And this, sir, is why those of us who defend marriage believe that your(collective, not individual) ultimate goal is the destruction of the institution of marriage.

LK

Not always but in this case it was. The judge was not impartial. He was a gay man who exploited his position to further the cause. It wasn't just his vision of what ought to be, it was a decision in which he had a personal stake. People get bent out of shape that Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto, it would be like if he still consulted for them while on the bench.

If there are behavioral guidelines in place, that's true.

If there's a dress code where you work.

Two words, "Morals Clauses". Three more words "Disney uses them".

Yes. That you're grasping at straws.

This has nothing to do with that. This was legal, ethical behavior that took place several years before he was employed by Mozilla. After a modern-day witch hunt and lynching, he was forced out of a job that he was eminently qualified for and that's wrong.

LK

Prop 8 was to reign in judicial activism.

And since when are politicians entitled to additional rights?

That's cool that it works out for you, but I won't touch a browser without a menu bar.

I hate the ribbon interface in Office too.

LK

Not at all.

I simply recognize that your feelings do not entitle you to special consideration under the law.

LK

It's been less than a decade since the Supreme Court stuck down sodomy laws.

Don't worry, the day is coming that incest civil rights are before the court.

And every argument used in favor of homosexual advancement is going to be co-opted to do it.

You can call it candy rain if you want to.
It was an activist judge legislating from the bench.

Can you provide any studies that show this to be the case? (You can't) Inbreeding increases the risk of offspring with genetic defects, it does not ensure it.

Even if you could, it wouldn't matter. We can determine if a couple is going to produce a child with Tay-Sachs disease and no one thinks that we should get the law involved with their possible procreation.

LK

In one way it is.

The law prohibits incest between consenting age siblings or parent and child.

Even if they want to do it. Even if they are over the age of consent. The state is sticking its nose into their bedroom to determine what they can and can't do.

Every argument in favor of gay "marriage" can be used in favor of incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

The pathological need to be accepted is laying the groundwork for the utter destruction of the institution of marriage.

LK

Prop 8 was about undoing judicial activism.

Because of where you're chiming in, I'm going to make an assumption about you. I apologize if I'm wrong.

Do you side with the SCOTUS's declaration that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms"?

LK

You have and had the same rights as everyone else.

I want to marry Salma Hayek. I can't. Not only because she has no idea of who the hell I am but because she's already married.

In order to enter into the institution of marriage, one needs to have an eligible partner. That means someone who can legally consent, is not of the same sex and is not currently married to someone else.

LK

It's hypocrisy of the highest degree. Eich's career was just lynched for holding the same position that Barack Obama held at the time.

LK

If the state was all that liberal, it wouldn't have passed Prop 8 in the first place.

LK

Regardless of what some advocacy organization says, when the vote is put to the people more often than not the bans pass.

LK