative |
Nov-10-08 07:54 PM |
#2 |
  -
Looks like O'Lielly gloated too soon on Franken AND this. |
carpentrerman |
Nov-10-08 07:59 PM |
#4 |
| -
Like this one? |
Q3JR4 |
Nov-10-08 08:23 PM |
#9 |
| -
LOL. That'll work! |
carpentrerman |
Nov-10-08 08:24 PM |
#10 |
| -
This is good news |
LonePirate |
Nov-10-08 07:58 PM |
#3 |
| -
K&R |
Maine-ah |
Nov-10-08 08:06 PM |
#5 |
| -
Bravo! K&R |
Hepburn |
Nov-10-08 08:09 PM |
#6 |
| -
Thanks lawmakers! |
Politicub |
Nov-10-08 08:13 PM |
#7 |
| -
That's perfect. That sounds like a written law. Which, of course, it should be. |
kayakjohnny |
Nov-11-08 05:13 PM |
#72 |
| -
Having read the pleadings, etc (former lawyer here) the chance this will be overturned is excellent |
scytherius |
Nov-10-08 08:16 PM |
#8 |
| -
The LDS Church didn't donate money to support "yes on 8" |
CubicleGuy |
Nov-11-08 12:58 AM |
#24 |
| -
church members were told "their souls would be in jeopardy" if they do not donate money |
FreeState |
Nov-11-08 02:42 AM |
#26 |
| -
Mormons were told to contribute to the cause in Arizona as well. |
yardwork |
Nov-11-08 08:55 AM |
#41 |
| -
links to back up your claim? |
comtec |
Nov-11-08 02:43 AM |
#27 |
| -
It's not the CHURCH... it's PEOPLE |
AlbertCat |
Nov-11-08 09:29 AM |
#46 |
| -
It's not people, it's THE CHURCH(tm) |
comtec |
Nov-11-08 09:38 AM |
#48 |
| -
The IRS Tax code clearly states that churches ARE ALLOWED TO BE POLITICAL! |
CubicleGuy |
Nov-12-08 04:29 PM |
#73 |
| -
Fair point, I did hear that |
comtec |
Nov-13-08 02:27 AM |
#80 |
| -
Correction: funds came from mormon congregations all over the country. |
Raster |
Nov-11-08 07:00 AM |
#33 |
| -
Really? Check out this list |
nichomachus |
Nov-11-08 07:04 AM |
#35 |
| -
Follow the Money...Follow the Link |
Rockholm |
Nov-11-08 08:40 AM |
#39 |
| -
Nice to hear that from a "Professional" |
BlueJazz |
Nov-11-08 09:53 AM |
#52 |
| -
I'm so glad to hear this |
wryter2000 |
Nov-11-08 12:27 PM |
#67 |
| -
Excellent! This is looking better and better... |
AntiFascist |
Nov-10-08 08:24 PM |
#11 |
| -
Hee Hee |
fascisthunter |
Nov-10-08 08:55 PM |
#12 |
| -
I didn't see the numbers on this vote. was it even close or was it a blowout? n/t |
ladywnch |
Nov-10-08 09:17 PM |
#13 |
| -
Overall it passed by about 5 points, around 52.3% to 47.7% or something like that. |
SurferBoy |
Nov-11-08 12:37 AM |
#21 |
| -
No spouses for Gay people, but more than one for Mormon men. Make sense to me. |
olddad56 |
Nov-10-08 09:22 PM |
#14 |
| -
Excellent point that should be put front and center |
goclark |
Nov-11-08 03:52 AM |
#28 |
| -
the LDS church which promoted prop 8 does not support polygamy |
lelgt60 |
Nov-11-08 09:19 AM |
#45 |
| -
So....if Mormons can change their definition of marriage.... |
AlbertCat |
Nov-11-08 09:49 AM |
#51 |
| -
Wonderful point - you know why they did it? |
lelgt60 |
Nov-11-08 10:03 AM |
#53 |
| -
K&R |
fNord |
Nov-10-08 09:56 PM |
#15 |
| -
K&R Who the hell do those Mormons think they are? |
bluesmail |
Nov-10-08 10:13 PM |
#16 |
| -
K & R |
Mrspeeker |
Nov-11-08 12:11 AM |
#17 |
| -
K&R nt |
Lost-in-FL |
Nov-11-08 12:28 AM |
#18 |
| -
Wonderul--!!! |
defendandprotect |
Nov-11-08 12:32 AM |
#19 |
| -
Good. |
jacobfloyd |
Nov-11-08 12:33 AM |
#20 |
| -
NO MORMON MARRIAGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN CALIF |
YEBBA |
Nov-11-08 12:43 AM |
#22 |
| -
As long as we're engaged in the world of fantasy... |
jwlashta |
Nov-11-08 06:05 AM |
#31 |
| -
Don't forget, you'd have to wear "special" underwear. n/t |
VaYallaDawg |
Nov-11-08 09:03 AM |
#43 |
| -
This is great news |
fourvahl |
Nov-11-08 12:43 AM |
#23 |
| -
Overturn prop 8 or the mormon tabernacle choir gets it. |
bjobotts |
Nov-11-08 01:11 AM |
#25 |
| -
Conflict and conversation-See how that works |
mentalslavery |
Nov-11-08 04:10 AM |
#29 |
| -
Go argue with a rock. n/t |
ToolTex |
Nov-11-08 05:00 AM |
#30 |
| -
What does that do? |
mentalslavery |
Nov-11-08 08:01 AM |
#36 |
| -
I don't think you understand the purpose of DU. |
zipplewrath |
Nov-11-08 08:12 AM |
#37 |
| -
I do understand the purpose of DU |
mentalslavery |
Nov-11-08 03:55 PM |
#71 |
| -
it's perfectly reasonable to discuss how best to change people's minds here |
lelgt60 |
Nov-11-08 09:33 AM |
#47 |
| -
I totally agree... |
AntiFascist |
Nov-13-08 02:34 AM |
#81 |
| -
It's very promising |
Vattel |
Nov-11-08 06:39 AM |
#32 |
| -
Good news but . . . |
Le Taz Hot |
Nov-11-08 07:03 AM |
#34 |
| -
We have almost 2/3 in the legislature, but well under half of the voters |
slackmaster |
Nov-11-08 08:23 AM |
#38 |
| -
Perhaps I am naieve, but i didn't realize... |
MiJaMu |
Nov-11-08 08:45 AM |
#40 |
| -
You're right. You are naive that you didn't realize that marriage is a civil liberty. |
yardwork |
Nov-11-08 08:59 AM |
#42 |
| -
What rock have you been hiding under? |
mondo joe |
Nov-11-08 09:10 AM |
#44 |
| -
You are joking, yes? |
123infinity |
Nov-11-08 09:48 AM |
#50 |
| -
Marriage can be both - |
haele |
Nov-11-08 10:03 AM |
#54 |
| -
Oh well, live and learn. |
AlbertCat |
Nov-11-08 10:11 AM |
#57 |
| -
Nope. Religion does not own marriage. If it did, there'd be no married atheists/agnostics. |
Zhade |
Nov-12-08 09:34 PM |
#76 |
| -
Look at it from a family point of view... |
AntiFascist |
Nov-13-08 02:41 AM |
#82 |
| -
WooHoo !!! - K & R !!! |
WillyT |
Nov-11-08 09:42 AM |
#49 |
| -
This is a terrible idea.... |
WriteDown |
Nov-11-08 10:05 AM |
#55 |
| -
The only way the problem is going to be fixed is to change peoples' hearts and minds |
slackmaster |
Nov-11-08 10:09 AM |
#56 |
| -
to change peoples' hearts and minds |
AlbertCat |
Nov-11-08 10:21 AM |
#58 |
| -
Good reply, AlbertCat and I think we need to remember something here |
slackmaster |
Nov-11-08 12:01 PM |
#65 |
| -
Not at all. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There's no reason to tolerate |
mondo joe |
Nov-11-08 10:30 AM |
#59 |
| -
The ballot initiative was approved by the CA Supreme Court |
WriteDown |
Nov-11-08 10:34 AM |
#60 |
| -
Wrong. They did not approve this or any other initiative in advance. |
greeneyedboy |
Nov-11-08 10:47 AM |
#61 |
| -
The ballot initiative process is spelled out.. |
WriteDown |
Nov-11-08 11:09 AM |
#63 |
| -
Maybe I'm not reading closely enough, but I don't see anything in the initiative |
mondo joe |
Nov-11-08 01:57 PM |
#70 |
| -
It's a revision, not an amendment, and is therefore invalid. |
greeneyedboy |
Nov-12-08 07:10 PM |
#75 |
| -
A revision that takes away rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. |
Zhade |
Nov-12-08 09:38 PM |
#79 |
| -
The the court will say so, won't it? |
mondo joe |
Nov-11-08 01:33 PM |
#68 |
| -
That's aboslutely untrue. They did NOT approve it in advance. That is a lie. |
Zhade |
Nov-12-08 09:36 PM |
#78 |
| -
Civil rights often come from court cases. |
greeneyedboy |
Nov-11-08 10:49 AM |
#62 |
| -
Like the Kelo case? |
WriteDown |
Nov-11-08 11:10 AM |
#64 |
| -
Or like Loving v Virginia. |
mondo joe |
Nov-11-08 01:38 PM |
#69 |
| -
Boy, it's a good thing MLK didn't listen to advice like yours. |
Zhade |
Nov-12-08 09:35 PM |
#77 |
| -
You don't understand what happened... |
AntiFascist |
Nov-13-08 03:04 AM |
#83 |
| -
Awesome |
wryter2000 |
Nov-11-08 12:26 PM |
#66 |
| -
It will be overturned.,. heard it here first :) |
wroberts189 |
Nov-12-08 04:51 PM |
#74 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread