The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[JakeStarkey]

We have some real revisionist suggestion here without any evidence.

This should help educate you. Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

"Our 4th President, Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, may have foreseen the current push by a religious minority to use majoritarian devices in Congress to tyrannize the rest of the country. He must have feared it when he wrote Thomas Jefferson in France from the Continental Congress on October 24, 1787. After recognizing the need for a majority in routine votes, he asked when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

It is not revisionist history, check the history books. Many have wrote on the "Madison problem" as his later alliance with Jefferson does not seem to mesh with some of the drivel written in the Federalist Papers.

Jeffersons reply to Madisons letter you have not provided but one of my pictures has a quote from Jefferson that shows his view of rights and the will of the Majority.

I don't believe Madison ever used the idiotic phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" either.

dcraelin does not understand what he may or may not "believe" is not factual evidence.

That means your belief does not count a fart.

You don't understand the phrase. Do your homework.

Let the evidence shape your philosophy, not the opposite.

 

[Seawytch]

I only read your idiocy when I need a laugh, Silly. Gays are getting married. The sky has NOT fallen.

Massachusetts just celebrated a decade of legal SSM. NONE of the dire predictions have come to pass.

 

[Silhouette]

dcraelin does not understand what he may or may not "believe" is not factual evidence.

That means your belief does not count a fart.

You don't understand the phrase. Do your homework.

Let the evidence shape your philosophy, not the opposite.

Yes, the evidence should shape everyone's philosophy...

Mayo Clinic, 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Now Jake, will doing math and reading becoming "bigotry" also?

 

[dcraelin]

We have some real revisionist suggestion here without any evidence.

This should help educate you. Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

Tyranny Of A Majority - A James Madison View

"Our 4th President, Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, may have foreseen the current push by a religious minority to use majoritarian devices in Congress to tyrannize the rest of the country. He must have feared it when he wrote Thomas Jefferson in France from the Continental Congress on October 24, 1787. After recognizing the need for a majority in routine votes, he asked when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"

It is not revisionist history, check the history books. Many have wrote on the "Madison problem" as his later alliance with Jefferson does not seem to mesh with some of the drivel written in the Federalist Papers.

Jeffersons reply to Madisons letter you have not provided but one of my pictures has a quote from Jefferson that shows his view of rights and the will of the Majority.

I don't believe Madison ever used the idiotic phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" either.

dcraelin does not understand what he may or may not "believe" is not factual evidence.

That means your belief does not count a fart.

You don't understand the phrase. Do your homework.

Let the evidence shape your philosophy, not the opposite.

you point out to me where Madison used the idiotic phrase "tyranny of the majority", I havent seen it anywhere.

There are cultural biases in countrys but these usually affect the courts also, as was proven during the slavery era. The cultural bias now is PRO-gay marriage. That is why u (and sadly the supposed logical courts) find it so easy to ignore the simple common sense meaning of both the 14th amendment and the self-defined term "marriage".

 

[Silhouette]

The cultural bias now is PRO-gay marriage. That is why u (and sadly the supposed logical courts) find it so easy to ignore the simple common sense meaning of both the 14th amendment and the self-defined term "marriage".

Cultural bias failed to pass gay marriage in California. Twice. And gays there won't put a measure on the ballot to legalize gay marriage formally because they know it will fail. Tests of the DOMA decision will be brought and it will be found once again that the most liberal state in the union does not approve of gay marriage.

The support of the bulk of gay marriage supporters is lukewarm at best. It's based on social conformity and blind herd think. Once eyes are opened to things like Harvey Milk Day in schools, [akin to having Jerry Sandusky Day to represent gay values], the polygamy problem, the behavior vs innate problem, the bulk in the middle will go from lukewarm to cold. Gay activists aren't the only ones that know how to herd. The GOP has a few tricks up its sleeve.

 

[g5000]

Gay activists aren't the only ones that know how to herd. The GOP has a few tricks up its sleeve.

Would one of those be Larry Craig?

Mark Foley?

 

[JakeStarkey]

dcraelin does not understand what he may or may not "believe" is not factual evidence.

That means your belief does not count a fart.

You don't understand the phrase. Do your homework.

Let the evidence shape your philosophy, not the opposite.

Yes, the evidence should shape everyone's philosophy...

Mayo Clinic, 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

Now Jake, will doing math and reading becoming "bigotry" also?

When you exclude heterosexuals and apply it to only gay and lesbian sexual abuse formation, yes, you are a bigot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not revisionist history, check the history books. Many have wrote on the "Madison problem" as his later alliance with Jefferson does not seem to mesh with some of the drivel written in the Federalist Papers.

Jeffersons reply to Madisons letter you have not provided but one of my pictures has a quote from Jefferson that shows his view of rights and the will of the Majority.

I don't believe Madison ever used the idiotic phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" either.

dcraelin does not understand what he may or may not "believe" is not factual evidence.

That means your belief does not count a fart.

You don't understand the phrase. Do your homework.

Let the evidence shape your philosophy, not the opposite.

you point out to me where Madison used the idiotic phrase "tyranny of the majority", I havent seen it anywhere.

There are cultural biases in countrys but these usually affect the courts also, as was proven during the slavery era. The cultural bias now is PRO-gay marriage. That is why u (and sadly the supposed logical courts) find it so easy to ignore the simple common sense meaning of both the 14th amendment and the self-defined term "marriage".

Since you have already been given the evidence, dcraelin, you don't get "just once more." Tyranny of the majority is a Madisonian principle, period, which your belief alters not.

That you don't like how courts describe 'marriage', then move. Take Sil with you.

Why?

The courts are not going to change.

 

[dcraelin]

you point out to me where Madison used the idiotic phrase "tyranny of the majority", I havent seen it anywhere.

There are cultural biases in countrys but these usually affect the courts also, as was proven during the slavery era. The cultural bias now is PRO-gay marriage. That is why u (and sadly the supposed logical courts) find it so easy to ignore the simple common sense meaning of both the 14th amendment and the self-defined term "marriage".

Since you have already been given the evidence, dcraelin, you don't get "just once more." Tyranny of the majority is a Madisonian principle, period, which your belief alters not.
That you don't like how courts describe 'marriage', then move. Take Sil with you.
Why?
The courts are not going to change.

Madison never tied "tyranny" to "majority".....and you know it...... it is an idiotic phrase

I think he might have used the phrase "overbearing majority"...hardly a tyranny...and the only "cure" hes seems to have come up with.....(this was all in his weaselly Federalist days)...was separate legislative bodies. .....not elitists in courts..........

And Im pretty sure just a few years after saying that, Madison sided with Jefferson against the court packing of the Federalist Adams.

Now is there any doubt about what Madison's opinion on gay marriage would have been?

 

[Seawytch]

you point out to me where Madison used the idiotic phrase "tyranny of the majority", I havent seen it anywhere.

There are cultural biases in countrys but these usually affect the courts also, as was proven during the slavery era. The cultural bias now is PRO-gay marriage. That is why u (and sadly the supposed logical courts) find it so easy to ignore the simple common sense meaning of both the 14th amendment and the self-defined term "marriage".

Since you have already been given the evidence, dcraelin, you don't get "just once more." Tyranny of the majority is a Madisonian principle, period, which your belief alters not.
That you don't like how courts describe 'marriage', then move. Take Sil with you.
Why?
The courts are not going to change.

Madison never tied "tyranny" to "majority".....and you know it...... it is an idiotic phrase

I think he might have used the phrase "overbearing majority"...hardly a tyranny...and the only "cure" hes seems to have come up with.....(this was all in his weaselly Federalist days)...was separate legislative bodies. .....not elitists in courts..........

And Im pretty sure just a few years after saying that, Madison sided with Jefferson against the court packing of the Federalist Adams.

Now is there any doubt about what Madison's opinion on gay marriage would have been?

It doesn't matter what the FF thought about SSM anymore than what they thought about blacks, non landowners or women voting. They wrote a document that allows for them.

 

[Seawytch]

The support of the bulk of gay marriage supporters is lukewarm at best. It's based on social conformity and blind herd think.

It's steadily increasing, period.

It's based on more and more people finding it difficult to look a loved one in the face and say "you don't deserve the same rights as I have".

 

[Silhouette]

It's steadily increasing, period.

I'm sure you're hoping that "period" was the end of the sentence. But it's not...

The jury is out on the honesty of the reporting of pro-gay marriage middle voters. After all, Prop 8 was predicted to lose by a good margin but it won handily. This was the SECOND time gays were predicted to prevail at marriage in liberal CA but did not. That far left political spectrum state could not convince its consensus that gay marriage was a good thing.

The only reasons, if any, that gay marriage might be gaining lukewarm support in middle voters are:

1. That the magic of herdthink has not been challenged or worn off and

2. The chick-fil-a crowds don't have the attention they should be getting in the media....even if they silently and unpredictably get that attention at the voting booth.

 

[Seawytch]

It's steadily increasing, period.

I'm sure you're hoping that "period" was the end of the sentence. But it's not...

The jury is out on the honesty of the reporting of pro-gay marriage middle voters. After all, Prop 8 was predicted to lose by a good margin but it won handily. This was the SECOND time gays were predicted to prevail at marriage in liberal CA but did not. That far left political spectrum state could not convince its consensus that gay marriage was a good thing.

The only reasons, if any, that gay marriage might be gaining lukewarm support in middle voters are:

1. That the magic of herdthink has not been challenged or worn off and

2. The chick-fil-a crowds don't have the attention they should be getting in the media....even if they silently and unpredictably get that attention at the voting booth.

Have you looked at California polling lately? If CA were to put another gay marriage initiative on the ballot, the gays would win. Why spend money you don't need to? Even NOM has given up the gay marriage battle in CA and are going after the Transexuals.

Sill, you lost, get over it. 16 states and counting. 38% of the population lives in a state where "the gays" can legally marry. The floodgates have opened...either figure out how to capitalize off of it, or let it go 'cause there is nothing you can do about it and it's just gonna eat you up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The jury is out on the honesty of the reporting of pro-gay marriage middle voters. After all, Prop 8 was predicted to lose by a good margin but it won handily. This was the SECOND time gays were predicted to prevail at marriage in liberal CA but did not. That far left political spectrum state could not convince its consensus that gay marriage was a good thing.

Prop 22 (2000, Statutory Law)
Votes 61% to 39%
Field Poll Prior 53% For, 40% Against, 7% Undecided

Prop 8 (2008, Constitutional Amendment later ruled unconstitutional)
Votes 52.2% 47.7%
Final Polling Prior to Vote 47% For, 50% Against, 3% Undecided (Margin of Error 4%)


Prop 22 won in California with a margin of victory of 22%, 8-years later Prop 8 won and that margin was reduced to 2.5%. That is indicative of a shift of 1.1% per year over the intervening 8 years [(61-52.2)/8=1.1). Given that there have been 5 years since Prop 8, then that means Prop 8 would now fail at the ballot box (if the court case had not already settled the matter) based on trends which show voters would vote to approve of SSCM. The shift regarding Prop 22 to 8 are not "polls", they are actual ballots cast and the trend toward acceptance is irrefutable

When people crow about polls, many focus on the for/against number and forget in their evaluation to factor in the undecided and margin of error. The Prop 8 vote was actually in line with the polling once the undecided and the martin of error are considered.



California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California Proposition 22 (2000) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Have you looked at California polling lately? If CA were to put another gay marriage initiative on the ballot, the gays would win.

I looked at the polling just before Prop 8 was voted on in California. It didn't jibe with the results of the vote at all. Your point is? In other words what you just said was said twice already in California. But oddly, the issue of legalizing specifically gay marriage has never come on the ballot there and twice the liberal state was predicted to not vote-out gay marriage and twice it did. Sorry if reality doesn't line up with your polling "data"...

Here's my polling results on gay marriage:

 

[paperview]

That's real scientific.

 

[Silhouette]

Thanks, I thought so too. California said no to gay marriage twice, in spite of polling data like Seawytch cites that said they should've said yes.

Pictures are the best polls you can get. Instead of phone calls to Senators reflecting 1,000 people per call, try more like 10,000 for when you google "chick fil a lines" for each head you see. They had to wait in hot, humid weather for hours, even when they knew inside stuff was selling out. That's a strong statement. Much harder than just picking up the phone.

Have you looked at California polling lately? If CA were to put another gay marriage initiative on the ballot, the gays would win.

I looked at the polling just before Prop 8 was voted on in California. It didn't jibe with the results of the vote at all. Your point is? In other words what you just said was said twice already in California. But oddly, the issue of legalizing specifically gay marriage has never come on the ballot there and twice the liberal state was predicted to not vote-out gay marriage and twice it did. Sorry if reality doesn't line up with your polling "data"...

Here's my polling results on gay marriage:

 

[paperview]

It get's better:

Pictures are the best polls you can get.

 

[dcraelin]

Since you have already been given the evidence, dcraelin, you don't get "just once more." Tyranny of the majority is a Madisonian principle, period, which your belief alters not.
That you don't like how courts describe 'marriage', then move. Take Sil with you.
Why?
The courts are not going to change.

Madison never tied "tyranny" to "majority".....and you know it...... it is an idiotic phrase

I think he might have used the phrase "overbearing majority"...hardly a tyranny...and the only "cure" hes seems to have come up with.....(this was all in his weaselly Federalist days)...was separate legislative bodies. .....not elitists in courts..........

And Im pretty sure just a few years after saying that, Madison sided with Jefferson against the court packing of the Federalist Adams.

Now is there any doubt about what Madison's opinion on gay marriage would have been?

It doesn't matter what the FF thought about SSM anymore than what they thought about blacks, non landowners or women voting. They wrote a document that allows for them.

If you are going to rely on the courts it does matter what the FF thought to a certain extent, and what the populace at the time thought. Slavery was abolished with an amendment that represents the will of the people. Women can vote due to an amendment also.

 

[ron4342]

It is true that gay marriage is inevitable, as inevitable as the fall of the Roman Empire was. Therefore, our fall is inevitable as we eat away at the underpinnings of the nation until, like a two legged table, it falls.

It is sad to see. We were once such a great nation and now it's time for someone else's turn.

You have quite a knack for defeatest bullshit. Maybe instead of trying to stand still or move backward we could reclaim our place in world. Maybe we could be a great nation again. What it would take is for the gop to stop its war against almost every demographic group in this country (women, gays, blacks, hispanics, college students, and the elderly to name a few). The republican party of the past believed in working for ALL Americans. The republican party of today believes in helping the wealthy at the expense of the rest of Americans.
In the past Eisenhower pushed for the federal interstate system. Can you honestly name anything today's republicans want other than to go back to the 1900's. In the past Nixon established the EPA. Today the republican party wants to gut the EPA.
The republican party of today does not want greatness. In fact what the gop does want is power to control the people of this country. There is a reason the gop is working to take the vote away from blacks, college students, and the elderly. HOW AMERICAN IS THAT? HOW WILL WORKING AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS MOVE THIS COUNTRY FORWARD? IT ISN'T!!!!