[MinnesotaLibertarian]

If this fails to pass, I’m sure you’ll see some “conservatives” wanting to overturn the will of the voters, the very thing they’re angry at the California Supreme Court for. The one-trick pony of gay marraige fear isn’t going to work anymore. Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

And as the end of my sentence suggests, I should focus more on proofreading for typos.

[puroresu]

Because a culturally liberal nation cannot have low taxes, less spending, and limited government. Show me an area that’s “gay friendly” and I’ll show you an area full of big government socialists. Case in point: San Francisco. Try going there and running for office on a promise of less government and fiscal conservatism. Assure them that you’re fully with them on the issue of “tolerance” for homosexuality. It won’t make a bit of difference, they’ll still vote for the big government socialist and reject you. That’s because a socially liberal populace is inherently going to be weak and dependent.

Take your state of Minnesota as an example. Where would a campaign based on opposing big government have a better chance? In the socially conservative rural areas and small towns? Or in “tolerant” Minneapolis? It would flop in Minneapolis because the people who think homosexuality is just peachy keen are also weak-kneed, whiny, socialists who want national health care and every other free goody the left can offer.

[SoldierDad]

Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

Yes indeed. It's more important to "cherry pick" our values than to hold firm in the face of opposition. Typical of libertarians to want to cut-and-run when things get tough.

[isrul]

Why should at least 5000 years of every civilization's wisdom be allowed to be scrapped by people who are sexually confused? Why should aberration be accommodated by any society? Especially one that produces so much death?

[Antoninus]

The one-trick pony of gay marraige fear isn’t going to work anymore.

Tell you what? Don't waste your breath trying to impose your immorality upon me and my country, ok?

If the voters of CA accept butt-sex fake marriage, that's their issue. If they try to impose it upon me and my locality via the "full faith and credit" clause, we'll take it to a Constitutional Amendment.

In my opinion, I think butt-sex marriage is going down in CA thanks to the will of the voters.

[puroresu]

Here’s a classic example of the type of “limited government” you can expect in a “gay tolerant” area:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MNH311PMRE.DTL

[Carry_Okie]

Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

Allow me to spell it out for you (seeing as you can't): Gay marriage breeds government expenditures to cover welfare dependency, health-care expenses, therapy for destroyed families, and crime.

[weegee]

Actually its the courts overturning the will of the voters that are bringing about this vote.

And what goes on in Caliphony is being exported to other states as some travel to have their marriages granted.

“States rights” don’t really exist anymore.

[beejaa]

Although I agree with you on shrinking the size of the government, we’re talking about permanently redefining marriage in ways that it has never been defined before. We’re talking about changing the entire basis of society. Marriage would no longer pertain to blood ties but revolve around adult feelings. Feelings are subject to change and blood ties are not. We’re saying that children do not necessarily need mothers and fathers. As long as they are loved (self love by adults?), they have everything they need according to this theory. Same sex marriage is radical, untested and far-reaching. Children will be taught in school (and already are in Mass.) do appreciate “diversity” in family life. The family is breaking down and we’re supposed to celebrate it.

[fr_freak]

If this fails to pass, I’m sure you’ll see some “conservatives” wanting to overturn the will of the voters, the very thing they’re angry at the California Supreme Court for.

Exactly what in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know the history of this fight? I'm going to assume you don't and explain it to you.

Californians passed, by referendum, a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman several years back which, predictably, was overturned by the state Supreme Court as being unconstitutional (state constitution). I defy you to find any language in the California state constitution that justifies that decision. The state Supreme Court willfully misinterpreted the state constitution in order to thwart the will of the people.

Conservatives, ever pointlessly determined to play by the rules even when the other side won't, have gotten the signatures necessary to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot in order to combat this usurpation by the court. My opinion is that if the state Supreme Court can ignore the constitution as it is now, they can just as easily ignore this amendment, and so a better solution would be to run the justices out of the state on a rail, but, as I said, conservatives are still clinging to the false belief that we are still a country of constitutional laws.

This amendment is absolutely unnecessary, as it is only the whim of a few justices, rather than law, which allows gay marriage here, but if it fails to pass, that does not mean that we should simply roll over and accept the blatant dictatorial actions of the Court, just because enough Californians have been brainwashed. Quite frankly, even if a majority of Californians now support gay marriage (which I doubt) that still doesn't mean they get to subvert our system of laws in order to implement it.

To sum up, when one side throws the laws out, it is not a reasonable position to blame the other side for being outraged, and fighting it.