# A public service: Names of Proposition 8 supporters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362 "2009-02-04T03:12:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/321 "2009-02-12T15:34:00Z")
I sincerely hope everybody reads this thread. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/322 "2009-02-12T15:40:14Z")
> [@3trew](#): > > SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized > in California. > > No Kreskin needed. As it should be. And your point is… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/323 "2009-02-12T16:19:58Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > I’m taking bets on whether or not magellan opens a thread in ATMB petitioning to have the Who Posted feature removed due to the potential for harrassment. LOL; good luck finding somebody to take that sucker bet. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/324 "2009-02-12T17:02:30Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > No, you just don’t get it. You wished AIDS on someone for disagreeing with you. To say you lack a sense of proportion is a generous assessment of your behavior. I think it’s disgusting and over the top and uncalled for. You, of course, never examine your own behavior, and think it’s fine to wish that someone who disagreed with you should get AIDS. Bet you also think you’re a nice guy. I told some shithead poster to take his stupidity to Haiti and let nature take its course. It’s like telling someone to drop dead. I can’t help it if I can do that with more creativity than most. It’s a gift. And a curse. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Not on a public message board it’s not. Just because you can overhear a conversation doesn’t mean that conversation isn’t between just the two people. The fact that you don’t have the sense and grace to see that an insult directed to a specific poster is not the same as a point that goes to the actual debate, which is there for wider consumption, is not a failing on my part. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Oh, is THAT what I did, O Amazing Kreskin? It couldn’t be that I was pointing out that, once again, you have dominated a discussion on gay marriage? You can construct motives for me out of whole cloth, but even if I was trying to “rally the crowd,” what exactly do you think that crowd (already pretty much completely against you, btw), would do with that information? Realize that you’re obsessed with this topic, maybe? And do what they will with it. If you don’t want people to know that you post excessively to gay marriage threads, then don’t do it. If you don’t care, then don’t get angry at me for mentioning it. It’s a matter of public record, after all. I’m curious. What constitutes posting “excessively” to gay marriage threads? There are many posters who have posted in each thread that I’ve posted in. Is that not equally “excessive”? Or is it, as you so pathetically point out, that I tend to have more posts in the threads than others? If so, why is that the metric. Has not each post been in response to another poster? Yes, it has. Have I been redundant, covering points previously made by someone else on my side of the debate. No. Did I start this thread about gay marriage? Do I do that as a rule? If so, how many times? Has it been zero? You try to paint me as a zealot. Because I post about a topic that interests me? That I offer an opinion I think a thread is lacking? That I answer questions that are asked of me? This, in your silly little mind equals “obsession”? That’s ridiculous. Don’t you think that if one or two people who have a different position than the much larger majority that they would rack up more posts than the others? How can you not realize this. Think about it. You are trading posts with me. I am trading posts with like ten people. In what world would it not make sense that I would have more posts than any other poster? And by the way, if you read the thread over, I repeatedly tried to keep the discussion on the OP, which for me (as I’ve stated more then once) is more about a particular tactic being employed than it is about SSM itself. THAT is what drew me to this thread. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > Teach you a lesson? How so? What lesson could I possibly teach you? I didn’t post it expecting any particular outcome, merely to note that, once again, you have taken over a thread about gay marriage. See above. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > I don’t see what’s cowardly about that. I think it’s pretty direct. And fallacious? No, it’s a matter of FACT. The FACT is that you are the one who has posted 47 times to a thread where the next most prolific poster has posted 29 times. It’s pointing out a fact that is there for anyone to see. What’s cowardly is voting to take away people’s rights, and then getting all huffy when people don’t love you for it. Unbelievable. The nonsense about post count has been covered. What is cowardly is not just arguing for yourself. What’s cowardly, and despicable, is trying to rally a crowd. Especially when the numbers are already so lopsided. It’s not enough for you that it falls to me to respond to multiple posters, you seek to solidify them into a crowd to add extra weight. As I said, you’re like the runt toughie in a gang. Pathetic. It’s fallacious because, even if you have every poster on your side, thinking that matters is an appeal to the masses. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > How does anything I’ve done “squash dissent”? Oh, poor persecuted magellan01! I’ve pointed out his monomaniacal obsession with the topic of gay marriage has again resulted in his domination of thread about it! Read above and face your colossal stupidity and low behavior. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > That’s somehow inciting a mob and it’s wrong! Do you hear how ridiculously whiny that sounds? I’m not surprised to see that you think inciting a mob is not wrong. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > I think you should consider why you feel the need to drown out the other voices who post in these threads, every single time it comes up. But you won’t. You’ll just keep constructing imaginary scenarios where you are being victimized by the mere notation of the number of your posts, while saying horrible things to anyone who disagrees with you. Is this dishonesty here? Or have you managed to ratchet up your imbecility to new heights? How am I "attempting to “drown out” voices? By a few insults here and there? And even then, _after_ I’ve been insulted. If you would look at my posting in a fair light (not that have any delusion you would), you would see that the vast majority of them are insult free. Read this thread over if you don’t believe me. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > If you don’t feel pathetic for wishing AIDS on someone, then no, I don’t feel pathetic for posting your post count to this thread. I’d do it every single day before I’d wish a deadly disease on someone from the comfort of my anonymity for the heinous crime of disagreeing with me. Now you’re just being obtuse. He hurled a direct insult at me. Can you at least try to be honest in your characterizations? Is that too much to ask? > [@Rubystreak](#): > > You didn’t read them carefully, and also admitted that you want them explained because you don’t really understand them. How you can, in the next breath, dismiss them as not important, I don’t know. You are speaking out of ignorance. I didn’t read them carefully? Another lie from the Kreskin patrol. I did read them carefully. I said I didn’t understand the _rationale behind_ them. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > So why don’t you DO SOME RESEARCH and find out why it was done before you a) claim there are no differences when there are, b) state that they don’t matter without understanding them, and c) vote to remove access to them from gays? Or would that be too challenging for your worldview? Because what was being discussed was not the merit of any particular difference, but the fact that some differences existed. Not in “rights”, but in some minor rules and regulations and the jumping through of hoops. You asked if I’d be happy to give up any perceived advantage heteros might be enjoying, I said I would. I said that it has consistently been my belief that the rights and privileges be identical. I said that the degree to which any of those differences in rules might make sense, they should apply to both groups. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > You voted for Prop 8. By doing so, you voted to remove those 9 rights and privileges from gays. That is, factually, what you did. Your motivations for doing it are irrelevant. The vote does not come with commentary. It’s a simple yes or no question. If you did NOT want to remove those rights, then you should NOT have voted for Prop 8, because all your rhetoric aside, that’s exactly what your vote did. It’s as easy and plain as that. Now you’ve gone and confused yourself. Your list was entitled “There are nine differences between CA’s domestic partnerships and marriage.” What you showed was the differences in a few procedures—certainly NOT rights—that were different for the two groups. So, my vote kept those differences in place, it didn’t remove them. And I still haven’t seen any RIGHTS gays in California lost via Prop 8. So feel free to go hunt for more nonsense to copy and paste from elsewhere. You are right about it being a simple yes or no question. Here it is: should marriage in California be exclusively between a man and a woman and gay men and women continue to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits afford married couples through civil unions? Answer: Yes. And there I go again obsessing, by addressing the points you’re raised. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/325 "2009-02-12T17:10:29Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > magellan01, it goes far beyond just Prop 8 and just those particular rights and privileges that California already grants through civil unions. You’ve stated that you want one set of rules, you want equality of rights, you just don’t want gays to use the word marriage. > > What you’re missing is that gays will NEVER have equality of rights unless they get to use the word marriage. You state blandly that gays already have “all of the rights” of marriage and Prop 8 doesn’t change that. Sure, within the borders of California, outside of CA they have no rights at all. You doesn’t seem to be terribly disturbed by this, and you should be. But Prop 8 was a California issue only. What needs to be done is that other states need to adopt the California model. That way, gay couples get the same rights and we retain the meaning of the word “marriage”. I know you don’t agree that the last point is important at all, but I do. And I don’t agree that marriage is the only vehicle through which gays can be granted the rights enjoyed by married couples. I mean, California itself is testament to that. I’ve argued often that I think gays should fight for one set of laws that both groups tap into. You can search no doubt and see the details. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/326 "2009-02-12T17:13:09Z")
magellan, if you don’t think using the word marriage is a right, why are you fighting for it? How can you say “they have not lost anything of value” and “what they want is far too valuable to me to let them have”? Please, please try to explain. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/327 "2009-02-12T17:23:51Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > That is, quite simply, a lie. There is no insult whatsoever to be found in the post in question, from Page 4: This post and the one you wrote that directly precedes it is a double-scoop of moron, covered in a lie. HERE is the post in question, containing his insults and my response: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Bosstone** > > My god you’re stupid. Yes, it is. You pointed out those laws and asked why we couldn’t discriminate against gays the same way. I pointed out why. > > > > Show the harm, you bigoted fuck. > > [QUOTE=magellan01] > … > In the meantime, do me and the world a favor, take a trip to Haiti. But leave the condoms home. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/328 "2009-02-12T17:27:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But Prop 8 was a California issue only. What needs to be done is that other states need to adopt the California model. Right, 50 different states, plus DC and the territories all have to adopt the California model, and have those 50 different laws mesh perfectly with each other, with no gaps or overlaps, and have the Federal Government enact an overarching California style law that will give gay couples the federal rights they are currently denied. Do you actually believe this can happen? Seriously, do you really think that over 50 different legislative bodies can each enact separate laws that will give gay couples the universal rights that married couples get? It is ridiculous to think that this could actually happen. The question then becomes, what is more important, the rights of gay couples to have the benefits of marriage, or your right to have a particular word have a particular definition? You can have your pie-in-the-sky ideals, but the reality is that without the word marriage, gay couples are second class couples. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/329 "2009-02-12T17:36:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, I will. And I’d like you to pat yourself on the back. You and others in these discussions have proven that this cry for rights is bullshit and I will be more involved next go around, not less. And donate more money, not less. The SDMB will go overwhelmingly for your fake cries for rights. We’ll see if the general populace will. Maybe I’ll even contribute my time to crafting marketing messages, which I’m pretty fucking good at. Thanks, all of you, for helping me focus. I was thinking about this post on my drive home yesterday, and I think this is actually the key post in this thread so far. Because it finally put the lie to **magellan** ’s claim that he didn’t vote against Prop. 8 out of animus against gays. The threat to work even harder against gay marraige is clearly meant as a retaliation against people in this thread who have been giving him a hard time. It’s not about protecting marriage, and with the harm caused to gays as an unfortunate side effect - the side effect, here, is now the primary motive. I am sure, somehow, **magellan** will try to spin this as non-homophobic. I am also sure his efforts to do so will meet with his customary success. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/330 "2009-02-12T17:43:20Z")
What’s so special about the word “marriage” that gays aren’t entitled to use it? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/331 "2009-02-12T17:46:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This post and the one you wrote that directly precedes it is a double-scoop of moron, covered in a lie. > > HERE is the post in question, containing his insults and my response: Why did you change **SteveMB** ’s post in the part you quoted? He didn’t say anything about page 4. Personally, I think telling me to get an STD is pretty over the top, but then I have so little respect for you that I find it funny rather than insulting. Do you know why people continue to engage you in these threads? Because I don’t think any of them truly believe you hold the position you do. The idea of denying the word marriage to gays because that will objectively weaken the word, then saying they’re fine without it, without comprehending the inherent contradiction that’s been brought up in this thread (most recently by **Ensign Edison** ) is so flagrantly, painfully stupid that someone who truly thinks it is probably too mentally incompetent to understand language and can only communicate in hoots and grunts. Because obviously you have some limited grasp of the English language (though I would certainly hesitate to say you have a command of it, as your insistence on the frailty of the word marriage shows), this isn’t likely, so there must be some other reason. Namely, bigotry. And so they try to get you to admit that your supposed concern for the wellbeing of gays is a sham. But you know what? I’m going to be fair with you. I retract the “bigoted fuck” comment. I don’t think you’re bigoted. You apparently really are that earth-shatteringly rock-stupid. I’d tell you to seek help, but there is nobody capable of such. May whatever God you think you believe in and pray to (perhaps the little box with little people in it, or that banana you wanted to eat but couldn’t figure out how to open) have mercy on your soul. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/332 "2009-02-12T18:26:05Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Why did you change **SteveMB** ’s post in the part you quoted? He didn’t say anything about page 4. Oops. My error. I went back to include the page number at the last minute as I though it would be helpful if anyone wanted to check on the context of the exchange. I inadvertently pasted it in the wrong place. My apologies to all. Gotta go. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/333 "2009-02-12T18:41:07Z")
Before you answer **Ensign Edison**? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/334 "2009-02-12T18:50:46Z")
“Use of the word marriage is valuable to me.” “Gay people are not being denied anything of value.” Do you agree with both of the above statements or not, mag? I’m far from the first to try to get you to answer this simple question in some way. Shut us up with a brilliant explanation already! ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/335 "2009-02-12T20:35:55Z")
I expect that sooner or later the basis of the decision in _Brown v. Board of Education_, that “separate but equal” is wrong because the “separate” part denies true equality even when there actually is apparent equality of benefit, will be applied to “domestic partnerships” as well as schools. I hope **magellen01** survives the disasterous effect on his “marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/336 "2009-02-12T20:49:19Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > I expect that sooner or later the basis of the decision in _Brown v. Board of Education_, that “separate but equal” is wrong because the “separate” part denies true equality even when there actually is apparent equality of benefit, will be applied to “domestic partnerships” as well as schools. I hope **magellen01** survives the disasterous effect on his “marriage”. Hell, why not Loving vs. Virginia? > [@SCOTUS](#): > > Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Of course the anti-SSM crowd says that Prop 8 wasn’t about race, it was about sexuality, so it’s totally cool. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/337 "2009-02-12T21:21:04Z")
So to sum up the thread so far; Magellan is a cowardly, un-American, reflexively bigoted piece of shit. Did I miss anything? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/338 "2009-02-12T21:27:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So to sum up the thread so far; Magellan is a cowardly, un-American, reflexively bigoted piece of shit. > > Did I miss anything? You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/339 "2009-02-12T21:29:45Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > What’s so special about the word “marriage” that gays aren’t entitled to use it? Indeed. I get that there’s a lot of animosity in this thread, and a log of smugness in claims that the animosity is all on the part of the _other_ guy, but I still don’t get why the underlying issue is so divisive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/340 "2009-02-12T21:31:19Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful. Shut up, bitch. Go fix me a turkey pot pie. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=18)