<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Californians Divorce Selves From Gay Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/</link>
	<description>"Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-125571</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=4727#comment-125571</guid>
		<description>There isn&#039;t a united civil rights movement and never was one really.  That&#039;s probably a factor in the difference.  Whether it&#039;s women&#039;s issues, race relations, or gay rights, there doesn&#039;t seem to be much in the way of seeing eye to eye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There isn&#8217;t a united civil rights movement and never was one really.  That&#8217;s probably a factor in the difference.  Whether it&#8217;s women&#8217;s issues, race relations, or gay rights, there doesn&#8217;t seem to be much in the way of seeing eye to eye.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Dog</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-125570</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Dog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=4727#comment-125570</guid>
		<description>Reid is only hesitant because of what you state.  If they had 61 they would toss him so it is not any different than the RINO situation.

A lot of the groups that have conservative leanings 9that you have pointed out) are aligned with Democrats so they can get more of the social pie when the Dems dole out the money.

I certainly recognize that there are socially conservative Democrats but I also realize the Dems do not act like who they really are when they want to be reelected.

I think the increase in black voters led to the defeat of prop 8.  Interesting too because the gay community looks at it like a civil rights issue so one would think the black community would be sympathetic to the cause...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reid is only hesitant because of what you state.  If they had 61 they would toss him so it is not any different than the RINO situation.</p>
<p>A lot of the groups that have conservative leanings 9that you have pointed out) are aligned with Democrats so they can get more of the social pie when the Dems dole out the money.</p>
<p>I certainly recognize that there are socially conservative Democrats but I also realize the Dems do not act like who they really are when they want to be reelected.</p>
<p>I think the increase in black voters led to the defeat of prop 8.  Interesting too because the gay community looks at it like a civil rights issue so one would think the black community would be sympathetic to the cause&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-125567</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=4727#comment-125567</guid>
		<description>I think that&#039;s something thing to consider also in terms of the CA gay marriage thing.  It&#039;s not like there are more Republicans than Democrats in CA but it really shows that the Democratic party represents conservative Democrats as well as liberals, despite what some of you guys say or think.

The so called &quot;Christian Left&quot; is very underrated but I think it would grow in prominence in the next few cycles if the Republicans continue to lose their monopoly on religious values as a party.  This is important to consider in terms of the Hispanic vote which is predominately Catholic and of course you&#039;ve said many times now that the Jewish vote goes to Dems.

I don&#039;t know if the Dems have a standard at which they scorn party members over like you guys and the term RINO.  Even Reid is hesitant to toss Lieberman off certain committees though that might have changed had the Dems gained more of a majority in the Senate and didn&#039;t need him anymore.

It seems like the term RINO was hidden away until McCain was defeated and then rolled back out, dusted off, and used again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that&#8217;s something thing to consider also in terms of the CA gay marriage thing.  It&#8217;s not like there are more Republicans than Democrats in CA but it really shows that the Democratic party represents conservative Democrats as well as liberals, despite what some of you guys say or think.</p>
<p>The so called &#8220;Christian Left&#8221; is very underrated but I think it would grow in prominence in the next few cycles if the Republicans continue to lose their monopoly on religious values as a party.  This is important to consider in terms of the Hispanic vote which is predominately Catholic and of course you&#8217;ve said many times now that the Jewish vote goes to Dems.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know if the Dems have a standard at which they scorn party members over like you guys and the term RINO.  Even Reid is hesitant to toss Lieberman off certain committees though that might have changed had the Dems gained more of a majority in the Senate and didn&#8217;t need him anymore.</p>
<p>It seems like the term RINO was hidden away until McCain was defeated and then rolled back out, dusted off, and used again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Dog</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-125565</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Dog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=4727#comment-125565</guid>
		<description>Two in MD.  One for slots and one for early voting.  Both are destined for disaster.  Early voting but the state can decide in which districts.  Last time they floated legislation (which was unconstitutional leading to the ballot initiative) they only had it in heavily Democratic areas...

Slots should not be a part of a constitution.  Legislate it but do not add it to that document.

As for gay marriage, not in favor of federal Constitutional amendment so long as state courts do not keep overriding the legal process of the states.  CA voters decided on an issue for their state constitution.  If a judge overturns it then the only process is to amend the federal Constitution to protect the citizens from the courts.

It is like abortion.  It is not a federal issue and should never have been decided as such.  It should have been left to the states.

Minorities have fairly conservative family values which is why I am bewildered at their support for the Democratic party.    Most of their personal values line up more with conservatives but they vote liberal...

Go figure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two in MD.  One for slots and one for early voting.  Both are destined for disaster.  Early voting but the state can decide in which districts.  Last time they floated legislation (which was unconstitutional leading to the ballot initiative) they only had it in heavily Democratic areas&#8230;</p>
<p>Slots should not be a part of a constitution.  Legislate it but do not add it to that document.</p>
<p>As for gay marriage, not in favor of federal Constitutional amendment so long as state courts do not keep overriding the legal process of the states.  CA voters decided on an issue for their state constitution.  If a judge overturns it then the only process is to amend the federal Constitution to protect the citizens from the courts.</p>
<p>It is like abortion.  It is not a federal issue and should never have been decided as such.  It should have been left to the states.</p>
<p>Minorities have fairly conservative family values which is why I am bewildered at their support for the Democratic party.    Most of their personal values line up more with conservatives but they vote liberal&#8230;</p>
<p>Go figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-125564</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=4727#comment-125564</guid>
		<description>I typically support some form of gay marriage but of course I like it when the state legislates it either way.  I was opposed to changing the US Constitution for marriage when that mess came up a few years ago.

I kind of felt like the Prop was going to come into trouble by the way all the Hollywood elites were donating money and raising a stink.  

I hadn&#039;t looked at exit polls until your post and you&#039;re right.  The large minority vote (37% combined) definitely swung the yes vote.  That&#039;s pretty interesting.

I was disappointed in the two AR props that passed, one dealing with banning adoption from gays and those generally outside of wedlock and one dealing with a creating state lottery.  Both passed to my dislike.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I typically support some form of gay marriage but of course I like it when the state legislates it either way.  I was opposed to changing the US Constitution for marriage when that mess came up a few years ago.</p>
<p>I kind of felt like the Prop was going to come into trouble by the way all the Hollywood elites were donating money and raising a stink.  </p>
<p>I hadn&#8217;t looked at exit polls until your post and you&#8217;re right.  The large minority vote (37% combined) definitely swung the yes vote.  That&#8217;s pretty interesting.</p>
<p>I was disappointed in the two AR props that passed, one dealing with banning adoption from gays and those generally outside of wedlock and one dealing with a creating state lottery.  Both passed to my dislike.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vxnschatzee</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/californians-divorce-selves-from-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-125562</link>
		<dc:creator>Vxnschatzee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=4727#comment-125562</guid>
		<description>What is the point of putting a proposition on the ballot and then rejecting the results because you don&#039;t like the way it turned out?  Isn&#039;t the point of voting to have the people speak and then do their will?  That is what the libs say about BO and expect us to respect that and tow the line so how is that not the case with prop 8?  We, the people, are supposed to making these decisions not a judge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the point of putting a proposition on the ballot and then rejecting the results because you don&#8217;t like the way it turned out?  Isn&#8217;t the point of voting to have the people speak and then do their will?  That is what the libs say about BO and expect us to respect that and tow the line so how is that not the case with prop 8?  We, the people, are supposed to making these decisions not a judge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

