On October 24, 2008, Apple Inc. announced via their website:
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Jessica Garrison, Cara Mia DiMassa and Nancy Vogel report today for The LA Times, “A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California was passed by voters in Tuesday’s election, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.”
“Elsewhere in the country, two other gay-marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also won. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges,” Garrison, DiMassa and Vogel report. “Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.”
“Most of the state’s highest-profile political leaders — including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles — along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it,” Garrison, DiMassa and Vogel report. “On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.
Full article here.
The “NO on Prop 8” group has so far refused to concede and issued the following statement:
Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 — out of 10 million votes tallied. Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted. Given that fundamental rights are at stake, we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow about how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from.
It is clearly a very close election and we monitored the results all evening and this morning. As of this point, the election is too close to call.
Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers too numerous to mention for the heads up.]
This honestly baffles me… one stop forward (Obama), and one back. At least Apple understands human rights and fairness more than the rest of California. Businesses are kept to strict anti-discrimination laws, why isn’t the entire state?
Yup, they will sue, again, and try to FORCE their views on the rest of us.
There are two issues. The legal and the religious. The legal one, I totally support equal rights under the law.
However, calling it marriage is something I don’t support. That is where the prop failed.
Will not return money to the share holders but will take the share holders money and give it to a group that has nothing to do with the stock or the market.
Investors did not get a say in this and it was money that belongs to the investors. Steve and Al, give your own money next time!
Companies need to stay OUT of politics. WTF Apple?!
it is a sad fact that american bigotry still going strong… and that is very sad.
Another proof that about 50% of Americans are still living in the stone age.
That and the fact that the constitution (the holy grail of rights for Americans) was written more than a decade ago and still rule today.
Obama is a step in the right direction no doubt, but next time you laugh at other religious beliefs, take a strong look at yourselves and see if what was ok back then is still ok today…?
Wake up people!!
I don’t understand the sanctity of marriage argument. The staggering divorce rates have done far greater harm to the institution of marriage than I think anyone could purport would occur if same-sex couples who love each other would be able to marry as well.
Can an atheist not be married? It’s not about religion and one’s religion should not infringe on the rights of another.
Civil unions are not equal to marriage under the law so to say equal rights with civil unions is incorrect.
This is very reminiscent of the “different, but equal” doctrine of the civil rights era and I think history will judge people like “ericdano” just as harshly.
Don’t buy Apple. Yes on Proposition 8
I’m so disappointed. On a day our country took such a great leap forward by electing the first ever black / biracial president, California took an equally giant leap backward. I hope the rest of the votes to be counted will change that.
What is even more scary is how close they came to taking away women’s rights to have an abortion.
I’m truly shocked, and dismayed by both of these figures.
It’s obvious that knuckle-draggers will not be on the endangered species list in California anytime soon.
Sad.
Very sad.
And it passed because blacks voted overwhelmingly Yes by a 70-30 margin. The irony that their higher turnout gave Obama the presidency and also led to the defeat of this civil rights issue.
Just think, about 40 years ago it was still illegal for blacks to marry whites in some states. How quickly we forget.
The religious in this world, by far, are some of the most evil, more despicable people on earth. Think I’m overstating? They argue sanctity of marriage. So what about divorce? They’re not speaking against divorce, you know why? Because it’s not about sanctity of marriage, it’s about God saying it’s a sin, and them forcing their world view on everyone else, and they can’t do it if they argue God in a secular nation. That means they’re lying. That means they’re hypocrites. That means they’re sinning.
Religion. The greatest evil in the world.
Tony Fadell, come back, all is forgiven.
Reason, look, it is a DEMOCRACY. Go look up the term. We put it up for a vote, and it lost……..again. So, the PEOPLE do not want this.
What you want to do is ram a set of beliefs down people’s throats. That is NOT what a DEMOCRACY does. It was up for a vote, and it got voted down. Period. Deal with it and move on.
Wahhh, wahhhh the people gave their decisions yesterday and wahhhhh I like the Batak decision but wahhhh the 52% are wahhhh facists.
ericdano, group 1 should not be able to tell group 2 what they can and cannot do, particularly when no one’s getting hurt by group 2’s actions. Just because a majority of the people don’t like it, doesn’t give them the right to tell the minority they can’t do it. It’s all about you trying to control someone else’s life, and that, my friend, is a psychosis.
It’s too bad Apple & Google was outspent big time by religious organizations.
I’m also disappointed that us Californian’s chose (by a very close margin) to put civil rights on the back burner.
It’s also a good lesson for my kids that the majority do not always make the right choice. (right as in my opinion)
@marc,
I think this is really supposed to be about Dell’s support for Prop 8 and not Apple’s. I hear they shipped a bunch of laptops to the group.
“Land of the free and the home of the brave” is just an ideal — far from the reality of the situation.
At least in WA you can now kill yourself…
@ericdano
I know it was voted down, I understand democracy (I also understand that America isn’t a true democracy it’s much closer to a republic so perhaps you should look up democracy and stop suggesting that I would be stupid enough to not understand what you apparently do not).
My point still remains and Horseman made some of the same. History will not be kind to you ericdano and the sanctity argument is wholly transparent.
Hate and discrimination didn’t disappear from the USA overnight.
At least I know the profits from the products I buy go to a company with ideals of liberty and equal rights for all.
What amuses me is the gall it takes to bring religion into this issue at all. The Christian faith (et al) are supposed to be about acceptance and tolerance. Yet all too often, the farther into such faiths people get, the less accepting, tolerant, and more outright xenophobic they become.
There is only one rational outcome to the whole thing. It will end up in the Supreme Court for the whole nation.
It will have to be decided that marriage is a religious institution and civil union a government institution. Civil union will have to be equal for all and marriage will have to decided upon by each religion, each church.
The Constitution guarantees equal rights and eventually all discrimination in legal matters will be eliminated.
This is the only possible outcome over time; it is just a question of how long it will take.
Being English, I admire the American way in a lot of respects, but I just can’t understand this religious bit. It’s like a civilisation had the knowledge to travel to far galaxies, and travel in time, yet still used candles for lighting and sacrificed babies to Bastet.
A very miserable, small minded, selfish and mean-spirited vote by the Californian public.
For thousands upon thousands of years of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between man and woman. And yet we’re arrogant enough to think we, in our small corner of history called “the present”, can simply declare it with a new definition?
It’s easier to point fingers and name-call, than it is to understand just what an sweeping attempt this is to fundamentally redefine an institution which has established history going beyond any one race, any one religion, any one culture.
The fact that Prop 8 addresses only the *legal* definition of marriage, doesn’t change the weight of history and culture behind it.
Here’s a question: If gay marriage becomes legalized across the country, will devout heterosexuals stop getting “married” and start doing something else, such as “Engaging in Holy Union”?
So much headache over a single word. But so long as my child-in-law pays the dowry in Mac Hardware I’m sure we’ll get along fine.
The government should get out of the business of tracking personal relationships. Marriage, gay unions, whatever. There is no longer a point.
When Apple publicly made a stance and put money on the line, it sat wrong with a lot people because people feel companies should stay out of the social engineering business.
Ok, now the arguement from the yes on 8 people is that the democracy has spoken to remove a civil right from a portion of the population based on their religious views. Answer me this… how is that any different than the popular vote of the 50s to disallow blacks the right to vote? Or not allowing Women the right to vote in the early 1900s?
Call it whatever you want, but the reality of the situation is that popular opinion is not always right nor is it legal. I fully expect this proposition to be challenged in court and eventually removed regardless of the current results.
Equality for everyone, and separation of church and state! That is America! And anyone who says differently can pack their bags and move to country where religion rules the government. I hear Iran is nice.
“ericdano, group 1 should not be able to tell group 2 what they can and cannot do, particularly when no one’s getting hurt by group 2’s actions. Just because a majority of the people don’t like it, doesn’t give them the right to tell the minority they can’t do it. It’s all about you trying to control someone else’s life, and that, my friend, is a psychosis.”
Gee Horseman, that is called GOVERNMENT. How about one group saying to the other that it needs to pay more in taxes? Is that not the SAME THING?
I know, how about this, why don’t we let everyone just do what they want. If you want to pay taxes, then you can. If you want to skip, you do that too. If you want to speed, why not? Why should ONE group tell the other group they cannot do it? What if I want to rob a store? Why can’t I do that?
We have rules. We voted on them. That is called Government. That is the way it works. If you want to change things, you put it up for a vote. We did. It didn’t pass. End of story.
A great day for democracy.
@ericdano
this mentality baffles be, and frankly is extremely ignorant. “they try to force their views on on” doesn’t fly, because you, ignorant one, are forcing your views on them. Religion has no place in government, which is exactly why we declared our independence from Britain (and of course the taxation without representation). Now, 200+ years later, the fundamentalist “christians” are persecuting, and imposing their will into our shattered constitution.
If you insist on placing this before the US Supreme Court, you are just asking for the American public to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. That is all that you and your friends accomplished in California and a MAJORITY of US states. Do you really want to have this defined in the US Constitution? If so, fine with me.
Kate
It is amazing how one side, the people who want Gay Marriage will not tolerate the other sides view even after Democracy has spoken.
…and it’s nice to see that people can still preach tolerance and acceptance for same-sex marriages, yet in the same breath spew intolerance and hatred for all religions anywhere. Is it too much to ask for some consistency?
The greatest threat to democracy, in my mind, is these groups of people who have it stuck in their mind that THEIR WAY IS THE ONE TRUE PATH, and anyone in their way is evil incarnate.
That’s not how democracy works. Whether you like the results or not, you have to accept the outcome of the democratic process. Cultural change resulting from new laws crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace cannot succeed, and will only provoke backlash.
The more people we have who simply refuse to accept the outcome of a legitimate democratic process – whatever the outcome – the closer our country approaches self-destruction.
Marriage is a civil contract. Currently, atheists are allowed to marry. I don’t see any reason why people should be barred from entering into a civil contract, just because it has the same name as a church rite for which they might be ineligible. It violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, which regulates state laws and constitutions.
So far as the church rite is concerned, this proposition prohibits at least four large religious groups from performing marriages between gay people. In other words, it makes it into an illegal religious rite. That violates the first amendment of the US constitution.
A Methodist minister married my sister to a child molester. Ted Bundy got married while on death row for mass murder. If neither of those two events destroyed religious marriage, then gay people marrying each other won’t either.
Proposition 8 is immoral, wrong, and illegal.
Ezekiel 16
It was WRONG for Apple to get involved in anyway, bad image.
“this mentality baffles be, and frankly is extremely ignorant. “they try to force their views on on” doesn’t fly, because you, ignorant one, are forcing your views on them. Religion has no place in government, which is exactly why we declared our independence from Britain (and of course the taxation without representation). Now, 200+ years later, the fundamentalist “christians” are persecuting, and imposing their will into our shattered constitution.”
What? So, even though we had it up for a vote, and the people spoke, you still won’t accept it? Look here, ignorant one, read up on how Democracy works.
@ ericdano
I guess in your democracy, if a racist state passed a proposition by a majority that said brown-skinned people cannot “marry”, then that would be right and fit your definition of how your democracy works?
“That’s not how democracy works. Whether you like the results or not, you have to accept the outcome of the democratic process. Cultural change resulting from new laws crammed down the throats of an unwilling populace cannot succeed, and will only provoke backlash.”
Exactly.
Yes, Gabriel. And it happens because the biggest risk for democracy is the (ingenuos) idea that we must establish equal rights for everybody.
I want to marry a child. How’s that?
@ericdano
I know know democracy works, moron. And I also know that our constitution USED to protect our religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs. This amendment had no place to be put in our constitution, because it TAKES RIGHTS AWAY, and that my little ignorant friend, is not what our constitution should do.
Noodle-Armed Choir Boy, or rather strawman-armed choir boy, calm down. Now you are proposing something that would not happen.
It was up for a vote, the people said no. So, what if the 56 million people who voted for McCain decided they simply were not going to pay taxes or support Obama because they think it was morally wrong to choose him as President? Our society and government would collapse.
If you want equal rights under the law, the lobby for it. I suggest using the term “Union” or something. I think what really killed it was using the term Marriage. People just don’t want that term redefined. So, come back in the next election, have a prop that gives equal whatever under the law as a Union, and all will be fine.
There is no logical argument against gay marriage. It has absolutely no impact on heterosexual marriages. The insecure, the homophobic, the religious extremists, the ignorant, and the stupid need to quit trying to make society into their warped image of how people should live. I am ashamed of my fellow human beings. It’s unbelievable that we could elect Obama and at the same time do something so mean spirited and wrong.
As for those who don’t like Apple’s giving money to a political cause, sell your stock and don’t buy their products. The fact that you own stock or a Mac doesn’t mean you have the right to manage the company.
And no, I’m not gay.
Cavemen
Gabriel: The more people we have who simply refuse to accept the outcome of a legitimate democratic process – whatever the outcome – the closer our country approaches self-destruction.
on your view is there anything which it would be wrong to put to a popular vote, or is what the majority prefers always a legitimate democratic outcome?
This is still money well spent by Apple. Apple has many employees whose civil rights are being taken away and it is appropriate to show their support as they are an employer in CA. The opposition may have won this battle (it’s still being counted, btw) but equality in America always finds its way. It’s only a matter of time.
At least gays have the right to hang a heterosexual in effigy, and the straights can DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
So, you win some, you lose some.
xx: “I know know democracy works, moron. And I also know that our constitution USED to protect our religious beliefs, or lack of beliefs. This amendment had no place to be put in our constitution, because it TAKES RIGHTS AWAY, and that my little ignorant friend, is not what our constitution should do.”
What happened was that there was a lawsuit, and some judges found a little thing in the equal protection clause, and then ruled that gay marriage could take place.
There were no rights before that under the law. I’m all for giving all those legal rights to people. But call it something else. If you want those rights, then seek them as a Union or something. It is the term that made it fail. The general population does not, as we have seen via DEMOCRACY, like the idea of gay marriage.
@ ericdano
Be very careful when you try to shape your definition of “democracy” to suit your own desires.
In 2000, Stockwell Day, of the newly rising right-wing Alliance Party in Canada, stated that he and his party would implement a referendum system requiring 3% of the population’s signatures to put any referendum to vote.
Here’s the story of what quickly happened:
Rick Mercer gets minimum signatures for referendum to have Stockwell Day change name to Doris!
Rick Mercer has proven that a requirement of 3% of the electorate to initiate a referendum vote is ridiculously easy. All he did was put his petition on the Web!
On November 13, 2000 night’s “This Hour Has 22 Minutes” TV program, the comedian asked Canadians to call for a federal referenum on the program’s Web site http://www.22minutes.com asking the people of Canada if they would require Alliance party leader Stockwell Day to change his first name to “Doris”, making his name “Doris Day”. Even Rick was astonished at the response – by Thursday night, nearly half a million people had voted on the Web site and by Friday afternoon the online petition form had been completed by 616,000 people — and growing.
Day and the Alliance Party immediately scrapped their idea to pervert democracy.
So you’re advocating separate but equal, eh? Yeah, that’s always been a great solution for our democracy.
D.H., You are so right. Its all wrong when THEIR view point is the one attacked, but when THEY attack someone else’s view point it is illegal, wrong, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…….
If I were running things I’d give them all the rights under the term UNION or something.
Hi.
TheloniousMac your local conservative here.
Yes me, the evil conservative, even I can’t understand why Prop 8 passed.
We are the nuttiest state in the union, I swear.
It occurs to me that we voted to give chickens more space, but are afraid of gays getting married.
Weird.
@ ericdano
Be very careful when you try to shape your definition of “democracy” to suit your own desires.
In 2000, Stockwell Day, of the newly rising right-wing Alliance party in Canada, stated that he and his party would implement a referendum system requiring 3% of the population’s signatures to put any referendum to vote.
Here’s the story of what quickly happened:
Rick Mercer gets minimum signatures for referendum to have Stockwell Day change name to Doris.
Rick Mercer has proven that a requirement of 3% of the electorate to initiate a referendum vote is ridiculously easy. All he did was put his petition on the Web!
On November 13, 2000 night’s “This Hour Has 22 Minutes” TV program, the comedian asked Canadians to call for a federal referenum on the program’s Web site http://www.22minutes.com asking the people of Canada if they would require Alliance party leader Stockwell Day to change his first name to “Doris”, making his name “Doris Day”. Even Rick was astonished at the response – by Thursday night, nearly half a million people had voted on the Web site and by Friday afternoon the online petition form had been completed by 616,000 people — and growing.
Day and the Alliance Party immediately scrapped their plan to pervert “democracy” to their own ends.
well done Obama
however on Prop 8 a couple of words spring to mind
fascist, moralistic, narrow minded, extremist,
have a good ya all
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
OOps! Double post. Sorry!
(And it’s a long one too. Wouldn’t you know it?!
Why can’t I just stick to one-liners?))
In the Christian view, marriage is not a religious rite, although Christians regard marriage vows as sacred, just as all other vows and any other moral responsibility (parenthood, etc.) is sacred. Arguing that Christians should not impose a religious rite on others will get nowhere, since they don’t view it that way at all. In fact, marriages exist and have existed in non-Christian cultures for millennia.
Just what is the state’s interest in marriage? Do they give married couples tax breaks because they have sex? No. It’s because it is in the state’s interest to promote FAMILIES. Gay marriages are anti-family. They are dead ends for families. There may be some benefit to a couple people living together and raising whatever kids they had before, but then why not extend those same rights to unmarried couples living together?
It is possible that, as some have noted, tax breaks for people with no children who get married past child-bearing age is inconsistent with this view. And perhaps the tax breaks in question should not be applied to those individuals.
Contrary to what others have said, the same Christians who are anti-homosexual marriage are also anti-divorce. But that doesn’t prevent divorce among evangelicals, any more than being anti-homosexual marriage prevents some evangelicals from declaring themselves gay. You can’t place hypocrisy on a group for those who break ranks with the values of the group.
Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. The only thing new is calling gay couples married. The idea that marriage means cohabitation or mere commitment is absurd.
As for the “natural” vs. “unnatural” arguments, homosexuality is clearly natural in the same way that murder, rape, and incest are natural in the wild. However, for Christians “natural” has to do with original intent, and so their use of the word has to be interpreted in that light.
Weren’t the same ignorant, selfish, religion-based arguments used to support slavery?
The underground railway ended in Canada. And now Canada has had same-sex marriage for a few years along with a few other enlightened countries in the world. The sky has not fallen.
Check out your system. Marriage licenses come from the state, not from churches. A church wedding is just icing on the cake. All marriages are a civil affair and nothing about magic words said at an altar.
Grow up!
@ericdano,
Yeah, I guess your right. And, while we’re at it, let’s call a marriage between an african american and a white person a “civil union of two ethnically diverse persons which is not considered a marriage under the law”. If you don’t see how completely ignorant your argument is, then there really is no point in arguing, we could just agree to disagree.
On you second point, that IS the whole point. What gives our government, or it’s people the right to tell two people what they call their relationship. Your democracy argument just does not fly. It is not a true democracy unless ALL PEOPLE ARE TREATED EQUALLY.
At least the result shows somebody discriminately claims he is superior than the rest of californian, he is defeated.
Apple can be poisoned. Be careful. See link:
http://yourscene.latimes.com/mycapture/photos/JXImage.aspx?ImageID=395488&EventID=292434&CategoryID=30888
well done Obama
As for the vote on Prop 8, as a nation you should be ashamed of yourself, land of the free, not likely !!!
A couple of words spring to mind
fascist, narrow-minded, extremist, dictatorial, homophobic, heterosexist, discrimination the list goes on,
the land of the, do as we say, more like !!!!!!!
Weren’t these same ignorant, selfish, religion-based arguments used to support slavery?
The underground railway ended in Canada. And now Canada has had same-sex marriage for a few years along with a few other enlightened countries in the world. The sky has not fallen.
Check out your system. Marriage licenses come from the state, not from churches. A church wedding is just icing on the cake. All marriages are a civil affair and nothing about magic words said at an altar.
Grow up!
Very sad news indeed. I can’t think of any greater threat to our freedoms from within our borders than religious fundamentalism. The ‘Yes on 8’ campaign has been one of the most dishonest and mean-spritited campaigns I can recall.
” It is not a true democracy unless ALL PEOPLE ARE TREATED EQUALLY.”
Democracy means treating people respecting their differences: as kids or as old persons; as ill or in good form; and so on
Everyone has their opinions, and everyone thinks they are right. How to resolve the issue, well the last call is a vote by the people. So why keep arguing. Single people have as much rights as those that are married. Now those that are single and have kids they get more support and benefits than those that are married and have kids. Why waste money and time and a lot of hatred for no extra benefits. Apple and many other companies all ready give the same benefits for whatever type of relationship you have.
@ Gabriel:
“For thousands upon thousands of years of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between man and woman. And yet we’re arrogant enough to think we, in our small corner of history called “the present”, can simply declare it with a new definition?”
Slavery was a practice that existed for thousands of years, yet society evolved and now recognizes it’s wrong. As we learn more about ourselves and the world, we have every right to redefine anything. Less than 50 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal. Society evolved and we changed our laws accordingly. Less than 100 years ago, women couldn’t vote. Society evolved and we changed our laws accordingly.
“…and it’s nice to see that people can still preach tolerance and acceptance for same-sex marriages, yet in the same breath spew intolerance and hatred for all religions anywhere. Is it too much to ask for some consistency?”
If your religious beliefs do not affect my life or my happiness, we have no problem and can coexist quite peacefully. But when you base public policy on supposedly private religious beliefs, you open those beliefs up to criticism. This is the only way to have a healthy debate. Basing public policy on religious beliefs but expecting them to remain immune to criticism is having your cake and eating it too.
The only thing it seems we agree on is that this was put to a vote and lost because the country just isn’t ready for this. What those of us who support the measure need to do is work toward changing the mindset.
Way to go California!! And a big “f*ck you” to Steve Jobs for dragging his company into politics when they should have kept their noses the hell out of it.
Amen!
I wish we would take the French approach on this issue. They have kept Church and State completely separated and it works!
DC u ignorant piece of shit,
this is not a politics thing, if you read the story apple got involved as it effected the civil liberties of its staff.
but hey some of you ‘yanks’ think that civil liberties dont apply to you
A small blip on the road to progress. Gay marriage is coming US-wide, just not this year.
I never thought I’d see the day when South Africa was ahead of the USA in terms of equality though.
Congratulations to all Californians who voted to restrict civil liberties on a minority of people! As your next step, you might want to think about rounding them all up into camps.
I never thought I’d see the day when South Africa was ahead of the USA in terms of equality though
next thing you know China will be ahead on vehicle emission standards …
Yes, ericdano, it is a democracy in which the majority rules, but not unconditionally and not without limits; the major limit being protection of the rights of minorities from infringement by a majority whipped up by blind unreasoning passions and prejudices. In California, Prop 2 and Prop 8 appear to have won; the Golden State treats farm animals more humanely than gay Californians. I am completely disgusted with the damned human race. I’d resign from it if I could.
MW-trying. These times certainly are.
@cptnkirk
“As for the “natural” vs. “unnatural” arguments, homosexuality is clearly natural in the same way that murder, rape, and incest are natural in the wild.”
Why is it that homosexuality is so often compared to the worst possible aspects of what are overwhelmingly heterosexual crimes?
Fact: homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Putting it in any category by its nature is putting your own sexual orientation in the same one.
“However, for Christians “natural” has to do with original intent, and so their use of the word has to be interpreted in that light.”
No, it doesn’t. If I decide to use a word in a different way than everyone else uses it it, it’s ridiculous to expect they have to change their understanding to accommodate me.
Sorry… that last message was quoting Military Police, not cptnkirk.
Apologies.
Prop 22 Passed 61% to 39% years ago
Prop 8 Passed 52% to 48% yesterday
Shows we are progressing in some fashion.
In 10 years time, gay people will no longer be an issue. But I’m sure the church will do its best to try and point out who is evil and who is not and call their interpretation the right and only one all under the guise of “protecting the children.”
Next time all you bigots want to “save” my marriage, children, or what have you from the evil gays or who ever you target next. Do me a favor.
DON’T!
After Red Tuesday (as in Communist tinted), it’s good to have a show of sanity in CA in at least one area.
This emotional issue would be a non-issue if the opponents of Prop 8 just focused on the actual “rights” and not on the definition of “marriage.”
Let marriage be defined as between one man and one woman. That’s why there are TWO partners in the union. If marriage can be between two men or two women, there is no special significance of the number two. Why not three or four or more being “married”? Will that be the issue on the ballot ten years from now.
If you take the definition of “marriage” out of the picture, it would appear that a same-sex couple in a formalized domestic partnership already has the “rights” of a married couple in CA. Later, if the issue of rights for three or more persons in a domestic partnership does come up, it can be debated and legislated apart from the emotional baggage of re-defining (yet AGAIN) what the word “marriage” means.
It doesn’t even make sense. How does letting homosexual couples marry have any effect on heterosexuals? The “threat” is totally imaginary.
People don’t just decide to be straight or gay because of external influences. In fact, science has proven beyond any doubt that no one can make a straight person gay or a gay person straight. Not through persuasion, coercion, torture, and certainly not by legal climate. There is simply no known method to change someone’s sexuality.
Letting gay couples marry will simply have zero effect on heterosexuals. They’re just hurting people through discrimination without helping anyone. That’s a damn shame.
How is this Civil Liberties for a minority people? How are they a minority people, do they have a different color of skin, come from a different country, speak a different language?
Toasty, the next time all you backassward ‘progressives’ want to destroy the uniqueness of marriage between one man and one woman, do me a favor.
Move to Saudi Arabia and take as many of your friends as you can.
@ken1w
In the words of Brigham Young himself.
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, pp. 266 ff.
“Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk.”
@mac user 47
Wow mac user 47, you sure slammed me. Gosh what should I do? Pulling the muslim card. That all you got?
You do realize the that “backassward progressives” is a complete contradiction in itself. Apparently english is less of a forte for you than segregating people that are different from you.
I’m not a “progressive”, I just believe in equality. Unlike you who seems to think you are some how “special.”
San Francisco Scene:
“Next.”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve
been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you
can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I
have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a
woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert
loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way
that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says
the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a
marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage.”
Peace
-Brian
ericdano, your ignorance has shown through yet again. You seem to have missed the part about, “particularly when no one’s getting hurt by group 2’s actions”. If you were intelligent (which is evident that you are not) you would realize that every example you poise harms someone, and therefore, your rebuttal is completely and totally moot and thus further exemplifies my point to the letter. Now go back and play with your Bible.
Gay marriage is really about feeling all vindicated and ratified and recognized and all that other horsecrap about feeling respected and accepted.
Everyone knows that you don’t need laws to tell you who to love. There are intermediate recognitions the law can provide to allow hospital visitation and other such rights.
“<b>Marriage</u>” is an institution found in every single society on Earth and is a contract designed to provide for the upbringing of children: a covenant by a man to provide for the material needs of his children, and by a woman to not saddle a man with the burden of children that aren’t his.
It’s obvious on the face of it that fudge packing and carpet munching doesn’t entail procreation; ergo, no need for “marriage.”
@ Toasty
You are quoting Brigham Young? How is that any more relevant in this context to quoting the No on Prop 8 web site?
Regardless of what Brigham Young or the No on Prop 8 web site says, marriage is widely defined as being between one man and one woman by the voting population of California. But California also gives the same rights to a same sex couple in a domestic partnership. Interestingly, an opposite sex couple does not qualify for entering into a domestic partnership, if they are opposed to being “married.”
So if “rights” are really the primary concern, the money spent on re-defining the word “marriage” would be better spent elsewhere.
Gay marriage is really about feeling all vindicated and ratified and recognized and all that other horsecrap about feeling respected and accepted.
Everyone knows that you don’t need laws to tell you who to love. There are intermediate recognitions the law can provide to allow hospital visitation and other such rights.
“Marriage” is an institution found in <u>every single</u> society on Earth. Why? It is a contract that ensures children are taken care of: a covenant by a man to provide for the material needs of his children so they aren’t raised in hunger and poverty (“take care of whatcha done”), and by a woman to not saddle a man with the burden of providing for children that aren’t his.
It’s obvious on the face of it that fudge packing and carpet munching doesn’t entail procreation; ergo, no need for “marriage.”
Some here claim that, since this decision was democratically made, it’s the way it should be. Majority has spoken, therefore, it must be right.
As has been said, the argument fails and cannot be defended. Fifty years ago, the same democratic processes were used to shut black people out of voting. Same process prohibited white people from marrying black. Many quite intelligent and otherwise nice and reasonable people genuinely believed that allowing inter-racial marriages would destroy the society. “What’s next? A man marrying a goat?” was their thinking, and they genuinely believed their argument was valid. And apparently, they were convincing, since back then, the laws of the land in many states didn’t allow inter-racial marriages.
The laws of the land to day allow interracial marriages, but don’t allow two people to marry if they are of the same sex. There is absolutely nothing different here.
Defenders argue that the marriage has religious significance and since homosexuals aren’t accepted by any mainstream religion, that would imply travesty of the sanctity of marriage. This argument would mean that I would have had to lie to my government and tell them I’m religious in order to marry my wife, where in fact I’m not. I entered into a civil marriage with my wife and we still call it a marriage, as does everyone else. It has absolutely nothing to do with any organised religion.
There is absolutely NO VALID REASON why a civil union between two people of the same sex should NOT be called a marriage. If you call it something else, you are immediately telling them they aren’t the same, thus they aren’t equal.
Today’s American society has done far greater damage to the institution and sanctity of marriage (divorce rate, the incidence of adultery of about 40% with women and 60% with men) it is hard to give any validity to arguments against gay marriage that claim the protection of the sanctity of the institution.
There is no doubt that sometime soon America will finally elliminate this form of discrimination. The only question is, whether Saudi Arabia will do it first…
@SixnaHalfFeet
while your rhetoric is amusing, it shows obvious flaw and the disconnect in your brain as to what Marriage is.
The “law” not the “traditional idea” says 2 and only 2 people.
The “law” says you cannot be related. End of story.
Until you people, the “law” did not specify same sex couldn’t.
Prop 8 is making gay marriage illegal from the stand point of the “law” not from the “traditional idea” as you so state.
Why can’t you people just be honest and admit you hate and are afraid of gay people? I’d respect your position so much more than all the stupid “what ifs” you toss out. Be an adult and admit you vote yes on 8 because you are afraid. You, I, and the rest of you all know that is the truth of it.
It’s the cretins vs. the rest of us. The morons may have lost the presidential election, but they have not lost their fear and ignorance.
I really don’t like big corporations telling us what to do. Other than that, I’m in a loving relationship with my domestic pet and would like medical benefits. btw- be sure to pour electrolytes on the crops.
… because if gay marriage won’t fly in California, it won’t fly in the rest of America either. Your fear of the future has selfishly deprived others of happiness. Your pollution of the democratic process with religious dogma is an insult to the principles this nation was founded upon.
Marriage, which you hold as “sacred,” developed basically as a way for fathers to pimp / sell-off their adolescent daughters to fellow perverts; it has nothing to do with any BS concepts of spirtuality to which you cling. May you all rot.
Liberals=united in a progressive vision of the future
Conservatives=united in fear of change
@ SixnaHalfFeet
Great (and humorous) examples of where this will all lead eventually (if it hasn’t already). The state already has laws giving two persons in a formalized union the same rights, whether they are same sex or opposite sex. The meaning of the word “marriage” is not relevant to real debates about “rights” of same-sex couples, and should not be on the table.
If the definition of “marriage” can only be defined by what it seems narrow minded hatemongers,me and my wife will be more then happy after 16 years to give ours back the church that issued it… Wait a minute it was the California government that issued it not a church, and there was no mention of god in our ceremony (must not be valid then)… Wait I live in a country free from religious persecution, and we have no kids (must not be eligible because we haven’t contributed to over populating our planet)… Wait this is America where we are guaranteed personal freedoms. So from the sounds of it you fascist bigots need to move somewhere a little more like minded, may I suggest China or Saudi Arabia.
Libs,
The U.S. is a center-right country. The map remains mostly red:
http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.htm
Palin 2012!
@ ken1w
Well then perhaps you guys should call webster and have it redefined in the Dictionary instead of making a silly law/amendment against it. People are not stupid. We all know including yourself that this Prop was designed to be a blow against those “fudge packers/carpet munchers” as one of you put it for the soul reason that you view them as deviant evil doers. It has nothing to do with the word “marriage” and everything to do with the churches interpretation of Lavitcus and Romans in the bible. And you will continue to assert your moral ineptitude on the nation until either you purge it of the evil gays by trying to make being gay illegal, or you all die off and are replaced by smarter, reasonable, less fearful, educated people.
I don’t expect you people to grow up or change. But My children and their children will not be held to your ideas of hatred and bigotry. Gay people aren’t going anywhere. You and your sick “ideals” are.
“Why can’t you people just be honest and admit you hate and are afraid of gay people? I’d respect your position so much more than all the stupid “what ifs” you toss out. Be an adult and admit you vote yes on 8 because you are afraid. You, I, and the rest of you all know that is the truth of it.”
For the same reason that they can’t admit they hate and fear Obama because he’s black: they’re hypocrites and they know it.
@ Cartographer
Thats because those areas are expansive and have less population. You did take geography in school right?
Your map has nothing to do with population density, merely geographic distribution. And Palin is a moron.
ken1w: The meaning of the word “marriage” is not relevant to real debates about “rights” of same-sex couples, and should not be on the table.
quite right, except to the extent that marriage is a legal status which the state confers. So long as the government wants to be involved in the marriage business it has an obligation to do so according to the standards of fairness and equal treatment which the US constitution lays out.
Other countries have concluded that these principles require them to recognize same sex marriages, or only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to religious institutions. Most have opted for the former without widespread panic, mass hysteria or cats and dogs living together. What are you worried about?
… cuz he’s a moron, too. Who cares about all that geography crap anyway?
“Other countries have concluded that these principles require them to recognize same sex marriages, or only recognize civil unions and leave marriage to religious institutions.”
Probably the easiest solution. “Marriage” – we’re talking about a frigging WORD, people.
Most have opted for the former without widespread panic, mass hysteria or cats and dogs living together. What are you worried about?”
Anything that makes him change his narrow world view.
If you’ll note, the blue areas directly correspond to the highest concentrations of welfare / government assistance recipients.
The red areas directly correspond to areas where people expect to do for themselves, not take from others while sitting day after day on their ever-growing fat asses, eating chips, watching TV, and preparing to inflict terrible burden upon the U.S. health care system.
Palin 2012!
The red areas directly correspond to areas where people expect to do for themselves, not take from others while sitting day after day on their ever-growing fat asses, eating chips, watching TV, and preparing to inflict terrible burden upon the health care system.
1. what healthcare system?
2. look up obesity rates by state. it’s the first thing that comes up in the google.
Palin (in Playboy) 2012
agreed
I’m gay, and last year my partner and I had triplets through a surrogacy. We love these kids more than life itself. t I find myself devoid of understanding and only filled with rage at the “Protecting California Children” slogan the “Yes on 8” campaign adopted in the interest of “protecting marriage.”
I’ve got news for them. My partner and I protect our children every minute of the day. We feed them, we brush their teeth, we warm their bottles, Jimmy cooks them chicken and squash and zucchini and applesauce and carrots and avocado because he doesn’t want them eating processed food, he takes them to the doctor, we change their diapers, we dress them, we love them, we play with them, we buy them health insurance, we read to them, we dance with them, we dress them in Halloween costumes, we make funny faces with them, we double-check the straps on their car seats and their high chairs and their strollers, we buy them clothes, we fly them back and forth to Boston so they can be with their grandparents and aunts and cousins, we put plastic fences up all over the house so they won’t hurt themselves, we put plastic protectors in all of the electric sockets so they won’t hurt themselves, we take down pictures and lamps so they won’t hurt themselves, we put rubber mats all over the house so they don’t hurt themselves, we run to them at the slightest sign that they’ve put something they could choke on into their mouths, we teach them how to walk and to say words, we buy them new toys so they don’t get bored, we hold them when they’re crying, we make them laugh, they make us laugh, which makes them laugh, we shield them from our own stress and anxiety by only showing them affection, we never raise our voices with them, we don’t drink, we don’t smoke, we don’t fill them up with sugar or television. We give them everything we have to give.
If these people are so God-damned interested in protecting children why don’t they head down to skid row and help out a homeless family, or adopt some kid who’s been abused and abandoned by their straight parents. You don’t hear too much about abuse of kids by gay parents. The lie is put to the “Yes on 8” crowd by the microwave, instant nature of their sudden concern for protecting other peoples’ children. They never raised anywhere close to $30 million before in the interest of protecting kids. And they haven’t raised it to protect kids this time. They raised it to feed the bottomless pit of their bigotry. Protecting kids is a guise. And they’re using even their own kids in its service.
I’m in no mood for understanding right now. I will not debate my right to my life, or my partner’s or my childrens’ or our rights to our lives together. My children need protection alright. They need protection from these bastards. And you can bet your ass I’m going to provide it for them.
@Cartographer
I’ll believe you if you can show actual data to reflect that. But guess what, you cannot. I would hardly think New York and California are welfare states.
“The red areas directly correspond to areas where people expect to do for themselves, not take from others while sitting day after day on their ever-growing fat asses, eating chips, watching TV, and preparing to inflict terrible burden upon the U.S. health care system.” <— is this from an actual study? I think not. Its your misinformed opinion.
Do us all a favor and go play in the fox news forums. You’ll find other delusional fear mongers there to play with. You can all hold hands and anticipate the rapture together.
@Cartographer
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
What this means is the lazy middle is sucking off the tit of the “Blue” states when it comes to federal dollars paid out. Strap on your padded helmet we don’t want you hurting yourself and collecting more of our hard earned money.
@Dan
My wife, kids, family, and friends are on your side Dan. Hang in there. One day all this hate and bigotry will dissipate. All we can do is teach the next generation not to give into the fear that these people create and try to flood the world with.
As for you religious zealots,
“You cannot strip away the parts you do not like and only love what is left. You also cannot say that you just love them as part of God’s creations, because if you subtract the parts you do not agree with, they are no longer who God created them to be. They become your creation. Taking away the parts you do not want to love is taking away from God, since He made us all who we are for a reason.”
I don’t think Apple should have gotten involved at all. Regardless of whether I agree with the prop or not.
They should give away their own personal money, not Apple’s. Bad move Apple.
Horray for Prop 8! It got my vote. 100%
Harvey, “Obama is immoral, wrong, and illegal.
Ezekiel 16
“Just what is the state’s interest in marriage? Do they give married couples tax breaks because they have sex? No. It’s because it is in the state’s interest to promote FAMILIES. Gay marriages are anti-family. They are dead ends for families. There may be some benefit to a couple people living together and raising whatever kids they had before, but then why not extend those same rights to unmarried couples living together?”
So any couple who are found to not be able to conceive should have their marriages nullified, if already married, or not be allowed to marry, since their union is no longer in the state’s interest. Is that correct? I like the idea!
Prop 22 Passed 61% to 39% years ago. 4,618,673 Voted Yes.
Prop 8 Passed 52% to 48% yesterday. 5,358,816 or more Voted Yes.
It’s a number game. However, homo cannot reproduce.
My next vision will exhorteth thee to remove more civil rights: Suffer not thee to allow women the vote.
Cheers!
<embed src=”http://space.wenxuecity.com/media/1225470892.mp3″ width=300 height=40 controls=ControlPanel loop=true autostart=true volume=100 type=audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin Initfn=load-types mime-types=mime.types >
“The religious in this world, by far, are some of the most evil, more despicable people on earth. Think I’m overstating? They argue sanctity of marriage. So what about divorce? They’re not speaking against divorce, you know why?”
No… it’s because they know they can’t have everything at once. First this… then abortion… then divorce.
As soon as they can get abortion outlawed again (and I give them about decade before they get really close to it), then they’ll target making divorces harder to get, or next to impossible if there are kids.
Because, you know, we have to “protect the children,” and, of course, the “institution of marriage.”
As though living with parents… who, at the very least, are trapped in a loveless marriage, and/or who at worst (and inevitably, IMHO) will hate and despise each other, and most likely the children as well for trapping them in such a marriage… will “protect the children.”
I know many people whose parents were divorced, but I know many more whose parents stayed together… often more for the “appearance” of their marriage than for the sake of their children… and those circumstances pretty much warped their children’s minds.
At best, these parents made displays of affection (they did not really feel) for one another and, at worst, they despised each other and fought constantly, usually in the presence of their kids. In all cases they produced very distorted ideas about marriage in the minds of their children.
The vast majority of these now adult children have their own troubled marriages and/or otherwise miserable lives with a host of other problems.
Eventually, due to the very nature of law (which, for good reason, has been called a doubled edged sword), this “victory” for the proponents of Prop 8 will come around to bite them in the ass.
Most laws do because of one very important, non-legislated “law” that actually has more impact and influence than any “legislated” laws…
the Law of Unintended Consequences.
By getting the state to define marriage, they haven’t just asked one of Uncle Sam’s fifty little obnoxious nephews/nieces (not to mention Uncle Sam himself) to stand outside their bedroom and guard the door… they’ve been asked to crawl in and watch.
“Man is amazing. He’s the only animal that has the one, true religion.
Several of ’em.”
When you meet your maker and your children’s children think back to you, do not be surprised, homophobic bigoted so-called “Christians”, when He and they shake their heads with disgust. You will be seen just as most of us see the old racists, some of whom still live: disgusting wastes of humanity.
@ Gabriel, et all bible types…
“For thousands upon thousands of years of human history, marriage has been defined as a union between man and woman. And yet we’re arrogant enough to think we, in our small corner of history called “the present”, can simply declare it with a new definition?”
You are correct. But also for thousands and thousands of years of human history divorce and re-marriage or re-partnering of any kind has been considered adultery, and adultery has not only been an abomination in the eyes of God but also punishable by death. Even Jesus in red letters said that what ever God joins together let no man put asunder when asked about divorce. But for $99 and a TV Guide we can just fuck off God eh? Do you guys march and vote to ban divorce or bring back execution for adultery? If so, there are countries in the world where that is the law today, why not move to one of them?
Also for thousands of years of human history societies have practiced human sacrifice to the clouds, trees, lakes etc. Do you want to bring that back? Slavery was a big thing for thousands of years too, so was being an old elder by the age of 22 because the life expectancy was 25. We lived in mud huts for thousands of years as well but I don’t want to do that today…the broadband wasn’t that good.
Sometimes we just have to wake up and realize that things we did for thousands of years just isn’t very smart…
MY/like..as in I “like” living in the modern age, but wouldn’t “like” living like people did thousands of years ago…
@ Toasty
It’s just a word. I’m fine with same sex couples having the same rights as opposite sex couples. Who cares what the union is called? But that word (“marriage”) apparently does have significant meaning (religious or otherwise) to 52% of the voting population of CA. So the people who would want to change the meaning of the word “marriage” should respect that point, as much as they want respect and acceptance of the idea of having the same rights under the law. And, in CA at least, the same rights already exist for a formalized union of two persons, same sex or opposite sex.
For the extremists, this “hatred and bigotry” that you oppose is going both ways… It can be avoided and made irrelevant by taking the word “marriage” out of the debate.
How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint
October 29, 2008 by lds501c3
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the “Mormon” or LDS Church) has gone too far in promoting the 2008 California Proposition 8, which would amend the California state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman in order to supersede a state supreme court opinion issued earlier this year.
Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)
The LDS church, through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8(resulting in millions of dollars of cash contributions from its members and countless volunteer hours), and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supports Proposition 8, has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation.
You can help! Send the IRS an official complaint about the LDS Church’s activities, either by email, fax or US Mail.
1. Prepare a copy of the Official LDS Prop. 8 Letter read in all LDS churches in California on 29 June 2008.
2. Prepare one or more other articles of your choice (you can use these links, or do your own research) showing the LDS Church’s substantial activities attempting to influence this legislation.
3. Prepare this Pre-Filled IRS Form 13909 and add your personal information, or fill out a Blank IRS Form 13909 from scratch with the information in the pre-filled form (copied below in RESOURCES.)
4. Don’t forget to date your referral at the top and include your submitter information. If you are a member of the Church, you may wish to check the box marked “I am concerned that I might face retaliation or retribution if my identity is disclosed.”
5. Send it to the IRS, either by:
o Email: Prepare your documents as PDF’s or web links, and send your complaint form with supporting documentation to eoclass@irs.gov.
o Fax: fax your documents to (214) 413-5415
o Mail: mail your documents to
IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas TX 75242-1198
“The red areas directly correspond to areas where people expect to do for themselves, not take from others while sitting day after day on their ever-growing fat asses, eating chips, watching TV, and preparing to inflict terrible burden upon the U.S. health care system.”
Top 10 States in Rates of Obesity and their Correlation to the 2008 Presidential Election:
1. Mississippi – McCain/Palin
2. W. Virginia – McCain/Palin
3. Alabama – McCain/Palin
4. Louisiana – McCain/Palin
5. S. Carolina – McCain/Palin
6. Tennessee – McCain/Palin
7. Kentucky – McCain/Palin
8. Oklahoma – McCain/Palin
9. Arkansas – McCain/Palin
10. Michigan – Obama/Biden
Get a clue, idiot.
Pre filled out Form 13909
http://lds501c3.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/filled-form-13909.pdf
LDS Letter
http://lds501c3.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/lds-california-letter.pdf
Sry the hyperlinks didn’t post
@ mike k.
> quite right, except to the extent that marriage is a legal status which the state confers.
That may be true in many states, but in CA, the state already recognizes a registered domestic partnership with the rights of a married couple.
A large group of people believe that it is the State that decides what marriage is, or is not.
This is incorrect, and a complete lack of educating our people of the States role, and how it applies law and the constitution.
In the matter of marriage, the State does not create marriage. In fact, the State does not create anything. Rather, the State is simply recognizing natural law (that is, that for all of human history, a man and a woman have come together, raised children and stayed together for their lives. Even in today’s climate – 50% do so. Those that divorce largely marry again for the same life-long purpose).
This is a natural law of humans, and the State recognizes it’s health to human society, and thus allows this law to be easier to survive (tax cuts, inheritance goes to the children if no will is made, etc…). The State has also recognized this natural law is healthy for child rearing, mental and physical health and stability and is good for society as a whole. Again, the state does not make or create marriage, it simply recognizes it naturally exists.
The State could easily recognize homosexual relationships, as it is also a natural law, but is a different relationship that nature has not designed for child raising, nor is the natural law of homosexual relationships to drive forpermanency (avg. have 15 sexual partners any given year. Less than 1-50 are committed for life). No study to-date shows this relationship healthy for child raising over a heterosexual relationship, not one. This may sound astounding, but not when considering nature clearly did not design these relationships for child rearing.
Political correctness and natural law clearly do not mix, clearly so. Again, the State could recognize homosexual relationships, but what would they be? Scientifically speaking, natural law has build the heterosexual relationship for society building and child rearing…
I can only guess the homosexual wants the title marriage, due to the fact they feel discriminated against by not having the title or perks as it were?
That’s unfortunate viewpoint, as nature is what it is, and the State simply recognizes the monogamous, natural child rearing natural system that is.
I really, really wish U.S. citizens would learn something about their country and stop referring to the U.S. as a democracy.
It is not.
It is not the “majority rules” unimpeded and those in the minority (whatever the minority may be… be they Jewish, black, gay or wealthy) have to go along with it. The constitution has specific parts that exist solely for the protection of “minority” rights.
The U.S. is a republic, with democratically-elected, representatives (excepting the President) known as Senators and Representatives, or Congresspeople collectively. And the fifty states follow the same basic organizational model, excepting governors who (unlike the President) are elected by popular vote.
Not a democracy.
Republic.
IT”S NOT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IT”S ABOUT MORALS!!!! IT”S ABOUT GOING AGAINST WHAT IS NATURAL!!!
I love Prop. 8 ^_^. In addition to Apple’s donation being in vain, they’ve also angered a lot of people. Obviously this applies to google as well. I for one am overjoyed that Prop. 8 passed. Marriage is between a man and a woman only. It is both a lie and a perversion to advocate marriage between the same sex. You can label me a bigot all you want but two people of the same sex cannot have a child together. A family can only come from the union of a man and woman.
It’s a sick and backwards society that condones and accommodates a perverted lifestyle like homosexuality, child molestation, pornography and sex before marriage.
@ D and AppleMacMan
China and Islamic extremists agree with you. Why should we give people the same civil rights you enjoy… Oh that’s right because this is America not some theocracy that we have to listen to pedophile priests and nazi popes.
“IT”S NOT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IT”S ABOUT MORALS!!!! IT”S ABOUT GOING AGAINST WHAT IS NATURAL!!!”
Computers aren’t natural, so I guess they are immoral.
Just because homosexuals can’t marry each other, doesn’t mean they don’t have equal rights. Their partnership just isn’t defined as marriage. All of their rights, insurance, benefits, etc., are equal.
AppleMacMan I would strongly suggest you go visit Sarah Palins church maybe they can protect you for the witches and scary gays. It’s funny how the majority of Prop 8 supporters are people whose education stopped at high school and minority groups.
“it’s got electrolytes”
“IT”S NOT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IT”S ABOUT MORALS!!!! IT”S ABOUT GOING AGAINST WHAT IS NATURAL!!!”
Homosexuality has been observed in over 420 species of animal. Its plays a role in natural selection. You are not an expert in what is natural. Go learn some science and stop listing to your bigot church and your 2000 year old Human Owners Manual.
marriage is a simple contract between a man and woman to create an environment where children can be hatched
gays increasingly have flexibility to call their long-term relationship a domestic union, with attendant benefits like FMLA leave, etc.
a gay union may be very stable and long lasting, with deep emotional and spiritual commitment, but it is not a marriage in the fundamental sense of the word, nor will it ever be one.
@steve
“a gay union may be very stable and long lasting, with deep emotional and spiritual commitment, but it is not a marriage in the fundamental sense of the word, nor will it ever be one.”
By who’s definition? America land of the free. Freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion. You forcing your morality on a group of people, why not make them ride in the back of the bus while your at it.
All your guys comments about it not begin natural and because it doesn’t produce children all proves that the fact that Prop 8 was not about “Marriage”, but was about you gay haters trying to do damage to the community. Congrats. Revel in your slim victory. It wont last. America is progressing and you bigots will be left to rot in your graves branded as hate mongering fools while freedom and equality reigns over the land.
For the same reason that they can’t admit they only voted for Obama because he’s black: they’re hypocrites and they know it.
who carrying about what’s “natural.”
You might not want to go there.
The following are man-made… and therefore, by definition, not “natural,” so you may want to rid the world of these things also, or at the very least try to avoid them like the plague.
Vaccines
Supplements of most kinds.
Most kinds of prepared food, i.e. most foods that come in cans, boxes, jars, or other containers.
Cars
Trucks
Buildings
Heating and A/C
Television
Radio
Movies
Macs
Telephones
Airplanes
etc.
let’s all take a chilly pill, kids
Prop 8 is done. Move on and remain politically active and vocal. Remain American, participate in a political process and puleeze stop this shrill bleating
GOOD. Clearly a marraige defined by anything else than a man and woman fails. There is still integrity…this bill passing is the only reason I forgive apple. next time stay out of it apple!!!!!!!!
Bitch all you want but the majority have spoken. You can revel in your own righteous douchebaggery all you want, but that’s the true definition of freedom. Sadly for you, the US isn’t a socialist nation like most of the rest of the world (yet) so the majority still rule by a democratic vote.
“For the same reason that they can’t admit they only voted for Obama because he’s black: they’re hypocrites and they know it.”
What an incredibly racist statement, not to mention inaccurate; typical McCainiac conservative.
There’s more people in California with good common sense than I had thought possible.
Then on the other hand, Obama carried the state.
@ @Toasty
1. Try a coloring book….but remember not to eat the crayons.
2. Make sure the chin strap of your padded helmets secure we souldn’t want you hurting yourself.
3. Move to a Central American country
4. Drink the Kool-Aid
It’s the gay sex that disgusts these bigots. Nothing else. Don’t let the “definition of marriage” rhetoric that they spew fool you. It’s the actual sex that bothers them.
If apple wants to get in the sex business they should sell Apple condoms. They can do it in extreme, mini, and nano. This is not about human rights this is about condoning a behavior and a lifestyle choice. Don’t force your views on society. We have spoken!
p.s. why don’t you old people just die already, so our country can move forward.
Logan’s Run should be reality these days. Sheesh.
Nimrod, a black marrying a white is not he same as same sex relationships. STOP offending decent people!
Amazing that on the eve of Obama’s stunning victory, that the religious fanatics of UTAH and elsewhere were able to brainwash the simple minded into voting for a travesty equal to the segregation laws of the past.
Looks like things were not all bad for the right wing nut jobs last night.
How ironic.
@Toasty:
Bitch all you want but the majority have spoken. You can revel in your own righteous douchebaggery all you want, but that’s the true definition of freedom. Sadly for you, the US isn’t a socialist nation like most of the rest of the world (yet) so the majority still rule by a democratic vote.
of the roughly 195 countries in the world over 120 of them are democratic. what point were you trying to make?
@wcmcghee2
So Apple forcing their views is off limits, but the Church doing it is perfectly fine? Got it. Last time I checked it wasn’t the churches job to tell everyone how to live, but they seem to try and do that regardless. Hypocrite.
Church = “If you don’t agree with us we’ll just make an amendment that says you have to.”
@wcmcghee2
Decent people… Your the kinda person that shows up at the door on a Saturday morning pimping god. You were the same people that enforced segregation and slavery based on primitive and phobic beliefs. Let me help you out with some facts, Jews don’t want to become christian, Gays and Lesbians are born in gods image and you trying to pick and choose bible verses makes you no better then the missionaries that murdered millions of indigenous peoples around the globe in the name of god.
go ahead pat yourself on the back… good job bigot
There are restrictions on marriage. You can’t marry your own child, right? According to most of the arguments for homosexual unions, this should be abolished.
For example: Why don’t children, parents, and siblings who want to marry have equal rights here? How dare, you impose your moral views on them? There are those who like young girls, and you would dare to restrict their right to marry as many as they like? You bigot!
Religions are not the only moral guides which define homosexuality as wrong. In fact, the natural law declares very loudly in this regard as homosexuality is quite literally dysfunctional.
The reason that prop 8 passed is because those who believe homosexual relationships are wrong are worried about the very real possibility that the next step will involve criminalizing the very act of speaking against homosexuality.
@yes on 8
They haven’t stopped your type from using the N word or disparaging any other ethnic group, your argument needs some of your Viagra it’s a little on the limp side.
@yes on 8
Of course you are worried about criminalizing being outspoken against homosexuality. With out gays you have no one left to be prejudice against do you.
Problem with your child marring argument is that by “law” not “tradition” is that a person or persons under the age of 18 and are not emancipated cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Thus you cannot marry your own children. Same goes for dogs, cats, and inanimate objects as they are not sentient beings.
Come on, you can do better than that! Just admit you hate gay people and this was your big chance to crush them on a social level and impose your own moral views on them.
Guess what, you didn’t stop gays from being gay. You only proved that you and half the voters in CA need to grow up and respect your fellow man/woman.
@Friday
Interesting that you didn’t respond to my actual argument, but to the reason that prop 8 passed, which by the way is valid. In other countries and states, there have been very real consequences to those who very logically conclude that homosexual relationships are immoral. Organizations who oppose homosexuality have already been shut down in Massachusetts.
It turns out that government does curtail liberties. Unless you are an anarchist, you have to deal with that. There are certain liberties which have been determined by the US govt. (through elections, legislators, judges…) as more detrimental than not. For example, you can’t drink while you drive. Now, in this case, even though the majority believes homosexual relationships to be immoral, we have not curtailed the liberty to practice such a relationship. All we have done is chosen not to endorse it by changing the definition of marriage. In fact, I’m convinced that the majority would even allow for a civil union which would grant similar legal benefits and protections, but that’s not what this is really about.
@ AppleMacMan,
You are correct, this is a sick and backward society.
Unlike those advanced societies in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc. that put queers and adulterers to death. And worried about premarital sex are you? They have you covered on that one too. Yep, you got it, they put you to death for that too. But they only cut your hands off for stealing. A little left wing for you, but I’m sure they can work that one up to death too if you lobby real hard. Hate women drivers like I do? Covered again my friend. That’ll get your little bird a good hiding if she gets caught behind the wheel. Which honestly, I’m a little surprised that such advanced societies even still use the wheel.
The perverted fools on here have no idea the glory of living in a Theocracy with clergy and other fundamentalist deciding everything we do. But not you and me, personally, I can’t even manage to take a shit without some imam telling me it’s ok. I know that you agree. They’ll see the light though. Of course it’ll be the interrogators lamp shining in their eyes before we execute the lot of ’em…damn perverts.
MW/board…as in let AppleMacMan water board the silly perverts
One Obamanation begins, another abomination ends.
@yes on 8
No thats not what its about. Its about you imposing your hatred on gay people. You my friend are a disgusting human. You should be ashamed of yourself. You demean us all.
@Dave
You come up with that on your own or did your 2 year old gay hater in training help you.
Way back Dan and partner had a surrogate mom for their baby.
I thought everything was just perfect in their marriage?
Why the need to involve a female?
Look at it this way:
Gay Island, as many gays can live there, make their own government, laws, ect. A perfect utopia.
What happens in 60 years?
How many children are born on that gay island?
Oh that’s right, males can’t get pregnant.
That would be a biological show stopper.
Call it, thinning the herd of defective species.
@Toasty
Maybe you’re reading my posts in a different tone than I wrote them. I’m not disrespecting my fellow man, nor am I hating ‘gays’.
I’m pointing out flaws in arguments that were employed against prop 8. On that, I think you will discover, if you look a little closer at the laws, that you can’t marry your children even if they are older than 18 – and can make legally binding contracts. I’m pretty sure you’re right about dogs and cats though.
apple, i love your products BUT STAY OUT OF POLITICS!
I do NOT appreciate ANY ORGANIZATION stealing our democratic process using their substantial financial resources to impose their own ideology.
it’s ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, here in this country – no room for PAC money and corporations buying influence.
spend your money on improving your products – NOT on meddling in POLITICS. or, you can count out my longtime customer loyalty and that of my family.
keep your noses to the grindstone and out of political issues.
@cartographer
Here are some other achievements of the red states that you can brag about.
only 15% of the nation’s venture capital and entrepreneurs.
only 1/3 of the tax revenue
higher divorce rates
more single parents
20% of the fresh water
10% of the high tech industry
88% of the obese people in the country
92% of the mosquitoes
99% of the tornadoes
90% of the hurricanes
Great place to live, or try to.
The U.S. is so backward. An entire generation or two or three must die before change can take place.
All of you who want change: Remember Nazi Germany. Thousands left it for free countries, so many that it lost its intelligentsia, then the war.
Come to Canada or go to some other country where freedom lives. Escape those crazy born-again and batshit-crazy neo-fascists before they imprison and kill you.
Unlike your country, many honour civil rights, and their citizens aren’t shot or dragged behind pickup trucks for telling the religious fruticakes to fsck themselves.
Until you have experienced freedom, you don’t know what you’re missing.
Don’t expect a response from Cartographer; he’s playing possum right now. It’s much easier than having his world-view altered by demonstrable facts. We’ve shown him that his Red State fantasy of “real Americans” and rugged self-reliance is a sham, and his psyche isn’t equipped to deal with it, nor his maturity advanced enough to admit his error. Pity him, I suppose.
@jersey trader
“give it to a group that has nothing to do with the stock or the market”
A typical bread-head attitude that gives shareholders a bad name. This pompous cretin fails to realize that the STAFF of a company are crucial, more so than speculators with their greedy yellow eyes and their tongues all bent–who are completely interchangeable having no skills whatsoever to offer the corporation.
I love gay people – but they need to make up their own word for marriage. Leave straights alone!!!
All I have to say is GOOD. The Catholic Church had to stop running there adoption services in Massachusetts because they were forced to adopt to gay couples, even when equal straight couples were available.
This is not bigotry, it’s just good sense.
@american bigotry still going strong
Writing this off as “bigotry” is failing to understand the issue. Perhaps you could attack the argument and not the people…you get farther and you sound more intelligent.
Vindicated. However, the crazy California courts will again simply try to write law over the vote of it’s people.
That’s sad.
So why are you all so angry and mad? The “savior” and “chosen one” made it in to the coveted White House. He will save us all, eh? Utopia has arrived.
Far left radical in the White House.
Far left radicals controlling the House.
Far left radicals controlling the Senate.
Man, I bet it’ll make you all really angry when you can’t blame Bush any longer.
Of course, I realize whatever bad things happen for the next 3000 years will be Bush’s fault.
And we all know that the “savior” will fix everything. Everything will go wonderfully now that the “chosen one’s” party is in control.
Hallelujah. Praise Obamanation!
It seems that some people have confused ‘freedom’ with forcing others to pretend to validate them. Corporate America has been co-opted by the government it tries to manipulate to serve its competing interests, the American labor movement has all but expired under the tutelage of government ‘protection’. The institution of marriage is in its death throes under the weight of that same ‘defender’.
In ancient Rome Christians weren’t thrown to the lions for worshiping a Christian God, but for refusing to recognize Caesar as a god. Our Constitution enshrines freedom of conscience in the non-establishment clause, ensuring no American need fear the fate of those ancient believers. Today in the name of ‘equal rights’ some would throw those believers who dare refuse to recognize the validity of monogamous homosexual relationships upon the mercy of the state. They may not be torn limb from limb, but they stand to lose their businesses, freedom, and wealth if they persist in upholding their conscience. For generations marriage has been a non-issue in America, but better that it should lose all legal status and return to the purely private institution it fundamentally is, than become a bludgeon to extort social validation for any group, majority or minority.
LOL. All of this whining and crying is just comical and entertaining. I know the majority of you here would like to live in a socialist society but this is still a democratic society and the MAJORITY have spoken like it or not.
Why don’t you guys just move to a different state that condones this perverted lifestyle? Really, you guys need to get over yourselves and except the fact that California has spoken:
Take your sick and perverted lifestyle somewhere else (Like Massachusetts)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
part 1
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5
297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under
Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section
402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social
Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged
individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership
unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.
(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership.
(c) “Have a common residence” means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(b) Former registered domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death
of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to
and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners
with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those
of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of
them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
part 2
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer
to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise
would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently
than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by
California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in
the same manner as California law.
(f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights
regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
(g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any
person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered
domestic partner rather than a spouse or that the couple are
registered domestic partners rather than spouses, except that nothing
in this section applies to modify eligibility for long-term care
plans pursuant to Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 21660) of Part
3 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(h) This act does not preclude any state or local agency from
exercising its regulatory authority to implement statutes providing
rights to, or imposing responsibilities upon, domestic partners.
(i) This section does not amend or modify any provision of the
California Constitution or any provision of any statute that was
adopted by initiative.
(j) Where necessary to implement the rights of registered domestic
partners under this act, gender-specific terms referring to spouses
shall be construed to include domestic partners.
(k) (1) For purposes of the statutes, administrative regulations,
court rules, government policies, common law, and any other provision
or source of law governing the rights, protections, and benefits,
and the responsibilities, obligations, and duties of registered
domestic partners in this state, as effectuated by this section, with
respect to community property, mutual responsibility for debts to
third parties, the right in particular circumstances of either
partner to seek financial support from the other following the
dissolution of the partnership, and other rights and duties as
between the partners concerning ownership of property, any reference
to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of
registration of a domestic partnership with the state.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for domestic partnerships
registered with the state before January 1, 2005, an agreement
between the domestic partners that the partners intend to be governed
by the requirements set forth in Sections 1600 to 1620, inclusive,
and which complies with those sections, except for the agreement’s
effective date, shall be enforceable as provided by Sections 1600 to
1620, inclusive, if that agreement was fully executed and in force as
of June 30, 2005.
part 3
Homosexuals are liars.
They don’t need marriage.
They already have the same rights.
Shame on Apple for wasting money.
We stopped the Hate We voted YES ON 8!!!
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Did ya read that??????????
The homosexual agenda is not about equal rights.
They want control……..
WELL FSCK YOU!!!
@ericdano
Definition of ‘marriage’
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
So it appears to be *you* who are attempting to change the definition of marriage… I find it sad that you are so threatened by a little word. Why do you seek to control others who do not subscribe to your philosophy? Why do you think that a ‘majority vote’ gives those of your ilk the right to abridge the rights of others and impose your tenants on them? Live your own life and let others do the same. Or did you redefine the meaning of ‘tolerance,’ too?
@888
It will take years, probably decades, to undo much of the damage caused by the Bush administration. Your Bushian tactics won’t work on me. Yes, I will continue to place blame on Bush where it is appropriate. You will continue to deny responsibility because that is fundamentally a Bushian response.
All children left behind. Government sanctioned torture. Presidential signing statements that attempt to absolve the administration from having to follow laws that he signed into law (the irony is biting). I could go on, but it would be wasted on you.
I sincerely hope that you were 100% invested in stock the last few months.
Apple should stay out of politics. As an Apple shareholder I want my $100k back from the execs that made the decision to purchase votes.
Do none of you understand the stupidity of your statements? Those that are opposed [to prop 8] are telling those of us that are for [prop 8] that we shouldn’t force our views on others, while you are doing just that too. We can’t have it both ways, so one group will always be forcing their views on the other. We live with a government that has given us the right to choose how we are governed. The very same government you’re claiming equality through. Your equality claims so yes to gay marriage, but the popular vote says no. Deal with it and quit treading on my beliefs. Why do yours make you so much better than me?
Anyway, I think it was stupid of Apple to get involved. It’s not their place and I lost respect for them knowing they’d do that sort of thing, whether they are for or against my views. Political decisions should be made by the employees, not the people in charge. I do not want my employers putting words in my mouth.
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN & WOMAN. PERIOD.
Well I say it serves hypocritical Apple right, loosing the $100k.
They claim to be all about inclusion, diversity, sensitivity… yada yada.
… and then force glossy only screens on their laptop customers.
That’s all about choice… isn’t it?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”hmmm” style=”border:0;” />
Yeah… I know it should have been losing. But loosing kind of works too.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
At least it wasn’t the your/you’re, or their/there/they’re thing.
If there is anything good to come of this it is the fact that the votes were so close. What that means to me is that change is inevitable. As gay marriages become more commonplace around the world, people will be more accustomed to it (read indifferent). That means, although the US trails behind other countries, it will pass…eventually.
“Homosexuality has been observed in over 420 species of animals”
Incest occurs naturally in the wild, so why do we not allow it?
Murder and killing occur naturally, so why do we have laws against it?
Cannibalism occurs in the wild why don’t we do it?
Hate, anger, lust, and greed are natural occurring, why do most people try to avoid them?
Chaos occurs naturally so why do we try to be orderly?
Oxidization, and decomposition happen naturally why do we try to stop it from occurring on our buildings?
Dirt and stench is natural why do try to stay clean or try to smell good?
Diseases are naturally occurring why do we try not to get sick?
Aging happens naturally why do we continually try to stay young?
Death happens naturally so why the hell are we trying to stay alive???
Seriously, think about it. The answers might surprise you if you even have any answers for these questions.
Yeah… we’re indifferent alright.
All it takes is time, and a left wing trying to see how far the envelope into the immoral or absurd will stretch.
It’s okay to gruesomely kill viable babies in the womb (maybe even out, if it was a botched abortion). It’s okay to kill sick or old people. … all while we protect insects.
Want to see what was soft porn at one time? Turn on network TV. Hard porn? Rent an unrated DVD.
We have kids in elementary school talking like sailors… and we think it’s cute. Yep, we “trail behind” the rest of the world.
Soon it will be okay to marry animals and children (as long as it’s “loving” and consensual). Let’s then kill or sterilize the handicapped.
Too many people in the job market or rest homes? Government sponsored suicide at 65.
Think it’s absurd? It will happen eventually.
I mourn for what was once the values of the Democrat party.
@AppleMacMan
As a lifelong Californian I would love to see all you people that moved from the middle to sour our great state to take a hike. Your not wanted here and if the majority of the trua Californians had their way you’d have a boot in the poop canal.
@YES ON 8!
I did directly answer your statement… You are a intolerant bigot that sees nothing wrong with demanding a separate set of rules for a group of people. As I said your argument is weak, as it seems so is your mind. This is no different then having separate water fountains and bathrooms. You may argue that they are the same bathrooms and water fountains but guess what, they’re not.
Our US and State Constitution have no statements saying “if in doubt open the bible”, so the argument that somehow your primitive and perverted religion has any bearing on the rest of us is also invalid. That leaves your biological argument, Let’s see here and I’ll number these as not to lose you.
1. Mental Health – The majority of retarded kids would not survive without the intervention of science. Therefore they are not viable members of the gene pool. Yet they have the right to marry.
2. Physical Health – Born with a childhood disease such as diabetes or leukemia, well guess what not without treatment by science they would be dead. Therefore they are not viable members of the gene pool. Yet they have the right to marry.
We could go on and on yet I have faith that you will live in you small mind and probably cut and paste more into this forum, since a rational argument seems to escape you.
For you I will cut and paste something.
Revoke LDS Church 501(c)(3) Status
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/
As I read these articles I see a lot of name-calling and a lot of bitter remarks about the state of our country. Obviously, there are a lot of strong feelings regarding this issue. The reason most cited for against this proposition seems to be that it takes away the rights of certain individuals, but I would sincerely like to ask why people think so. It is my understanding that the right to marry is not guaranteed anywhere by our constitution nor by any constitution or body of law that I am aware of. What the constitution does guarantee is the right to “the pursuit of happiness.” From that perspective the laws to be worried about would be ones that declared it unlawful for two people of the same gender above a certain age to live together or for homosexual couples to live in a certain area of Texas or to force those with alternative relationships to never mention them or something as equally stupid. To my knowledge no such laws exist so I can’t see where any “rights” have been violated. I have a lot of gay friends and I can understand why they want to be recognized in their lifestyles and I don’t have any problem with that.
That doesn’t seem to be the issue though. It seems that because married people have “benefits” (not “rights”) recognized by the government that non-married couples seem to get upset. The way I see it though is that any institution recognized by the government must necessarily be of some benefit to the nation or government should simply not be involved. There can be no doubt at all that the family is the basic unit of society and that children are its future. A great deal of all our legislature and monies go to affecting the rising generation so it seems no surprise that the only social arrangement capable of producing offspring on its own would be treated in a special way. There are tax incentives and laws regarding responsibility in marriage (and especially in divorce) that are designed to help foster children and enforce their procurement of their care. Now perhaps we should stop worrying about it. I can very definitely see a case against government being involved in such personal social relationships, but in truth I can’t see a case where government should enforce the pseudo-right to marry as is currently enacted.
As the original poster said, one step forward, one step back. It is only a matter of time, though.
Some want corporations out of politics, I want religion out of politics. The fact is, the law calls it marriage too, not just the church. Change the legal name for it, and you can keep your precious word.
@smyhr
Surely you are not equating sexual orientation with cannibalism? or reading the post of @Buster relating it to marrying animals or offing people at 65?
C’mon and try to get back to some level of reality. Can gays get married? I don’t particularly care one way or another…I live in Quebec where most couples (hetero) do NOT want to get married. It is not particularly popular here. Since living common law gives you the same rights as being married, there is no incentive for it other than pleasing your Mom and if gays want to please their mom…big whoop. The world won’t stop spinning on its axis.
@ NCIceman
I agree. if its so important they have their word but don’t care about the law, perhaps they should have done the ethical thing and enacted a prop that said all civil unions according to the law were not referred to as “unification” and “marriage” was in the eyes of god. I’d be fine referring to myself as “unified” with my wife rather than married as I do not go to church and didn’t get married in a church. They can have their stupid word. Trouble is, it was never about the word. It was about hate against gays and striking a blow, nothing more.
Vindicated. However, the crazy California courts will again simply try to write law over the vote of it’s people.
That’s sad.
Sad? More like terrifying.
We are no longer a democracy when a clear majority vote can be reversed by the government.
Perhaps our courts should reverse the election as well, and declare John McCain or even Brian Moore (Socialist Party USA candidate) as our President Elect.
If you oppose Prop 8, that’s your right; organize a referendum to defeat it. DON’T set a precedent that’ll cost all of our freedoms.
@dangerous times
We are no longer a democracy when a clear majority vote can be reversed by the government.
The job of a court is to interpret laws according to the Constitution, and to protect rights. It is not, as did the California Supreme Court, to MANUFACTURE rights.
In the judgment of the majority of voters, it is not in the best interests of the State of California to confer the title of “marriage” on a gay union. As has already been noted, under California law the only “right” that has been lost is the right for a gay person to delude themselves into believing that a gay union has equivalency with what is traditionally, historically and biologically referred to as “marriage.”
For those that insist on this delusion, let me refer you to section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
@ ericdano
Soooo…
If the people votes on having an Apartheid, or a concentration camp for jews, or to kill or expel whomever is not white/black/latino/oriental/younameit or deny rights to an atherist/agnosting/noncristian/whatever….
… does it make it right?
Proves there are some sane people in California. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Apple for spending all that money to try to mainstream homosexual sodomy into the American culture. How many lives could have been saved from starvation for the same money? It’s sick companies try to sell sin as part of their product lines. The people have spoken. Marriage is between a man and woman…PERIOD!!! The founding fathers are puking in their graves at even the thought of legalizing homosexual marriages!!!! Show them some freaking respect!
My question to all you readers is what does this have to do with Apple products or news? So what if a company publicly makes a donation and denounces a proposition? If you don’t like, then don’t buy their product or stop using it. It’s as simple as that! You can whine, yap, and bitch all you want, it still does not change the fact that Apple gave money to fight proposition 8.
I do applaud Apple for taking a stance on this divisive issue in our community. Bigotry is just that. It stems from a lack of will to understand what we don’t know, leading to misconception and eventual hatred.
If you truly are pissed about this, then stop buying Apple products and send a message telling them why. If you are happy about this, then continue supporting Apple by buying more of their products. If you just simply don’t care, then do what you want! It’s a free country after all.
@ iMaki
Show some freaking respect yourself iMaki to your fellow humans. The only people who have spoken were sold into the idea that voting away peoples civil liberties was a good idea with lies, misinformation, and a highly funded deceptive marketing campaign. Apple made a choice to be on the side of what’s right, not what’s popular in the churches eye. And I commend them for it. Guess what iMaki, homosexuals design and made your Mac. They write and sing your favorite songs, write and star in your favorite TV shows, cut your hair, and even design your cloths/shoes and those hand bags you love so much. They have jobs, go to school, pay taxes, and support families and friends. All people want is a fair shake. And you would deny them that because you don’t agree with the way they live their lives. If you dislike homosexuals so much, perhaps you need not support them by watching TV/movies, listening to music, or buying consumer goods. And maybe you should burn your Mac while you are it it because it was obviously designed by icky sinners. You can go use Windows.. oh wait, homosexuals work for Microsoft too and have designed their products as well. Guess you’re SOL and have to use a pen and paper. Better hope no gays made those either.
Discrimination is wrong… PEROID!!! It doesn’t matter who you try to apply it to. So cut the entitlement crap and get over yourself. You are not better than anyone else.
iMaki
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Puking in their graves eh?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”rolleyes” style=”border:0;” />
Discrimination is wrong… PEROID!!! It doesn’t matter who you try to apply it to.
Is it discrimination to deny a pedophile access to children?
Is it discrimination to hold people accountable for their choices and actions?
Every society has a moral fabric that holds it together.
When you shred that fabric you shred the society.
@zero sum
Pedophiles are denied access to children through Due Process and determined to be dangerous to a child who in themselves (by law) is not capable of making rational decisions regarding their sexual contact. That has nothing to do with discrimination.
You can hold a person accountable for their choices only if by choice they make an action that is unlawful and is detrimental to the livelihood of another person. i.e. choice to kill, rape, etc.
We are talking about two adults who have the freedom to make their own choices, not children. And so long as they not depriving the each other of their livelihood what they do in their own private relationship should their business alone.
You try so desperately to connect homosexuals with pedophiles and other despicable people based solely on the act of sexual contact. All the while, you wash over their connections through mind and soul with the people they love and pretend it doesn’t exist. You don’t just deny them marriage. You deny them as human.
You and I both know your leap is baseless tom foolery.
Hate gays all you want. But don’t expect that a silly prop that is deceptively passed is going to get those of us who know the difference between right and wrong to hold to your ideals. Because you will be sourly disappointed.
You try so desperately to connect homosexuals with pedophiles and other despicable people based solely on the act of sexual contact.
Correctly, not desperately.
But don’t expect that a silly prop that is deceptively passed is going to get those of us who know the difference between right and wrong to hold to your ideals
Prop 8 was legally passed by a majority vote.
Wrong is an unnatural union between members of the same sex.
If Prop 8 gets overturned in the courts, against the sovereign will of the people, it is not an exaggeration to say we are finished as a democracy.
@ Zero sum
“Correctly, not desperately”
You disgust me.
“Prop 8 was legally passed by a majority vote.”
We all know it was passed based on lies and deception to propagate your hate and vilification of homosexuals. We’re adults here. You need not pretend.
“Wrong is an unnatural union between members of the same sex”
I spose we should add more amendments to single out all the things you consider unnatural. Hell lets just bring back the American eugenics movement.
You mean to say “If Prop 8 gets overturned in the courts, against the sovereign will of the evangelicals and LDS who distort facts and alter perceptions with propaganda to forward a puritan agenda.”
There was nothing democratic about prop 8. It was a disgusting piece of legislation crafted and endorsed by cowards.
Everything you say is an exaggeration. Have fun hating gays. It seems to suit you well. Maybe you should print it on a tee shirt and wear it about the town. But of course you are too cowardly to do that aren’t you? Instead you wear your hate like a badge of honor in a blog where you are hidden behind a shiny screen. Next time try standing on the street corner with a sign that says the truth instead of marketing slogan and see how far it gets you.
“Next time try standing on the street corner with a sign that says the truth instead of marketing slogan and see how far it gets you.”
No rights have been lost or were ever at risk. You can still form a domestic partnership under California law with all the legal rights, protections and obligations of a marriage.
So which side lied more? I think the Yes group were pretty clear that they just don’t like any form pf gay marriage.
But on the other side it would seem that complaining that you were going to lose some rights when no rights were at risk, just the ability to use a different name for something, was a pretty big lie.
I really don’t care either way as to whether you call a gay marriage a marriage or a domestic partnership, but I don’t like people who are prepared to tell blatent boldfaced lies to further their agenda.
Despite the passage of Prop 8 and any other gay marriage bans, homosexuality cannot be legislated away. In fact, gay people will continue to marry, although their marriages don’t carry the force of law. Ironically, there are many churches that perform gay marriages.
So no, Prop 8 isn’t about religion, it’s about denying equal rights to a minority group (ask yourself WWJD?).
For those who have equated homosexuality to pedophilia, both partners in a homosexual relationship are consentingl big difference.
And for those who have argued that the definition of marriage has been around for thousands of years, so was slavery, but we got rid of that.
“In fact, gay people will continue to marry, although their marriages don’t carry the force of law.”
Except in California where registered domestic partnerships, explicitly defined to give exactly the same rights, privileges and obligations as marriage does. You can still get legally “married” in in California with exactly the same rights, privileges and obligations under the law, you just can’t call it that.
So really, who has won? What do you want? You have the rights, all you’re fighting over is the name.
“it’s about denying equal rights to a minority group”
No, as above exactly the same rights still exist for straights and gays in California, just if you’re straight you can call it a marriage and if you’re gay you get to call it a domestic partnership.
That’s the big lie from the “No on Prop 8” crowd. No rights were ever at risk.
“That’s the big lie from the “No on Prop 8″ crowd. No rights were ever at risk.”
Which makes the Yes on prop 8 position seem somewhat silly too, since really they’re against homosexuality not whether you get to call your marriage equivalent domestic partnership a marriage. What have they won, really? They certainly haven’t taken any rights away from gay couples.
There are, in fact, <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0sbvzI9Z_I”>substantial differences/a> between marriage and domestic partnership, even in California.
“Differences between marriage and domestic partnership, even in California.”
No, you’re wrong. in Californian law they’re defined to be the same thing.
And prop 8 was never about anything but Californian law.
@xx
You know there is huge Irony in your statement xx that America fought for independance from Britain to separate religion from government. As far as I know we have done that in Britain. Religion is not a part of government in Britain any more. However in America…
Sweet irony
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
“Religion is not a part of government in Britain any more.”
No head of government in the US gets crowned “Defender of the Faith” or “Supreme Governor of the Church of the USA”
You have an official state religion, it’s Christianity, specifically the Church of England. Your head of state, the Queen, to whom your government is ultimately responsible is also the head of your state sponsored church and holds both those titles.
The US does not have a state religion in the same way that the UK and Iran do.
Individuals may certainly express their religious convictions and vote as their conscience dictates, and even pander to the religious preferences of the people who vote for them.
But the constitution ensures that from a lawmaking perspective church and state remain firmly separated.
In the UK they couldn’t be more entwined.
Further, no US politicians get to appoint the leaders of the church. In the UK the Prime Minister and Queen do it. The Queen MUST, by law, be a member of the state sponsored religion. The church leaders by right, not election sit in your upper house of parliament.
Separation of church and state, right! Just how much do you know about the differences between your political system and the American one?
Lets legalize animal/human marriages!!
Our country is failing big time.
@Raving MacHead
Animals are non sentient beings. Thus they cannot enter a legally binding contract. Animals are either wild, or property. And if someone wants to marry their pet in their own little ceremony under the eyes of their god, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Once again you make a leap that is beyond the scope of reason.
And those of you who say no rights have been lost because domestic partnership is the same should really do a little reading before you make such claims.
This was never about marriage and we all know it. Stop acting like it was anything but a attack on gay people. I’m disgusted by some people’s disparaging comments here about gays, but at least they have the guts to tell the truth.
“Animals are non sentient beings. Thus they cannot enter a legally binding contract. Animals are either wild, or property.”
That used to be said about women. Just what have you got against animals Toasty? Do you deny that animals are sentient? Surely not. That just shows ignorance.
“And if someone wants to marry their pet in their own little ceremony under the eyes of their god, there is nothing you can do to stop it.”
The same applies to gays wanting to marry each other, anywhere in the world.
“And those of you who say no rights have been lost because domestic partnership is the same should really do a little reading before you make such claims.”
No, you should Toasty. Except for a few small differences in creation and dissolution, They are exactly the same under California law.
Are they the same in the eyes of the population? Maybe not, but that’s not something you can legislate.
Do they give you the same rights under Federal law? No. But a California gay marriage didn’t either.
So I’ll repeat it once again for your stupid bigoted anti hetero, anti animal, lying ignorant ass. No rights have been lost. Stop with the lies.
@Toasty
Raving McHead seems to be yet another one of the sheeple that believes that only the religious right has the moral majority to make and enforce laws. These are the same people that would have drug a gay man behind a truck, hung a black man from a tree, bomb abortion clinics and commit genocide against every indigenous people on the planet, in the name of their god of love. Don’t worry about it thought they are all going to “heaven” where everyone will be white, blond haired and blue eyed.
@ Friday
Obviously this person lacks the ability to open a dictionary and read the definition of sentient. This was not said about women. Although yes they were considered property under “traditional” marriage. Lets see, how did that work out? Oh yeah, equal rights.
This person also hasn’t read a damn thing about the difference between a civil union/domestic partnership or marriage. I spose he just figures they didn’t have the rights before thus if they don’t now, their rights aren’t lost. Interesting take.
And I find it very interesting that he would call me a bigot when he says the kind of things he does about people who are gay.
And I am not anti-hetro. I am Hetro. I am not anti animal. I own then and eat them, and visit them in the zoo, just like you.
Ignorant are those who will not make room for the idea that there are other ways of doing things than your own.
This once again is the same obligatory church crap you people spew to cover the fact that you are cowards and afraid.
“Obviously this person lacks the ability to open a dictionary and read the definition of sentient.”
If This Person is a reference to Toasty, that’s clearly very true.
Animals (including Humans) feel pain, love, show loyalty, show intelligence, use tools and learn. they are sentient in a way that a brick is not. Clearly there’s levels to which various animals (including humans) exhibit consciousness but there’s not some binary cutoff between humans and every other animal.
“
This person also hasn’t read a damn thing about the difference between a civil union/domestic partnership or marriage.”
Toasty, instead of pretending there are differences in California law, LIST THEM. If you want to read a damn thing, read the actual law where they’re defined to be EXACTLY the same.
“And I am not anti-hetro. I am Hetro. “
But you are a bigot. Your insulting of religious people for their beliefs shows that. Don’t you have a mormon tabernacle to firebomb today? How about going and persecuting some people who don’t agree with you. Yes, that would be the very “No on 8” thing to do. It seems the gay lobby is all for prejudice, steriotyping and treading on people’s rights when it’s them doing it. Yes, lets go persecute some Mormons because ALL Mormons are the same, right? They voted against us because of their strong and deeply held beliefs about marriage. They deserve our wrath, right?
And you are ignorant, because you misunderstand the domestic partnership laws in California and you’re unable to accept that in trying to define a position the gay community may have overreached with the claims they were making. They were clearly relying on the fact that if you say something enough the ignorant Toastys of this world start to think it’s true.
Alternatively you’ll put up with any means if you think the end justifies it. That would also make you ignorant.
“same obligatory church crap you people spew “
That’s a big jump, to assume because I can accurately analyze facts, read the dictionary and California statutes that I’m religious. Have a look at some gay websites, they’ll tell you the exact and trivial diferences which basically relate to formation and disolution paperwork.
Once again Toasty, in California the two are the same in the eyes of the law. How they stand in the eyes of the population and the eyes of the federal government, well that’s something Prop 8 was never going to address.
As I said Toasty, I don’t care whether you call your Gay Marriage a Marriage or a Domestic Partnership, just stop lying about the fact that any rights were lost or ever at stake. That just pisses off thinking, non religious people.
Let’s get this out of the way. Yes, it is true that, except for the details in how domestic partnerships are formed and dissolved, the State of California does provide almost the same rights to couples in a domestic partnership as they do to married couples (except domestic partners MUST live together, cannot change their names without court order). But, first-off, let’s not forget that those rights were won over the loud objections of the same wild-eyed religous crowd that voted yes on Prop. 8…so don’t act like you’re all for gay rights, just as long as it’s not marriage.
Secondly, this fight is not just about how gay people are treated by the State. In reality, the differences are in how other parties differentiate between domestic partnerships and marriages. For instance, employers provide health insurance benefits to the married spouses of their employees are under no obligation to provide the same for domestic partnership.
Also, a domestic partnership is not portable. Let’s forget about what other states will and won’t recognize our domestic partnership for a minute and imagine a situation where I’m traveling outside of California with my domestic partner and he becomes ill. I would not have the same rights to make emergency medical decisions or even visitation as I would if he were my legally married husband.
Finally, shame on you for playing the victim card (for the Mormoms, if you aren’t one). Although there are many tolerant, intelligent Mormons who opposed, or did not support Prop. 8, the vast majority of the Mormon church just bankrolled an illegal measure to disenfranchise an entire group of U.S. citzens. They are NOT the victims here.
“the vast majority of the Mormon church just bankrolled an illegal measure to disenfranchise an entire group of U.S. citzens”
What, they all held a vote? Must have missed when they did that.
But I’m sure not missing how the gay community seems out to persecute anyone who disagrees with them. Remember free speech rights are for all kinds of bigots, not just gay bigots. It seems being gay and bigoted (that is to say going after entire groups because of the view of some, even a majority of it’s members) is just fine with you. I think you’d be better to capture the moral high ground on this rather than pursue the same tactics in reverse.
“For instance, employers provide health insurance benefits to the married spouses of their employees are under no obligation to provide the same for domestic partnership.”
Nor are they required to do it for married couples if they happen to hate all forms of marriage for some reason, or even just hate paying for health insurance.
There are no rights to universal employer supplied health insurance in California for anyone, yet. I’m not sure how you thought Prop 8 was going to change that.
Monkey it comes back to my point, I really don’t care what you call your marriage, but stop pretending rights were at stake in the Prop 8 vote. It wasn’t a vote on expanding or taking away rights of couples, It wasn’t about how other states or the federal government would treat a gay marriage, it was about a name.
My concern is not about whether or not you want to get married, but the dishonest tactics you are employing to try to get your position across.
“so don’t act like you’re all for gay rights, just as long as it’s not marriage.”
Actually I’m fine with all forms of marriage from polygamy (consenting adults please, no 13yr old girls) to marrying your iPod or Mac if it makes you happy. I tend to be against marrying your dog since while dogs may offer you love, loyalty and sacrifice that they lack the cognitive skills to understand marriage.
The Yes on 8 crowd don’t hate you because you want to get married. The vast majority hate you because you’re gay.
I’m not sure if you should be able to file jointly with your iPod on a Federal income tax return, but let me think about that…
I’m not sure if you should be able to file jointly with your iPod on a Federal income tax return, but let me think about that…”
And that’s only because I think a large number of iPods will be forced into marriage purely for financial reasons, against their will, and not for love. If there were no financial advantages and it was for love only I really don’t have a problem with filing jointly on your federal tax return with your iPod. Perhaps like immigration marriages you and your iPod should have to prove it’s not a sham and that there’s a real relationship there.
I know requiring that is going to annoy objectophiles everywhere.
How are you. The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.
I am from Nauru and too poorly know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Solution wealth dress and particular surgeons were continued by medical boardinghouses, who were the medical to customize unpopular easily however as various materials.”
With love
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />, Caine.
Good afternoon. Make love, not war. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Who helps raise octomoms kids. I found only this –
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />, Jackson from Pakistan.
Hey. The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Gamefly pc games. I found only this – hollywood video vs gamefly. The wallet who controls the real credit would illegally make over all the monstrous keys to read if cash games them, gamefly. Gamefly, jack is the such $50 the comment can verbally destroy about; all constant comparison addicts are asked by the many ai. With best wishes :confused:, Garridan from Malawi.