Video: The divorce ban initiative in California
posted at 6:42 pm on October 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Morgen and John at Verum Serum have the backstory details on this, so be sure to read it all there, but let me boil it down for you. Some of the people who resent the hell out of the majority of voters in California who voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage have launched their own new initiative to protect marriage … by banning all divorces. It takes a special kind of elitist to make the supporting web video, which intends to insult mainstream Californians who passed Proposition 8 by a 52%-48% margin in 2008, which presumes that the only people who supported the original initiative were ignorant rubes and religious fanatics.
Er, how many Democrats are there in California’s state legislature? In that same election, Barack Obama won 61% of the same vote, against just 37% for John McCain. Methinks that this effort says a lot more about its backers than Prop 8′s.
If they had an initiative to ban no-fault divorce, that might gain some traction. Otherwise, this will be a gigantic waste of time and money, neither of which California can afford, just to accomplish what Prop 8 critics could have succeeded in doing with the YouTube video, which is insult everyone’s intelligence.
They should have stuck to getting the state out of the marriage business altogether.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
It’s heavy-handed and beating a dead horse. Are there seriously any morons out there who think homosexuals have anything to do with the devaluing of the concept of marriage? I’m down with the “marriage for none, civil unions for all” approach. Leave the devaluing of marriage to the churches.
Mark Jaquith on October 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I didn’t know you and HornetSting were friends… I guess she just new about you.
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM
At least your husband doesn’t have to worry about breaking some silicone ;)
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Nope. And, I’m only a slut for him….. :)
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Truly bee-utiful.
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 10:54 PM
MeatHeadinCA: Tee-hee!:)
Gotta love,
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/
and,
http://diversitylane.wordpress.com/
as they stay current and up to date with
their humour,on Hopey/Changey!:)
canopfor on October 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Yeah, I’m a slut. For some reason, my husband likes that about me.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM
I know. He told me last night.
hottieinthehouse on October 24, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Good girl, good girl!
Now, this hawtie, think he/she had the same surgeon as this woman… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3J0RFgkUlg
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Yeah, he said he saw you at the strip bar….did the owner pay for your implants?
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Was that when he was corralling you with the other hogs?
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Yeah, I’m a slut. For some reason, my husband likes that about me.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM
HornetSting:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH my freaggin ears!
hehe,:)
canopfor on October 24, 2009 at 11:05 PM
+1000.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Who paid for the duct tape?
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:06 PM
And no, I’m not saying that ALL hogs can spread the new H1N1 STD.
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:06 PM
The Pork Section of the grocery store is like a haunted house for Hottie.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Haunted house or family reunion?
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:07 PM
That’s why I inserted “many” and not “all” similar to “in many cases”… which is in the Declaration of Independence in regard to the King denying the right to trial by jury.
:)
But in ALL cases of divorce, there is some degree of damage.
mankai on October 24, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Hello? Mods? Anyone home? WTF is going on with the comments tonight?
Durham68 on October 24, 2009 at 11:09 PM
A funeral.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:09 PM
*Oink, oink*
Where are the tissues?
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Lighten up, Francis. The thread was dead.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:11 PM
That is true.
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:12 PM
I sure hope that is a WT\phi…
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:13 PM
And, it’s usually the children…..
And, if they are not able to get divorced, well, that could beven worse in the event of an abusive marriage.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Both physical or verbal abuse, I’d say.
MeatHeadinCA on October 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Hello? Mods? Anyone home? WTF is going on with the comments tonight?
Durham68 on October 24, 2009 at 11:09 PM
AP is walking his cats and Ed’s in bed by 7 so no “mods”. Relax.
txag92 on October 24, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Hello? Mods? Anyone home? WTF is going on with the comments tonight?
Durham68 on October 24, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Durham68: Cool your jets,your goona chip your pinion,and
its gonna take out your crown,and you’ll be spun
about in the middle of the intersection watching
your axles go by as your rear-end(differential)is
scrapeing across the pavement!!
canopfor on October 24, 2009 at 11:29 PM
It would seem he doesn’t have a stinger to break his fall.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:32 PM
You failed to mention that AP is walking his cats all over his body while he is in bed. This takes the poor things over an hour and exhausts them.
As to what Ed does at 7 PM in bed, I won’t say. But at least he’s married.
Which brings us back on topic!
So, how do cats file for a divorce? When is California going to have a defense of cats initiative and stop the abuse that dares not meow it’s name?
Loxodonta on October 24, 2009 at 11:38 PM
canopfor on October 24, 2009 at 11:29 PM
It would seem he doesn’t have a stinger to break his fall.
HornetSting on October 24, 2009 at 11:32 PM
HornetSting: No sh*t!!
Yours saved ya twice,hehe:)
canopfor on October 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Yet more proof that the first line of argument from liberals is a straw man.
Axeman on October 24, 2009 at 11:47 PM
You failed to mention that AP is walking his cats all over his body while he is in bed.
Loxodonta on October 24, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Loxodonta:I’ve got three cats!
Now,that was funny,Lox!:)
canopfor on October 24, 2009 at 11:47 PM
So you wanna get people to vote for something and you do that by…….insulting everyone around you, including the people you need to convince.
As the Guinness guys say, “Brilliant!”
Liberals, sheesh
Defector01 on October 25, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Meowage à trois. Sacre bleu!
Loxodonta on October 25, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Meowage à trois. Sacre bleu!
Loxodonta on October 25, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Lox: Nice,hehe,I walked into that one!!:)
Well,I’m off to bed,nite Lox!!:)
canopfor on October 25, 2009 at 12:17 AM
I don’t either, but I found the fact particularly interesting in that the massive 2008 black turnout for Obama was the same constituency that pushed No on 8 to victory, by better margins than all the other races.
But just like then, the crazy gay activists weren’t willing to attack or mock another minority, especially not one that trumps their own identity base. It’s a cowardice I find most interesting.
BKennedy on October 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Wow… imagine such good taste from such a fine upstanding group of activists… who clearly know everything there is to know about marriage and it’s importance to society…
Clearly these are very people we should look to guide our culture in the future….
I was so wrong about prop 8! Now I see the light.
/s
petunia on October 25, 2009 at 3:18 AM
This is the kind of insulting crap being served up by homosexuals and their amoral allies. Also interesting that there were no minorities represented in California. Yet most analysts have concluded that it was the black turnout for Obama which put Prop 8 over the top, God bless ‘em. White voters alone actually opposed Prop 8.
So, a big Zero on ‘diversity’. A big Zero on having the guts to criticize anyone but their own stereotypes. A big Zero for attacking religion at its most fundamental level — mocking God’s love for us all.
I’ve gone from being indifferent on homosexual marriage to being strongly opposed, largely because of attacks made on the churches after Prop 8 passed, and adverts like this.
DaMav on October 25, 2009 at 5:54 AM
Fear not. I’m sure Cass Sunstein is working on it. Federal level even.
anuts on October 25, 2009 at 7:31 AM
The amusing irony is that those who support traditional marriage and family that the video mocks, would probably agree to a compromise of returning to at-fault marriage where you had to prove your spouse did something to warrant a divorce. Grounds to compromise its an American tradition.
BFBurke on October 25, 2009 at 8:23 AM
The Radical Gays crave the status of normalcy that the word “marriage” conveys. They will mock anyone and do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve their goal. Too bad they are only a percentage of the 4% of Homosexuals in America.
kingsjester on October 25, 2009 at 8:37 AM
This video brought to you by the Hollywood elite and the council of the clueless.
ranzofola on October 25, 2009 at 8:38 AM
If the opponents of prop 8 are going to make a video like this, then why on earth are they even arguing that they should have the right to get married in the first place. They’ve literally laid out all the best reasons not to get married. How stupid are these people??????????
ranzofola on October 25, 2009 at 8:46 AM
And watch the Spousal Homicide rate skyrocket! :)
Also, I note that you guys haven’t considered divorce for spousal abuse (physical and emotional). There are plenty of good reasons to get a divorce. Just because many people use poor reasons doesn’t mean that people who get one should be singled out for punishment by the state. That’s as dumb an idea as the one put forward by this video.
wearyman on October 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM
There was a NAME of an old television show, that fits these people “Arrested Development”
Dr Evil on October 25, 2009 at 9:16 AM
I haven’t read through the thread yet, but darwin you have most Liberals nailed down to a tee. I work on a tax committee with a person who cannot understand that someone besides the federal government needs to make money to make our economy work. This person promotes all of the fuzzy feel good concepts that will never bring any revenue in, but digs his heels in and throws a fit when a business that will actually make money and employ people is brought to our attention.
yoda on October 25, 2009 at 9:27 AM
I agree. A huge proportion of the black community supported Prop. 8. Therefore, this makes the above video RACIST!!!
mizflame98 on October 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM
How come no African Americans in this video? Is there some animosity towards black people in the gay community? Please, say it ain’t so! HA! HA! HA!
RMR on October 25, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Yes that is true. Several of my daughters’ friends parents have divorced this past year and it is havoc on everyone surrounding them! Friends and neighbors included.
I know these couples didn’t do this lightly but… before all this these parents seemed so concerned about every detail of their kids lives… now it is like the kids are abanndoned! We used to carpool… now I do all the driving! Even drive across town to get the kids from seprate homes…. (I love these kids, and the parents–really.)
One of the family’s has older kids so I carpool with the siblings… But it is like the parents are AWOL! One spent so much time in Europe last year that they were too broke for birthdays and school clothes.
There just has to be a better solution than divorce.
In fact after seeing what’s happened to the kids in 4 families I’ve been close with for years I think the parents should stay together for the sake of the kids!
Not when there is abuse of course… but none of these families had that.
In the 90s I thought Hillary should have dumped Bill right away and I said no self-respecting woman would stay after what he pulled… but I had no experience in divorce at all then.
Now seeing it from the new perspective I’ve got now… I think staying together even after infidelity is something to seriously consider.
Sleep in separate bedrooms, but take care of the kids!
petunia on October 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Heh, beautiful. Well, if y’all care so much about protecting marriage, this seems like a no brainer. How about another law banning marriage for heterosexual couples who don’t have children? Prohibiting the gays from marrying is only the first step if you really care about protecting traditional marriage.
Of course, you don’t really care about marriage, you just think your asshole religion entitles you to treat homosexuals like second class citizens. The reason people resent California’s Prop. 8 is that decent people resent prejudice. If you don’t want people to mistake you for an ignorant rube and/or religious fanatic, don’t behave that way.
Enrique on October 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM
talk about assholes, you gay nazis attempt to ram your lifestyle down our throats, and basically end freedom of religion takes the cake.
you gay nazis sure as hell want to treat christians as second class citizens, and criminalize anything that disagrees with the gay nazis.
if you don’t want people to mistake you for a brown-shirted fascist thug, don’t behave that way.
right4life on October 25, 2009 at 12:03 PM
if you don’t want people to mistake you gays for a bunch of brown-shirted fascist thugs, don’t behave that way.
right4life on October 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Freedom of Religion is the first right enumerated under the Bill of Rights. If you don’t like our Bill of Rights, perhaps you would be happier in another country that has something else.
Without freedom of religion there is no right to anything.
petunia on October 25, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Enrique,
Why don’t you do us all a favor, move to Iran and learn the REAL meaning of the words “second class citizen.” Spare us the histrionics.
Ryan Gandy on October 25, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Heh, beautiful. Well, if y’all care so much about protecting marriage, this seems like a no brainer. How about another law banning marriage for heterosexual couples who don’t have children? Prohibiting the gays from marrying is only the first step if you really care about protecting traditional marriage.
Enrique, as a straight man who supports gay marriage, I can sense a lot of frustration in your tone. I attended protests in Chicago after the Prop 8 results drew nation wide protests among the LGBT community and their straight allies. I feel truly sorry for the anger and frustration that you feel.
How ever, I have also taken some time to understand why people are opposed to gay marriage – and it may come as some alarming shock to you – they ARE NOT bigots. They are not against the gay community as you all like to imagine – are there some bigots ? sure – but they are a sliver among the people who have trouble with the idea of gay marriage.
Their biggest complaint is why you would like to call it marriage – many of them are open to civil unions -they think a marriage is a unique tradition that brings together a man and a woman – two people with a quite a few differences, gender wise, psychology wise who come together in a union that is special and is the foundation to continued human existence.
Your point about banning marriages for those people who cannot conceive is downright cruel, cold hearted and stupid. Believe me you are only alienating even people who may be inclined to support you.
And by your own logic, gay people should never be allowed to marry – if childless couples are banned from marrying, would you allow for a gay marriage ban ?
nagee76 on October 25, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Of course you feel this way. It’s so obvious to everyone else here how stupid this argument is, but it’s a video against those who don’t like gay marriage, and therefore, you love it. It really doesn’t take any brains for such a knee jerk reaction.
That presupposes that those who are against gay marriage believe the only reason to get married is to have children, but very few agree with this.
I love that you’re back to the religious name-calling. That’ll definitely make your point.
And it’s people like you who persuade others to support Prop. 8. It’s your prejudice at their religious beliefs that makes them afraid that their personal beliefs are under attack.You want people to be understanding and to cease their ignorance of those who are different from them? Maybe you could try leading my example. But if you refuse to do so, you’re only a hypocrite.
Esthier on October 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
What a great commercial. I agree 100%. I wish we could pass that here. Excellent California! Your best idea ever!
Jeff from WI on October 25, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Reminds me of their “I’m voting republican because I’m a bigot” campaign during the election. Such all encompassing hatred is a crushing thing to endure.
Voyager on October 25, 2009 at 3:27 PM
No disrespect but, your wife left you for a woman and the only thing you’re concerned with is same-sex-marriage?
Wow! Gay sex sure makes people share their own closet.
Michelle Dubois on October 25, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Interesting;
In related news Germany is in an “irreversible population decline” caused by a low reproductive rate. Ditto for Greece and arguably for most of Europe.
And we have idiots arguing about refusal of marriage for heterosexual couples for not accepting gay marriage?
Can cultural blinders lead to the extinction of a culture? Ask the Germans.
mad scientist on October 25, 2009 at 3:50 PM
If you look up what “Spathi” named himself after, you’ll find that it is really hard to come up with something more insulting.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 3:54 PM
New Aspect: Gay Divorce
If there is gay marriage then there must be gay divorce. I can see the American Bar Ass$%les getting behind this one. The rate of breakup for Gays is equal to or greater that that for heteros; there has to be a cash bonanza in passing gay marriage.
mad scientist on October 25, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Enrique, You have to know that is the most fatuous remark on this thread.
It is sufficient to the constraint of childbirth outside of marriage to sponsor the life union of heterosexual couples.
There is no real point to such an institution when sexual congress will never, in any case at anytime anywhere result in the birth of children, yet as it is the institution of marriage results in the minimal intrusion into private lives.
There is no public purpose or interest in sponsoring homosexual relationships. No offspring will be produced by their sexual congress. Never Ever.
SarahW on October 25, 2009 at 4:18 PM
What a pointless exercise in childishness. Way to make friends.
ronsfi on October 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Marriage is an individual right not a government program. Couples marrying today don’t have to prove that their bond will lead to a net increase in prosperity nor do they have to contribute to the future generation of tax payers.
Where gay couples are legal guardians of children and operate a household to raise those children, they should have the same legal and tax tools for sharing property and benefits.
dedalus on October 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM
If we really want to get agressively stupid why don’t we limit the adoptions of children by gay couples to children that are demonstrably gay (i.e. none at the ages that might be adopted).
This is an (expensive) exercise in futility, or as they said in Animal House “We need to do something pointless and stupid”.
mad scientist on October 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM
It’s crap like this that presents a problem to those honestly advocating for legitimization of the gay lifestyle.
highhopes on October 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM
They already do and so do normal couples living without benefit of marriage. It may take some different legal documentation but it is an outright lie to say that same-sex couples are living under any less protection of the law than others in their same status.
highhopes on October 25, 2009 at 5:57 PM
What we have here is a conflation of two separate concepts.
There is the religious recognition of marriage, which should be protected under the first amendment. This is separate from the legal recognition of marriage, which attaches various legal consequences and privileges. What consequences and privileges the state attaches to legal marriage is pretty much up to the state: currently (and for the most part) is serves to protect the interests of raising children, but it also has some components of division of labor within a household. It is up to the people, through their representatives, what policies are most effective toward these ends.
Largely, most people don’t particularly feel like rewarding bad behavior.
Count to 10 on October 25, 2009 at 6:11 PM
The line “you can’t have spousal abuse without a spouse” is sick, just plain sick.
Why do liberals like shooting themselves in the foot? More people that are on the fence and maybe would vote for gay marrige get more and more angry at stunts like these.Way to make friends and change some minds in your favor…
Gracelynn on October 25, 2009 at 6:21 PM
I think that the gay-marriage issue was one of the last good chances conservatives had to seriously expanded the minority base. That was before the Obama cult of personality.
Democrats have since ceded major political captial to a revitalized black voting bloc, which had previously been waning. Yes, it’s all for show, legacy building. Black voters will never have the numbers of the burgeoning Latino population (another Democrat lock). But Dems are so ready to massage that black vote they can’t muster the strength to bounce Rangel out on his ass.
That’s a lot of blahblahyadayada to make a simple point: Black people en masse will follow Obama’s cue to accept homosexuals as a protected class of people thereby combining the two strongest forces in American political history — gays and blacks.
Obama will be credited historically with laying the groundwork for gay civil-rights by repealing don’t ask don’t tell. And American Blacks will enjoy a perceived renewal of enfranchisement. Many have already expressed such a feeling.
This would also bind the leftist and moderate Democrats around a relevant, bankable social issue.
I believe that there are still socially and fiscal conservative issues that appeal to younger, more-urbane voters. I just think that gay-issues and by extension all personal-freedom issues are lost bait.
The flip-side of that renewed black political activism is that many more are ready to hear something other than the same old BS. As voters become more savvy, their political instincts will sharpen. Many, not all, will notice the inconsistencies and double standards that plague contemporary liberalism.
The Race Card on October 25, 2009 at 6:33 PM
I’m so sick of gay people.I’m as pro-life a person as a person can be if they ever find a gay gene, I’m beginning to think supporting gay fetus abortion would be ok if that would just shut them up for a while.
Jeff from WI on October 25, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Also inaccurate since the more accurate term is domestic abuse and that includes all sorts of relationships where two or more human beings are living under the same roof.
highhopes on October 25, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Of course, you don’t really care about marriage, you just think your asshole religion entitles you to treat homosexuals like second class citizens. The reason people resent California’s Prop. 8 is that decent people resent prejudice. If you don’t want people to mistake you for an ignorant rube and/or religious fanatic, don’t behave that way.
Enrique, why dont you give that line about “asshole religion” and “decent people resenting prejudice” standing in an African American Church or a Latino church ?
Your biggest source of opposition comes from religious blacks and Hispanics NO MATTER WHAT their political id is.Dont ever expect social conservatives to side with you.
And these very same black and Hispanic voters would laugh at this little stunt that you are doing and NOT vote to support the divorce ban.
Btw, for all your “you are hypocritical rant”, we have a President now who pledged to run on public financed elections and then ditched it at the first possible chance. What exactly did “Obama, you hypocrite” do to him ? He has now broken so many promises that the hypocrisy charge now looks so jaded.
If “Hypocrisy” is all you got, you have to know that you are in trouble.
nagee76 on October 25, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Interesting angle. Leave it to the cynical sharks. ;)
The glue that holds a REAL, well thought out RELIGIOUS UNION together (barring Alcohol, Abuse or Adultery…so SAVE IT, troll pukes) SOMEtimes comes down to the children.
And by CHILDREN , I don’t mean little African or Asian
babiesfashion statements on diamond studded leashes.I’m talking about SHARED. GENES.
Don’t EVEN get me started on Gay adoption……….
***I’m such a hater***
////snark
seejanemom on October 25, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Check at 1:28 in the video. Anyone who has a soul or has been victim male or female married or not would and should be offened by this. Way to alienate people.
Gracelynn on October 25, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Now that I have actually watched this Christian bashfest all the way through, I have decided that we should simply INSIST upon Kalifornia’s secession…resignation…something.
***We are so, so screwed***
seejanemom on October 25, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Far from an outright lie the distinction between straight and gay marriage is the official policy of the IRS, with straight couples receiving significant advantages in estate planning.
dedalus on October 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM
The people have little say in granting or denying individual marriage licenses. The state may make changes to marriage benefits for all couples but can’t base the grant of the benefits on good or bad behavior by individuals or groups.
dedalus on October 25, 2009 at 8:15 PM
seejanemom on October 25, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Agreed. My point is that there are political forces in favor of gay marriage, not that it is necessarily beneficial to the culture.
If civil unions are available and can be modeled to give a gay couple exactly the same rights as a marriage, then why aren’t they good enough? It is an attack on the culture and religion, pure and simple. This new angle shows the same purpose, the attack on conventional marriage.
mad scientist on October 25, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I have issues with gay “parents” raising and molding the personality of a child; Hell I cringe at a lot of straight parents with kids.
Rosey O’Donnell adopted a boy “So that I can work out my problems with men”; who in the hell signed off on that?
mad scientist on October 25, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Ed succeeds in showing himself to be an ignoramus once again by quoting a tired line he has no understanding of.
“out of the marriage business”
There’s a REASON every government on the PLANET is involved in the marriage of citizens. There’s a reason why property, family, and other sections of law are completely connected to the marriage of 1 man and a woman.
But Ed doesn’t understand this, he’d rather parrot idiocy.
TTheoLogan on October 26, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I should say, some societies allow more than one wife, but the state is still involved.
TTheoLogan on October 26, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Easy solution: treat marriage like every other contract. You cannot unilaterally break it, but you can break it for cause (i.e. material breach by the other side). Material breach would also result in severe financial penalties. Both sides can agree to walk away from it. Voila – fault divorce (while financially punishing the abuser/adulterer into an oblivion) except when both parties agree that a divorce is in their best interests.
Roxeanne de Luca on October 26, 2009 at 1:01 AM
You are not pro-life. You are a hateful, bigoted hypocrite and an asshole to boot. You promote the murder of people whom you happen to be “so sick of.” There is no God in any religion who promotes such false-piety.
I’m ashamed for you.
***
I got logged out with a reply typed out. Please pardon me if my thoughts have been repeated.
The Race Card on October 26, 2009 at 4:21 AM
~(_:(]) DOH!!!
The Race Card on October 26, 2009 at 4:22 AM
Waiting on President Obama to declare “War on Divorce” in support of the anti-Prop 8 minority! He sure doesn’t appear to offer much encouragement to the gay community after all the support they gave him before the election! Oh wait… That’s right! Obama has already declared his agreement with Carrie Prejean’s marriage beliefs.
(Suppose there’s another hissy fit in the works???)
How’s all that “CHANGE” working out???
ROFL!
Roy Rogers on October 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Did he wax your back for you?
Laura in Maryland on October 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Hey Earl, are you still trying to pick up guys at the bus station men’s room? At least cover the plumber’s crack,dude. No wonder Hornetsting’s hubby punched you out.
Laura in Maryland on October 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM
As a Mormon, I agree!!
Conservative Samizdat on October 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Okay, cue the rapture in 3…2…1
Laura in Maryland on October 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Has anyone considered what happens if liberal voters, trying to play up the joke and make voters look as stupid as they think they are, actually voted for this and it passed?
Stephen L. Hall on October 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
What’s truly entertaining is contemplating the “thought” behind this effort. Trying to frame a “goal” that might maximize majority support i.e., “You can fool some of the people some of the time…” The left fringe dwellers just don’t understand that California is filled with a lot more diversity, and a lot more territory than what’s contained in Nancy Pelosi’s home district.
Their “activism” is burning the bridges of tolerance they worked so hard to build up to now.
Roy Rogers on October 26, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Aside from being very condescending, this video just isn’t effective. You can’t tell who’s being serious or what the participants actually stand for and it is devoid of any facts and/or statistics. That is the liberal way after all.
Alfresco on October 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM
1. A flood of people crossing the state border to get divorced, and possibly staying outside CA.
2. Backlash when battered women can’t get divorces.
3. A kick in the family jewels to every divorce lawyer in the entire state. Not that any good citizen should care about their business, but you can bet they’ll raise one hell of stink. If there’s anything those weasels understand it’s self-preservation.
Dark-Star on October 27, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I’d like to see him say those things standing in a Muslim mosque.
Conservative Samizdat on October 27, 2009 at 11:41 AM
testing testing
hawkman on October 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM
testing testing
hawkman on October 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM
1212
hawkman on October 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3