BuffettNews.com

While some of his stuff is "out there", I agree with most every point he makes in this one.

Gay is the new black......

I <3 Keith Olbermann for this one....

Well put Keith!

Good job Keith, maybe one person will "get" it.

I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.

To say that the "yes on 8" advertising was misleading would be an understatement. They did pretty much everything but insist that gay people eat babies. And the "no" folks really weren't effective in their opposition.

Personally, I don't think it should be possible for a simple majority vote to take away the rights of *any* group of people, because where does it stop? Do we go back next year and make it illegal for Buddhists to get married? Jews? Maybe if we re-criminalized interracial marriage, the blacks and latinos who voted for Prop 8 might "get it."

*sigh* For the first time in a long time, I'm closer to being proud to live in America than in California. It's okay for Britney to get married for 54 hours in Vegas when she's drunk and then get it annulled, but not okay for people who've loved each other and lived together for years to get married when totally sober, if they don't have the right set of interlocking genitals.

And the "they can't have children" argument is worthless, because there's no prohibition on infertile people getting married.

There's a reason why I refer to that particular segment of Christianity as the "Religious Reich." Because they really *do* want it their way or not at all.

CrznDnUS1 wrote:I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.

remember tho, that CA also voted out Gray Davis a few years back based on the perception he was a bad administrator due to the rolling blackouts and high spot-energy prices after deregulation of utilities. As it turned out, he got hung out to dry by the actions of Enron traders manipulating the market.

so sometimes second-guessing seemingly-senseless actions in CA might shed some light on the stupidity and help down the road..

TropicalTroubador wrote:To say that the "yes on 8" advertising was misleading would be an understatement. They did pretty much everything but insist that gay people eat babies. And the "no" folks really weren't effective in their opposition.

Personally, I don't think it should be possible for a simple majority vote to take away the rights of *any* group of people, because where does it stop? Do we go back next year and make it illegal for Buddhists to get married? Jews? Maybe if we re-criminalized interracial marriage, the blacks and latinos who voted for Prop 8 might "get it."

*sigh* For the first time in a long time, I'm closer to being proud to live in America than in California. It's okay for Britney to get married for 54 hours in Vegas when she's drunk and then get it annulled, but not okay for people who've loved each other and lived together for years to get married when totally sober, if they don't have the right set of interlocking genitals.

And the "they can't have children" argument is worthless, because there's no prohibition on infertile people getting married.

There's a reason why I refer to that particular segment of Christianity as the "Religious Reich." Because they really *do* want it their way or not at all.

Worth emphasizing.....thanks, Loren.

Workin' the Room wrote:

CrznDnUS1 wrote:I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.

remember tho, that CA also voted out Gray Davis a few years back based on the perception he was a bad administrator due to the rolling blackouts and high spot-energy prices after deregulation of utilities. As it turned out, he got hung out to dry by the actions of Enron traders manipulating the market.

so sometimes second-guessing seemingly-senseless actions in CA might shed some light on the stupidity and help down the road..

Second guessing is what has changed a lot of things that needed to be changed......as does speaking out against injustice.

I love gay people. Gay people should be able to have raunchy married sex just like I do and pay married-people taxes just like I do. It's a win, win really.

Workin' the Room wrote:

CrznDnUS1 wrote:I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.

remember tho, that CA also voted out Gray Davis a few years back based on the perception he was a bad administrator due to the rolling blackouts and high spot-energy prices after deregulation of utilities. As it turned out, he got hung out to dry by the actions of Enron traders manipulating the market.

so sometimes second-guessing seemingly-senseless actions in CA might shed some light on the stupidity and help down the road..

Second guessing or questioning something is a great thing and what keeps us honest, but someone who has the power of the media should report the news and not use it to voice their own views. That's the main issue I have with Fox News. They feel it's their duty to ram their views down my throat. I don't need Fox News or MSNBC to give me their views, just report the facts and I will decide on my own.

CrznDnUS1 wrote:I don't really have a stance on this one way or another but didn't the population of California just vote on this, it's really not up to the media to second guess it, although he can say what he wants. Odd thing is that the state of Connecticut just passed a law today approving gay marriage.

The bill that's up before the legislature won't be voted on until 2009, what has happened in Connecticut is the the State Supreme Court has indicated that banning gay marriages is discriminatory. So, no law yet, but movement in that direction. I'm sure there will be challenges and maybe even a California-like ballot question during the next election.
Always interesting.

pbans wrote:

TropicalTroubador wrote:To say that the "yes on 8" advertising was misleading would be an understatement. They did pretty much everything but insist that gay people eat babies. And the "no" folks really weren't effective in their opposition.

Personally, I don't think it should be possible for a simple majority vote to take away the rights of *any* group of people, because where does it stop? Do we go back next year and make it illegal for Buddhists to get married? Jews? Maybe if we re-criminalized interracial marriage, the blacks and latinos who voted for Prop 8 might "get it."

*sigh* For the first time in a long time, I'm closer to being proud to live in America than in California. It's okay for Britney to get married for 54 hours in Vegas when she's drunk and then get it annulled, but not okay for people who've loved each other and lived together for years to get married when totally sober, if they don't have the right set of interlocking genitals.

And the "they can't have children" argument is worthless, because there's no prohibition on infertile people getting married.

There's a reason why I refer to that particular segment of Christianity as the "Religious Reich." Because they really *do* want it their way or not at all.

Worth emphasizing.....thanks, Loren.

DITTO!

TropicalTroubador wrote:To say that the "yes on 8" advertising was misleading would be an understatement. They did pretty much everything but insist that gay people eat babies. And the "no" folks really weren't effective in their opposition.

Personally, I don't think it should be possible for a simple majority vote to take away the rights of *any* group of people, because where does it stop? Do we go back next year and make it illegal for Buddhists to get married? Jews? Maybe if we re-criminalized interracial marriage, the blacks and latinos who voted for Prop 8 might "get it."

*sigh* For the first time in a long time, I'm closer to being proud to live in America than in California. It's okay for Britney to get married for 54 hours in Vegas when she's drunk and then get it annulled, but not okay for people who've loved each other and lived together for years to get married when totally sober, if they don't have the right set of interlocking genitals.

And the "they can't have children" argument is worthless, because there's no prohibition on infertile people getting married.

There's a reason why I refer to that particular segment of Christianity as the "Religious Reich." Because they really *do* want it their way or not at all.

Thank you, Loren. I couldn't have said it better myself. I have never been more ashamed or disgusted to be a Californian than during this last election. Misleading is indeed an understatement...try all out lies. I really hope the government does go after the Mormon and Catholic churches and take away their tax exempt status for providing the bulk of the money for the yes on 8 campaign.

I can't wait to have a drink with you and toast to the California that used to be....

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

TropicalTroubador wrote:To say that the "yes on 8" advertising was misleading would be an understatement. They did pretty much everything but insist that gay people eat babies. And the "no" folks really weren't effective in their opposition.

Personally, I don't think it should be possible for a simple majority vote to take away the rights of *any* group of people, because where does it stop? Do we go back next year and make it illegal for Buddhists to get married? Jews? Maybe if we re-criminalized interracial marriage, the blacks and latinos who voted for Prop 8 might "get it."

*sigh* For the first time in a long time, I'm closer to being proud to live in America than in California. It's okay for Britney to get married for 54 hours in Vegas when she's drunk and then get it annulled, but not okay for people who've loved each other and lived together for years to get married when totally sober, if they don't have the right set of interlocking genitals.

And the "they can't have children" argument is worthless, because there's no prohibition on infertile people getting married.

There's a reason why I refer to that particular segment of Christianity as the "Religious Reich." Because they really *do* want it their way or not at all.

Thank you, Loren. I couldn't have said it better myself. I have never been more ashamed or disgusted to be a Californian than during this last election. Misleading is indeed an understatement...try all out lies. I really hope the government does go after the Mormon and Catholic churches and take away their tax exempt status for providing the bulk of the money for the yes on 8 campaign.

I can't wait to have a drink with you and toast to the California that used to be....

There were churches all around here last year (we had a ban marraige ammendment on the ballot that passed) that put "Save Marriage", "Defend Marriage" on their church signs. How about starting at home? 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce, isn't that something to work against. They so easily forget to take the log out of their own eye before looking at the speck in their own.

One of Keith's better special comments.

The idea of taking away rights previously granted is disheartening to me at best. And the notion that a gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage--well, aren't we heteros doing a fine job at that ourselves?

It saddens me that my friends who took great pride in being able to finally get married are now being told that it may not count. Where is the humanity in this decision?

I think his point about the redefinition of marriage is particularly powerful; in more than half of this country, in 1967, President-elect Obama's parents could not have legally married....

And Brad, I agree; people need to take a hard look at the way they live their own lives before they throw stones at others. I wonder how many of the people advocating the passage of Prop 8 are divorced.......

I have a friend who has a great tag line: "Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to deny any of it?"

Well said Ellen and Jen!