Also, I must echo fistful, above. The OP stepped off the wrong foot:
"Let us talk about families. If you can not keep your participation limited to the following three subjects, don;t bother participating:
1. Your mama wears combat boots.
2. Your daddy is an alcoholic.
3. Your dog won't hunt.
Thank you."
4. Say hi to your sister for me?
Come on, guys. Fine, I'll square it out a bit better.
Under the original 3 talking points to begin discussion for this issue,
FYI: Let's keep it civil, please. I'm bringing this story forward because I like the contrasting political goals of all interested parties:
1. Democratic-style (mob rule) ballot initiative that amends the CA Constitution;
2. Libertarian/Conservative ideal that government shouldn't have its nose in this issue in the first place... marriage is just another form of contractual agreement between consenting parties, regardless of gender;
3. Conservative struggle against declining morality.
Which do you see as having the greatest influence on the CA Supremes' upcoming decision?
Does the CA Constitution mandate that ballot constitutional amendments override statutory special protections?
Is the CA Supreme Court likely to take a minimalist slant on this issue and tell the government to stop interfering in private contractual law?
Are CA conservatives a voting bloc on the rise, and this is a sign of that fact? Or if we're going to ride the religious train on this one, is this just a sign of the enormous Latino/catholic/macho population and its increasing effect on California?
We don't have to devolve into "yo mama" to intelligently talk about this. :rolleyes: