When you tell the truth you do not have to remember what you said later. (like was said above)

This will make your life and relationships less complicated and does build trust as others have said.
I also agree with other posters that the truth should be told with care and compassion when the subject is sensetive.

It made sense to me boo2u.

Religion making sex a sin unless the participants agree to their agenda... demonizing love among lovers... stigmatizing certain kinds of love that does not fit their pre-definition... is all a cause of the dysfunction in both heterosexual and same sex relationships.

In a mostly, although diminishing, Christian society, many people were taught that sex was a dirty sin.

When people in love share this joining of mind and body... nothing could be further from the truth.

RW

The shoe throwing was an insult, not an assault.

It waa a crime where it happened because it is against the law there to publicly insult invited heads of state.

That said, I was personally thrilled that someone had the nerve and fortitude to stand up for their beliefs.

Former President Bush commented that it was a good development, concluding that freedom of expression was alive and therefore he had somehow slightly succeeded in his foreign policy.

The man did know the consequences of his actions... as did Patriots dumping tea into Boston Harbor.

Sometimes it takes brave acts and self sacrifice to to gain a greater good.

The man is a local folk hero now... much like Paul Revere is in American culture.

I diaagree with the 3 year sentence but the sentence could have been much harsher and I suspect it will be suspended before it comes to full term.

RW

Jess642,

I found your post arrogant and condescending.
Yes I can read and yes I can understand.

With that said I am not going to read 15,331 posts of you complaining about how other people do not measure up to your intelligence or how you want a barf bucket because you do not agree with other peoples posted commentary.

You are intolerant of more than you know.

RW

Winx, well I will not know until I try.

I guess I will have to wait until either the 10 tribes get together or Mormons become a majority presenting Proposition 88 that allows for "traditional" plural marriage to be restored.

Jess642,
I see you have a high post count so it seems unlikely that all you post in and about are threads where you accuse others of stupidity, hate and a lack of reasoning.

What are your interests and why do you bother with the rest of us if you feel this way?

Frankly, I found sun tanned people having weddings on glaciers a bit out of context for the Proposition 8 thread. It is almost as if you tried to derail commentary on an important issue with frivilous commentary.

Maybe I misunderstood.
Please direct me to threads you have started so I can have a more expanded view of you.

RW

That must have been some experience Winx. Thanks for sharing it and validating this point of discussion.

I guess that when Missouri is the ruling capital of the world it wont all be bad as "traditional" marriage will be restored and I can legally have many wives.

RW

I have nothing against France.

The whole "hate France" thing seemed to come about by the conservatives over Bush's War in Iraq and France not wanting to join in the idiocy of his policies.

France gave us the Statue of Liberty... an American icon.

Oh and the President of France's wife is HOT.

Over time both countries have supported each other.
Why hate?

It seems that there will never be peace in the Middle East as long as Israel is there and supported by other nations.

Mormons are, by many, considered Zionists. They sing about it, pray about it and have an article of faith (10) that predicts the gathering of the 10 tribes. They feel this will be an apocolyptic event that will allow them to build thier own "Zion" no less in Missouri, USA.

Here is the 10nth article of Faith:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

Here is a comment from a Mormon poster, taken from Latter-day Commentary, that exemplifies one point of the memberships basic understanding of this subject.

"...when Jesus returns, the Mormon Church will become the government of the world ruling from the city of Zion, which will be somewhere in Missouri and Jesus will live in Jerusalem and be the religious leader of the world."

My conclusion of this is that "Zionists" are not all located in Israel and that if "Zionists" are a threat to a democracy, consider that when you vote for a Mormon candidate.

RW

It was predictable that Obama's poll numbers would decrease some and further that they will decrease some more before they level out on some plane.

He has taken on a monumentally overwhelming task in leading this country. Wars, the economy, immigration and health care are just some of the serious issues on his agenda.

The excitement of the American people in Bush leaving office coupled with the hope of truly electing someone who would "fix" things led to higher approval ratings than were reasonably sustainable in the long term.

America, in part, is a instant gratificaton society.
If you do not fix things right away they often lose confidence that you are up to the job.

The issues before our President are large, serious and complex.
They are not going going to be solved or even improved with just a few weeks in office.

Sometimes I think that Americans are like sports fans.
They are in the stands cheering at the beginnning of the season and when a team is winning everything but if the team is in a rebuilding year or has to make adjustments they stop attending or even start booing.

Polls are about the best we have, when done fairly, to get an indication of how people view a certain person, policy or event.
Thier results can change over the same issue within a period of time or immediately due to an abnormal event.

At this stage in Obama's Presidency, I think approval rating polls are benign at best. There is a lot of hard work that needs to be done and time to pass before the American People can truly assess if Obama's policies will lead to a more secure and prosperous future for the American people.

These days I do not see anyone claiming that Bush's policies led to a more secure and prosperous future for Americans yet shortly after 9/11 he had, what I think is, the highest polled public approval ratings of any President.

There will be those who celebrate every point up or down in these polls to demonstrate that thier side is right. What one should consider instead is looking at the over all quality of life and the strength of their country as a measure of good or bad Presidential policy.

It could be that Obama's policies will fail.
It could be that anyones policies would fail in this treacherous environment.

It also could be that Obama's policies stabalize or improve over all conditions... or some succeed and some do not. More adjustments and work remains.

To me these lower ratings were predictable and are not an indication of the future.

RW

Good luck and best wishes.
Keep us up to date.

The Court will rule within less than 90 days... glaciers, suntans, or weddings aside.

Slow1hand,

You are correct in absolute definition, however the "electors" that qualify a "revision" to the Constitution are, in the case of this law, the Legislature.

Only the Legislature may vote a revision onto a ballot for the plural "electorate" to then vote on in a general election.

By definition in the single, electors are defined in this law as the Legislature and the plural electorate as the general public voters.

This is why it is before the Supreme Court on these grounds.
If what I state were not true then the Court simply would not be considering it on these grounds.


For further clarification and understanding consider the following example.

A Board of Supervisors is voted into office by the electorate.
At some point in time the Board of Supervisors votes on issues before them, thus acting as electors.

The electorate that voted them into office has no vote in the matters the electors vote on but by definition the electors are voting much like the electorate did when voting the electors into office.

Your presented definition merely defines the act of voting, not who is qualified to vote under certain circumstances of law.

Understanding the law and using a online dictionary are indeed two different things.

RW

Bigsky170,
Welcome to the discussion.

Being a discussion, I am compelled to address some of your statements.

You state, through simple interpretation, that Proposition 8 was an ammendment not a revision. This, in fact, may be true but the Supreme Court is deciding the issue using much more complicated Constitutinal law than your simple interpretation. The fact that the Supreme Court even considered this case on these grounds suggests that it is not as simple as you suggest.

You are correct in that the initiative process is not a demonstratable process of rights. However, initiatives are always reviewed by the Judiciary Branch of Government to determine if they are Constitutional and by such a measure, determine if a previous ruling or vote infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

This process is usually brought about by legal challenges or appeal but is most often ignored by the Judiciary unless the challenge or appeal has legal merit or needs further clarification to assure the people that the initiative is within the Constitutional bounderies that the people depend on for their freedoms.

Many initiatives are invalidated on appeal due to this process of holding them up to the Constitution. Many others are not even taken up by the Court as there is not a compelling argument to do so.

Proposition 22 was such an initiative. It was invalidated on Constitutional grounds, ie found to be Unconstitutional.
The advocates of Proposition 22 then decided that if they wrote this form of discrimination into the Constitution... it could not possibly be found to be Unconstitutioal as then the Constitution itself would represent discrimination and be changed into what previously would have been Unconstitional.

Thus the measure the Court would use would be new and depriving minority groups of freedoms, that majority groups enjoy, would then somehow become Constitutional.
That we could create, within America, a minority group that was not afforded the same rights, freedoms and pursuits as other Americans.

I call that a revision of a Constitution when you create 2nd class citizens who do not enjoy the same freedoms, rights and pursuits as other citizens... and I am quite certain that the Court is also considering this in that context.

You state that the Judiciaries role is to interpret the law fairly so that everyone benefits... Does not the Constitution... their measure of fair and just say that we all have the equal right to pursue happiness?

How is it fair and just if minority citiizens are excluded from this proclamation of fairness and equal treatment under the law?

Further you state that "No One" benefits when judges over turn the will of the voters based upon the Courts measure and consideration of the Constitution.
Ask a Black person or woman if that is true.

Voters in this country have voted to keep Blacks in Slavery, keep women from working or voting and so much more.

Everyone benefits when we simply let a tyranical majority try to make the rules?... or just White Christian Males?

You further state that marriage is not a right... it is a privelage.
A privilege would fall under the "pursuit of happiness" wording and as such must be appled to all citizens.
Further... anytime a minority is excluded from participating fully in these provisions of our Constitutiion it is a civil rights issue.

Whenever a minority is excluded from the same basic pursuits of happiness it is discrimation and not the equal rights you enlisted to fight and serve for.

You enlisted to serve and fight for the equal rights and freedoms of the American People.
Americans are a very mixed group of ethniticities, religions and preferences.
Are you serving all of the American people or just the ones you agree with?

Are you protecting MY freedoms?

You lament and complain that people run to the courts when things don't go thier way... yet is that not exactly what the Christian Right did when Proposition 22 went down as UnConstitutional?

Yes it was.
Talk about hypocricy.

Slow1hand: "Electors" are those elected such as the Legislature
" Elecotarate" are the voters who elect the Legislature.

Only "electors" may, by choice or necessity, vote among themselves (The Legislature) to propose and approve by a 2/3 vote majority to present a "revision" to the "electorate" (the voters)

This is the actual fact of the matter and why the proposition is being challenged on grounds that it was a revision instead of a simple ammendment.

This is validated by the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case on these terms.

If it was as you seem to understand it, it would be logical to assume the court simply would not hear the case on these grounds as there would be no "grounds."

I hope that defining the difference between "electors" and "electorate" truly puts this in a new light for those confused over the law and the words used within it.

Only "Electors" may propose, by a 2/3 vote, a revision to the State Constitution.... not the "electorate".... ie voters as was done in this case.

Wether it is a revision or ammendment is up to the Supreme Court.
The musings and simple interpretations of some over what is a ammendment or revision is moot as it is the Supreme Court who will decide this issue in due time.

RW

Slow1hand quote: "it is clear that either the Legislature or the electorate
may make amendments or revisions to the constitution."

Please note that this is not accurate as stated. Please revisit the link and read Section 3. No mention of revisions only ammendments.

For clarification:

The electorate may vote on either ammendments or revisions.
Ammendments may be brought to the electorate via the Inititave process as Proposition 8 was.

Revisions, on the other hand can only be brought to the electorate by a prior 2/3 vote of the Legislature, thus approving its presentation to the electorate.

Thus if the Supreme Court finds this propostion to be simply an ammendment, it will stand.

If the Court finds it too sweeping of a change concerning the civil liberties and equal protection clauses within the Constitution that it is considered a revision of said liberties and protections, then it will be invalidated because the law concerning "revising" the Constitution was not followed. (the Legislature did not hold a prior 2/3 vote approving a revision to go forth to the electorate)

In other words people in the state of California may get together and propose Constitutional ammendments via the initiative process but they may not legally propose revisions to the Constitution through the initiative process.

Revisions require a prior 2/3 vote by the Legislature before being presented to the electorate.

The initiative process can not legally present, to the electorate, "revisions" to the Constitution.

So, in part, what is before the Court is wether or not this proposition is simply an ammendment or a revision to/of the Constitution.

This is a compelling issue before the Court concerning this proposition.
Deciding on this issue alone will determine wether or not the proposition stands.

In the arguments before the Court, the Court seemed wary, skeptical and hesitant to over turn the vote of the majority concerning the proposition.

The Court did seem sympathetic to uphold the approximately 19.000 same sex marriages perfomed while it was legal under their previous ruling however.

It could turn out that even if this propostion is upheld... there will still be approximately 19,000 legally married same sex couples in California.

At that point I suppose the Christian Right could simply wait for all of these married couples to die to scour the earth of thier "sin" but I truly sense that long before then the laws will change to provide equal rights, liberties and pursuits of happiness for all American citizens as the Constitution intended without religious interference.

The younger generations are much more accepting and tolerant of people being different than themselves. Recent polls show that Christianity is slowly erroding in its majority in our country.

These trends bode well for those who support equal rights among citizens.

Christians will continue to fight this battle and oppressed minorities will continue to fight on as well.

It has already been a long and hard fought battle between freedoms and ideaologies... much like the Civil War when the Confederacy fought to keep Blacks in slavery.

There will be dissapointments, hurts and casualties on both sides until the issue is finally settled.
It may take generations to finally be put completely to rest even as the entire white/black issue is still a work in progress in some states and minds.

Whatever the court decides... the battle will likely go on for a bit longer.

I know that both sides await the decision with passion and will mount counter attacks.

Me... I took on this issue simply because I truly believe that the Constitution of the United States of America really does stand for equal rights, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

RW

In response to S1owhands post and related link.
What is quoted is only part of the equation or law presented there.

If you take the time to view the link you will see that there is a significant difference between a "ammendment" and a "revision" of the State Constitution.

Specifically notice Section 3. It states that the electorate may "ammend" the Constitution through the initiative process. This initiative process is what brought Proposition 8 into being.

The previous sections make it very clear that the Legislature may also propose "ammendments" by a 2/3 majority without using the initiative process.

Further, what is crystal clear is that only the Legislature may put forth to the electorate (voters) a "revision" to the Constitution by a 2/3 vote.

In the case of either an "ammendment" or "revision" the electorate is then to be the deciding factor subject to a Constitutional review by the Court.

One of the main arguments before the Court is wether or not stripping away rights, liberties and pursuits that the Court previously ruled as valid are a "ammendment" or a "revision" to the State Constitution.

Pro 8 advocates argue that it is just an "ammendment" while No on 8 advocates argue that it is a dramatic revision to the basic civil liberties that the Court already validated when they struck down Proposition 22.

So this issue is very much in contention.
Only a 2/3 vote of the Legislature can bring such a proposition to the electorate if it is in fact a revision.
This was not done as only the initiative process was used.

If the Court determines it simply an ammendment, the proposition will stand until further legal challenges are mounted against it and won. No on 8 supporters are already preparing thier campaign for such an instance.

If the Court determines it to be a revision then the proposition will be invalidated.

Prop 8 supporters would then need to lobby the Legislature to get a 2/3 vote in favor and once again put it forth to the electorate.

Is it an ammendment or a revision?
The Supreme Court will decide but it definetly is one of the defining issues of the challenge against Propostion 8.

Think2deep brings up the discussion in the form of "corporate mergers." This is interesting and maybe more to the point that government really should stay out of determing who can and can not marry.

The Federal Government, although regulating estates, taxes and the like may be advantagous to the general public, should not be in charge of determining who should be able to marry and who should not.

Further... religions should most definetly not have any say in what consenting adults can choose in the context of marriage outside of thier own congregations.

This is why the original writers of the Constitution and specifically Thomas Jefferson wanted a seperation of Church and State. In those days they were ruled by a Church and saw the corruption and inequalities. They did not want that for thier new found freedoms and developing country.

If one chooses to be married in a religious ceremony that is their freedom of choice and protected by the Constitution. To have religions dictate who can marry and who can not... is not a Constitutional right afforded religions.

The issue of the word "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions" is that the Federal Government and most states do not recogize civil unions and the benefits and protections offered to heterosexual couples.

This is a double standard and an example of inequality, prejudice and discrimination still thriving within our country.

Religions do not own, or have any valid claim, to the "traditional" marriage they try to defend. Marriage is not exclusive to religion.
If it was... then what religion has the only correct way of doing it?
What religion do you belong to? Is yours the valid one?

Facts are that the most traditional marriage in our known history is polygamy. I do not see anyone advocating traditional marriage on those terms.

Polygamy was practiced by more populations and through more recorded time than the "traditional" one man one woman marriage touted as traditional today.

What is traditional marriage?
This concept has changed over time and is likely a cultural interpretation or difference among cultures as it remains today.

I understand clearly that some groups of people try to legislate thier religion into law. I understand that some feel the obligation to let others see their "light" and want to scourge the earth of what offends thier beliefs.

Not being offended by fellow free citizens who act peacefully and cause no loss of ones own civil liberties is not a right written into the Constitution.

RW

This Proposition 8 is currently before the California Supreme Court on grounds that it was a revision of the Constitution as opposed to an ammendment.

A revision is a sweeping change that requires a 2/3 vote of the state Legislature before it can be brought to a vote before the people. I consider this "ammendment" to be more of a revision as it violates the equal protection clause of the State of California's Constitution.

If we allow voters to violate equal protection clauses written into our Constitution, then we open the door for further errosions of civil liberties, rights and protections for other unprotected or unpopular classes of citizens.

What should be duly noted here is history. Those voting today to eliminate the civil liberties, rights and protections of others may one day find themselves in the minority and face the harvest of the seeds they so willingly sow today.

To put it more succinctly... the same race, class or idealogy has not always ruled the world as the rulers of the land has changed consistently over time.

Our Constitution was designed with this in mind and if adhered to... preserve our Democracy founded in equal rights despite the rise of different majorities over time.

It should also be noted by those that do not consider marriage a "right" or a "civil right" that the Supreme Court of California struck down Propostion 22 which won support among California voters as unconstitutional and ruled that citizens did, in fact, have a "right" to marry despite the majority of voters attempting to take those rights away.

Proposition 22 was in effect for some time as a mandate that marriage was to be only recognized between a man and a woman.
It was struck down by the Court and knowing it would be, the opposition to Gay marriage began working on Proposition 8, a proposed Constitutional Ammendment.

This being said the Court has determined that the choice of who one marries is in fact a civil right protected within the Constitution.

To further flesh this out... we now have a slight majority of citizens voting to eliminate, what the Court has determined to be a right, for a minority of citizens.

The role of the Judiciary branch of government is to mitigate, ponder, consider and temper the will of the people who also once voted to keep Blacks in Slavery, deny them housing, jobs and Federal benefits based upon the notion that they were inferior and not equal in the eyes of thier God. Much of this based upon a book they wrote themselves thousands of years ago and has been interpreted in many different ways which explains the many denominations of Christianity.

If there was only one truth of a God... I suppose then there would only be one religion.

There are many religions and many Gods... and many books all "proving" that thier God can beat up your God.

Religion plays a large part in this discussion but let's simply recognize that and put it aside for a moment.

This is a Constitutional argument before the Court, not a religious one. The Constitution is designed to let all people of different faiths, races and creeds have equal freedoms, liberties and rights.

It is, in part, designed to prevent Mormons from becoming a majority and voting into law that Catholics can not marry, can only have one child or can not hold political office.

If this Propsition 8 is found to be against the equal protection clauses of citizens rights, liberties and pursuits, as I beleve it is, then there will be people moaning that thier vote did not count.

Once again... it is the Judiciaries job to monitor the will of the people based upon the Constitution. This does not make them "activist judges" but rather protectors of the Constitution and its intent of protecting the civil liberties of all citizens.

For those who will remain unconvinced of the Constitutional argument because of thier religion, bigotry or intolerance of differences... consider that you will not always be the majority.

RW

I know it happens sometimes.

I think there is often a bit of risk when dating someone the first time wether you meet online or in person somewhere.

We have all had good dates and not so good dates. Many want another one... one that will maybe be the last time they have to put themselves through this and live happily in love with a compatable life partner, or at least trust and feel comfortable with someone whose love is shared for a shorter period of time.
Whatever the preferences or goals of online daters... yes there are some not so good dates.

Maybe some of you will relate to this...

I recently met a woman from this site. We Chatted, Web Cammed and shared emails before we decided to meet.

I worked a full day the day of the "date" and then drove 4 hours to meet her.

She showed up late and self proclaimingly extremely hung over and with a headache. She wolfed down her steak dinner while intermittently talking about her ex husband and how she had gotten back at him emotionally and financially.

It seemed that through the divorce process he had lost his home, business and children. She seemed very happy at his current state of misery while living off of the proceeds of his divorce liquidated business.

She stated that she was going to go after his drivers license too since he was one month behind in the child sppoprt he had dutifully paid for 6 years.

I understand that divorce can be bitter and that she was just sharing but it did seem a bit much.
Especially for a first date... where it is supposed that we are interested in finding a new love in each other... not a beating pillow or therapist.

I don't know how to put the ending in a eloquent way...
She stated that she needed to be home by 8:00 pm as she had promised her teenage son that she would sleep with him that night.

It seemed that he was a bit needy or put off that she had slept with her teenage daughter the night before.

I swear to God.

It is an interesting World out there.

RW

After 8 years of Bush, I like many Americans, simply were ravenous for a change.

They say that a President and thier policies can only be faily judged many years later but in current history and public support Bush was an abject failure for the American People.

It is hard to imagine that his Wars and shredding of Constitutional rights and values, will ever be remembered as any type of "success."

Obama is where the majority of American citizens have placed thier hope for a restored America, from the economy to social issues to our respect among other nations.

Can he do it? I don't know but I am behind my President.

Obama inherited quite a mess and took on the challenge voluntarily.
Who among us posesses the will, aptitude and determination to do the same?

There will always be critics.
Sometimes critics are right and leaders listen...
Other times they "stay the course" despite all evidence that it is a course to disaster.

As an American citizen I do share the hope and admiration of others that maybe Obama can mitigate the troubles curently upon our nation.

If not Obama now then who?

Non of the other candidates inspired me but McCain for his heroic War service to our country. He didn't win, Obama did so I will follow him unless logic overcomes me into despair like it did with Bush.

Until then I remain loyal to my President.

RW

There was a line at the bank when the man whose turn had come pulled a gun and demanded money from the teller.

The teller gave him money and he turned to the people behind him in line and asked, "did you see what I did?"

The first person behind him said, "yea I saw what you did."
The robber promptly shot him in the head and then turned to the next person in line and asked, "did you see what I did?"

The response was "yes I saw what you did"
The robber promplty shot him in the head too.

Turning to the third person in line the robber asked
"did you see what I did?"

The third one said "nope, I saw nothing... but my wife did."