apocalypsos: (Default)
[personal profile] apocalypsos
Prop 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18,000 gay marriages. (EDIT: You know, now that I've calmed down a bit, this has the potential to backfire on these fuckers BIGTIME. It's like they've completely forgotten they didn't get a landslide on the Prop 8 vote.)

Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures
see Sarah Palin pictures

Date: 2008-12-20 05:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wrenlet.livejournal.com
I pointed that out at work the other day, that Jon and Stephen are probably chomping at the bit to come back and put in their 2 cents.

(... I can't deal with Prop 8 right now. Just can't. FUCKERS.)

Date: 2008-12-20 05:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apocalypsos.livejournal.com
On one hand, GODDAMN PROP 8 FUCKERS.

On the other hand ... oh, man, this has major potential to backfire on them brilliantly.

Date: 2008-12-20 09:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kita0610.livejournal.com
HA! Is that icon gackable???

Date: 2008-12-20 09:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apocalypsos.livejournal.com
Heh. Yeah, sure, just credit [livejournal.com profile] miss_jaffacake. She makes a lot of great NMTB icons, among other things. :)

Date: 2008-12-20 05:25 pm (UTC)
ext_9141: ((Jeremiah) smith gun)
From: [identity profile] suaine.livejournal.com
*screams with rage*

Date: 2008-12-20 05:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apocalypsos.livejournal.com
My initial thought (you know, after the raaaaage) is, "WOW. I can't see that making them look good in front of moderates at ALL." I think they might have gotten away with the prop staying on the books a little longer if they hadn't even touched it, but I seriously this might be pushing it waaay too far to the point where they'll lose any sort of sympathy from people in the middle who were only just swayed to their side.

Date: 2008-12-20 08:05 pm (UTC)
ext_9141: (Default)
From: [identity profile] suaine.livejournal.com
I'm hoping that the courts will not be as easily swayed by prejudice and fancy words.

God, I want to sic Jon Stewart on them.

Date: 2008-12-20 06:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denorios.livejournal.com
I'd like to take this opportunity to point these fuckers to Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, which states that ex post facto laws are sodding well illegal.

I rest my case, Your Honour.

Date: 2008-12-20 06:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apocalypsos.livejournal.com
Once the rage wears off, it's almost fun to watch them dig their own grave. Almost.

Date: 2008-12-20 06:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] denorios.livejournal.com
Do they even have lawyers? Surely, someone must have pointed out that what they're trying to do is prohibited by the frickin' Constitution?

Date: 2008-12-20 06:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dawnmipb.livejournal.com
Since when have conservatives of this stripe ever seen the Constitution as anything but the enemy or at least an inconvenience?

Oh yeah. Except for that very important Second Amendment part. Then they're all about the Constitution, baby.

Date: 2008-12-20 06:07 pm (UTC)
ext_45721: Rabbit lying on a couch, reading large, antique book of Poe. (citation needed)
From: [identity profile] caudelac.livejournal.com
Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

See, while they can prevent new marriages, to nullify old ones would be a violation of article 1 of the US constitution here. The federal govt could do it (sort of), but a state can't. If the law is to be interpreted that way, then it is an ex post facto law, and is thusly invalid-- that's why Jerry Brown said that the current marriages should be fine.

So they can try, but constitutional law isn't exactly the strong point of these people, methinks.

Date: 2008-12-20 06:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apocalypsos.livejournal.com
Well, most of them already fail at reading the Bible. It's not really much of a shock that they fail at reading the Constitution, too.

Date: 2008-12-20 11:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anne-jumps.livejournal.com
Most of them are pretty much fail at everything.

Date: 2008-12-20 11:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apocalypsos.livejournal.com
Sad but true. *sigh*

Date: 2008-12-20 06:25 pm (UTC)
trinity_clare: thank you, captain obvious (captain obvious)
From: [personal profile] trinity_clare
The very first thing I thought when that shoe-throwing video came out is WHY IS THE DAILY SHOW ON BREAK IN MY TIME OF NEED?

Date: 2008-12-20 07:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ficangel.livejournal.com
You know, now that I've calmed down a bit, this has the potential to backfire on these fuckers BIGTIME. It's like they've completely forgotten they didn't get a landslide on the Prop 8 vote.

God, I hope so. I can't fathom how anyone can have so much hatred for people who have harmed no one.

But then, I also got to listen to my mother's boyfriend hold forth on the proper place of gays, people of color, and interracial marriage this morning, so it's not like I have a lot of faith in people's decency right now. (I'll give you a hint: people are only gay because they can't get someone of the other gender, and they should all be packed away to an island somewhere because they're "fucked in the head". Well, at least he puts some variety into it--normally it's only lesbians who can't get a man--but when asked to explain Portia de Rossi under the desirability explanation, he was at a loss.)

Date: 2008-12-20 09:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kita0610.livejournal.com
Man, I hope you're right about the backfiring. Perhaps with actual fire.

Profile

apocalypsos: (Default)
tatty bojangles

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1 234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags