Originally Posted By DAR <<I also think the marriage amendment in WI will pass>> I'll be honest it wasn't really clear. Many people thought a no vote was to ban gay marriage. But it was to ban the amendment to prohibiting gay marriage.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal ^^^those kinds of propositions drive me insane. A no vote means yes, and the yes vote means no. It should be illegal to word things in such a manner...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Don't kid yourselves, people, beau is likely lurking, loser neocon that he is.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Many people thought a no vote was to ban gay marriage.<< Well, regardless, it looks like it's going to pass. This sucks.
Originally Posted By jonvn If you took a vote in 1850s South Carolina, the people there probably would not have voted to end slavery, either.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If you took a vote in 1850s South Carolina, the people there probably would not have voted to end slavery, either.<< Duh. The only people voting OWNED the slaves.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Duh. The only people voting OWNED the slaves." Well, DUH, the point is you don't base your civil rights issues on popular vote.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Well, regardless, it looks like it's going to pass. This sucks.>> I actually voted against the ban, because gay marriage is so far down on my list of things that matter.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He'll be here. Just as soon as Rush comes on the air to tell him what to think about all of this.
