Which is why the electoral college needs to stay in place.

1. Prop 8 was a citizen initiative so it has little to do with lobbyists, but I do like how classic got his ACORN dig in.

2. Only 10-15 states have such an initiative process to amend the state constitution, so I dont see the slippery slope on this one.

3. The Cal Supreme Court has yet to rule on its constitutionality. although evidently the Court is not looking favorably to overturning it, but might very well prohibit it from being retroactive...a small victory for those same sex couples now legally married in Cal.

4. Congress and Obama can and may repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which woulld nullify much of the impact of state constitutional amendments like this in everything but name only (ie gay couples would have equal rights just w/o the formal marriage.)

Thanks :) I learned that from tw.
Once one state has passed it, it will be much easier for other states as the precedent will have been set.
Agreed
That would be a start.
This issue is headed in the right direction. It will happen soon.

What the too-conservative are missing here is that a "union" encourages a lifestyle of commitment to one other, and thus encourages a life that isn't sexually promiscuous. Therefore, it's a social institution that causes gay people to be more like straight people -- and where would straight people complain on that score?

Even Saint Paul would approve.

X-Lydia sez to me rather often that the most determined support for Prop. 8 seems to come from the people who overdo on gender roles within marriage, and are made very itchy at visualizing a marriage that doesn't hew so rigidly to the gender roles they've been taught since babyhood. She regards this as a terrible intellectual failing.

They don't want gay people to be more like straight people. They view the evolving attitude towards tolerance as "defining away deviancy".

The 'too conservatives' are threatened by gay people appearing to be ordinary in any way. It's the differences that make conservatives or anti gays feel superior. If they're the same, how will they then define their own relationships?

You think?
Women-should-worship-God-by-worshipping-their-man St Paul?
The-reason-the-Catholic-church-can't-countenance-women-priests St Paul?
The-reason-evangelical-Christians-believe-women-should-be-barefoot-and-pregnant St Paul?

Of course I give him leeway for having written what he did a v-e-r-y long time ago. But given that the Church allows no such leeway I think you may have another St Paul in mind.

Oh yeah...the other St Paul.

So homosexuals are more sexually promiscuous then straight people?

This law will not change the lifestyles of homosexuals, it will just allow them to gain a social status and the benefits from that. The ones that want to be in a relationship are in a relationship. The ones that don't want to be in a relationship aren't.

Pre-AIDS, gays were notoriously more promiscuous. There were bathhouses in every city where gays could go get laid anonymously. Bette Midler started her career entertaining in them.

Many of UG's notions of culture are decades old.

Straight people can get laid anonymously in my bathroom.

That's just begging to be a sigline...

True. Too long for a user title, do you think?

If it'll fit in I think its great lol

Robbie Williams said he completely understood George Michael getting a BJ on Hampstead Heath (notorious London open-air gay hangout), despite being in a relationship. He said if he was gay, and he knew somewhere he could get anonymous sexual acts, he'd be there with bells on!

Lesbians decide how to split the household expenses at the end of their second date.

I think it's more a male thing than a gay thing.
Just saying.