ACORN and to a host of other left-wing political organizations...

- Elephantman

What's interesting with that statement is that ACORN's mission statement is:

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities.

Does that mean that right-wing organizations and, by extension, members are not low- and moderate-income? Or, does that mean that they could be low and moderate-income but don't believe in any one of the following?

• Working together
• Social justice
• Stronger communities

No evidence, but just a hypothesis.

Does manipulation works better when the actual electing is done within the electoral college instead of through straight popular vote?

Four-dot ellipsis are used at the end of a sentence. No problem with them when used thus.

Please review the following:

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

Please note the bolded, all cap text at top. It reads:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Hmm. Rights.

Also, in regards to the hypothetical reasons to vote Yes as found on:

http://www.whatisprop8.com/?gclid=CJnYj6T2ypYCFQZeswod7zZSyg

Why are no hypothetical reasons given for the No position?

Here are mine:

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good. Yep. And, parents have the right to tell their children the opposite. Ah, freedom is sweet.

2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Yep. Public spaces are, well, public. This means that the laws of the community apply. It does not mean that a religious figure must do the marriage ceremony.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their practice of placing children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Yep. Adoption has nothing to do with religion. If they are brokering a private adoption, then it is really up to the birth mother to consent to the adoption. She can do so on whatever grounds she so desires. If they are doing an adoption based on CPS, then they are agents of the government and religion needs to take a backseat.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples. Yep. Make it truly private where the religious organization pays for all tuition, etc., and I think you can restrict by whatever criteria. As soon as you market/sell a product, you need to market/sell it according to the law.

5. Ministers who preach religion will not be affected. Ministers that speak about laws and political action will be sued and prosecuted by the government.

6. It will cost you money. Everyone can sue. This will happen no matter what.

I fail to understand how people ignore two men being romantic, and two women being romantic, requires a willingness to be with someone of the same basic view. All women have a natural orientation, as they do each activity, to discover and enhance the beauty and refinement that is available. All men have a natural orientation, as they do each activity, to discover what is the optimal result and ensure it is produced. When a man and a women have a romantic relationship, they complement each other, together being able to see the whole picture. Which can't occur in same gender romantic attempts.

There is more diversity within a group then between them. So, your generalities about men and women is moot. On a side note, I'm wondering where naturally occurring hermaphrodites fall within your spectrum of gender?

Further. Why is it that an inability for a romantically involved couple to naturally produce children not seen as sign of a serious problem; whether that be in heterosexuals, or homosexual? Doesn't how nature created humans have any bearing on reality any more? Does the desires of a human get to be valid, just because that person strongly insists he sincerely wants that outcome?

Wow. I'm not even sure how to respond to this. My first wife and I couldn't have children because of her severe endometriosis. In what way was our predicament a serious problem? Her condition would not have changed regardless of whom she had married. Also, I'm wondering what you think about us adopting our son.

What is humans began to claim they wanted to marry an animal? Would that be acceptable if a sufficient number of people claimed to hold that preference?

If animals could voice their opinion on the matter as well, I'd have to say that it'd be okay. In actuality though, I'm sure we'll have to answer the question about marriage to non-human in regards to AI before dogs.

Damn, you made me laugh.

As for religious rights being denied, just look to the oldest Catholic adoption agency in MA that was forced to close due to the fact they could not comply with state mandates on homosexual adoption without going against religious principles.

Particulars please. Because, if I have to guess, I would assume that they stopped receiving state funds and were not forced to close.

Or how about the NM photographer (female) who was sued for refusing to take photos at a gay wedding...

Well, she took the contract, yes? She was sued for breaching her contract? Not sure where religion comes into play there.

Or the Norwegian preacher who was sentenced to jail time for preaching that homosexuality was a sin!

That's funny. I thought I lived in America.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Prop 8 compels a religious organization to marry same-sex partners. How is religious freedom threatened?

Hmm. Aren't laws, at their root, policies?

... I mean that I don't have sound capabilities. At work and all. When my colleagues go on their smoke breaks, I go online. Seems fair.