All of those things happened even though prop 8 passed. I.e. they had absolutely nothing to do with prop 8. There was no link between prop 8 and those things. So the propaganda attempts to link those things were totally and completely false. I don't know how else I could possibly phrase this. If you're still incapable of wrapping your mind around the spectacularly obvious causal failure of your allegations, I guess I'll just have to leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
You don't need to phrase anything better. I get what you're saying, but you're just talking about CA. The proponents of Prop 8 were using examples of other nation states and states as examples of what normalizing homosexuality brings to CA. They did not specifically indicate that singularly adopting gay marriage was the harbinger of those social changes. Adopting gay marriage would essentially institutionalize the normalcy of homosexuality (which was already going on by various other legislative measures). Can I BE more clear? You're spending way too much time on those gay sites, and not actually looking into the Prop 8 agenda, and specifically the method to their
madness. It's the same argument that a lot of us that are anti SSM BUT are not religious have. Gay marriage is but one aspect of the gay agenda, albeit a large part of it, but really, it all comes down to some of us not accepting the pseudo notion that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. Many do, including myself, and the FACT that many in this psycho organization, and that one use media embraced peer reviewed fake studies to mark their direction, means very little to someone like myself that sees clearly why those peer reviewed studies aren't worth the paper they're written on.
No, I'm too knowledgeable about how the law actually works to be taken in by that argument, which resembles a legal argument in much the same way that a duck resembles the Millenium Falcon. But I give up. To be honest I really don't think you have the reasoning skills to understand how unbelievably fuzzy your thinking is here. If you'd like to get in the last word, feel free. I'll be ignoring you.
Well how typical, of you. You must be a liberal. Please define a legal argument? Exactly what is that? One that follows the law? LOL Perhaps it's one that attempts to change the law? No? How about one that justifies changing or implementing a new law, or a revision of an existing law. please, Sir, with all due respect, a legal argument is one that is compelling enough to cause a judge and or jury to accept the premise as true on its face, true enough that by not acting in a manner to adjust the law, or create a new law, the people would be materially harmed. Gets a bit tricky when you have conflicting freedoms, so, as I presented, the
way around that problem is to not take away anyone's freedom, (the church's discriminatory behavior in this case) but require a new standard for reviewing tax exemption in the state of CA. I can't help it if you can't see how that would ever come to fruition, and perhaps you're right, but there's literally a 3 person panel of judges that get to decide if the argument has merit, and whether the will of the people is being served materially. The NUTJOBS sitting on the 9th circuit don't exactly have a great track record for getting things right, or perhaps they might, if they took away tax exemption from churches using this exact same logic? I'm sure the lawyers will clean up the language a bit, but the basic premise is logical, and justifiably consistent with the trend to appease the stronger political base we see forming in our courts today, including the Supreme court, which is literally always a single vote away from one spectrum or the other it seems.
Don't tell me stupid laws can't get pass the courts, they can and do all the time!
Tim-