Nic Harris no h8'n

[bringit]

http://www.noh8campaign.com/photo_galleries/174/18599_medium.jpg?1304805938

[Soonerson1975]

Looks like he's been kidnapped by a homosexual.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

WTF is that all about?!? :confused:

[Boomer.....]

Isn't that an anti-ghey campaign?

[bringit]

NTTAWWT but yes, yes it is

[NormanPride]

From the site:


The NOH8 Campaign is a photographic silent protest created by celebrity photographer Adam Bouska (http://www.bouska.net) and partner Jeff Parshley in direct response to the passage of Proposition 8. Photos feature subjects with duct tape over their mouths, symbolizing their voices being silenced by Prop 8 and similar legislation around the world, with "NOH8" painted on one cheek in protest.

[badger]

Looks like he's been kidnapped by a homosexual.

If you're referring to the blue gloves, he plays for the Carolina Panthers now, silly :P

And I have no problem with Nic speaking out against Proposition 8. Good to see him take an interest in politics, even if you are for Prop 8.

[Soonerjeepman]

how sad...

[bringit]

I agree. It is sad that there's so much h8 in the world

[cccasooner2]

Isn't that an anti-ghey campaign?

No, I believe it is pro-ghey. Passage of Prop8 (California of course) says marriage between man and woman is the only valid union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

[EatLeadCommie]

Isn't Nic from Louisiana? Not sure why he feels the need to chime in on an issue in a state he has no connection to. Guess he just views it as doing his civic duty. Maybe he's gay. NTTAWWT

[Widescreen]

So pro-Prop 8 is hate? Thinking that marriage is a man/woman thing is hating? Hmm.

[Sooner_Tuf]

It's not anti-gay. It's Pro-Leroy!

[NorCal Sooner]

Good for Nic. I proud of him for taking a stance that might not be so popular among athletes.

[BoulderSooner79]

So pro-Prop 8 is hate? Thinking that marriage is a man/woman thing is hating? Hmm.

It sure is. It's spreads the vile belief that only us het types must endure marriage. Gays shouldn't get a pass on that one.

[NorCal Sooner]

So pro-Prop 8 is hate? Thinking that marriage is a man/woman thing is hating? Hmm.

Yes, Some forms of discrimination can be interpreted as hate.

[SoonerofAlabama]

Weird to me, but if that is what you want to do, go ahead.

[bringit]

It sure is. It's spreads the vile belief that only us het types must endure marriage. Gays shouldn't get a pass on that one.

spek :D

[badger]

It sure is. It's spreads the vile belief that only us het types must endure marriage. Gays shouldn't get a pass on that one.

Remember- it's not my money and your money. It's my money and our money. :P

PS: Before all of you send sympathy cards to NP, my money and our money are directly deposited into a single account :D

[BoulderSooner79]

Remember- it's not my money and your money. It's my money and our money. :P

PS: Before all of you send sympathy cards to NP, my money and our money are directly deposited into a single account :D

Hey, I was married to my first wife for *decades*. And let me check... yep, I still am!! I have no idea how much money is in her account, I just know I don't have one :eek:

I've yet to figure out how gays or anyone else's marriage impacts mine; but I admit to being simple guy and sometimes don't get these subtle realities.

[Widescreen]

Yes, Some forms of discrimination can be interpreted as hate.

Well, that particular interpretation is exceedingly broad IMO. I can't think of 1 gay person I hate. Even though my definition of marriage is different than many of theirs.

[Mongo]

take it to the gay forum fellas, otherwise known as Zee Blende-a

[Widescreen]

Mongo's the mod there.

[NorCal Sooner]

Well, that particular interpretation is exceedingly broad IMO. I can't think of 1 gay person I hate. Even though my definition of marriage is different than many of theirs.

I get that, but the question is not if you hate gay people, but rather if you think there should be a law that prohibits same sex marriage. Many feel that such a law is discriminatory. That discrimination could be based in hate, religious beliefs, or something else. I didn’t mean to imply that everyone who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman is a hater, but I do feel that if you support a law banning same sex marriage then you are discriminating. JMHO.

[NorCal Sooner]

take it to the gay forum fellas, otherwise known as Zee Blende-a

Just particiating in a healthy debate. Nic Harris is the one who brought it up.:D

[Sooner_Tuf]

Well, that particular interpretation is exceedingly broad IMO. I can't think of 1 gay person I hate. Even though my definition of marriage is different than many of theirs.

Never saw Richard Simmons on TV?

[SoonerofAlabama]

Even if he is a football player, this should not be on the football board. I am sorry, I'm sure he loves his cause, but this is not something for the board, even in the offseason.

[NorCal Sooner]

Even if he is a football player, this should not be on the football board. I am sorry, I'm sure he loves his cause, but this is not something for the board, even in the offseason.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JpJsaDXvMyI/SsVYWvNg_BI/AAAAAAAAAG8/KvMBfAsK40c/s1600/Lighten%2BUp%2BFrancis.jpg

[BoulderSooner79]

Even if he is a football player, this should not be on the football board. I am sorry, I'm sure he loves his cause, but this is not something for the board, even in the offseason.

Are you really sorry?

[SoonerofAlabama]

Are you really sorry?

Sorry to the poster of this thread yes.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

I get that, but the question is not if you hate gay people, but rather if you think there should be a law that prohibits same sex marriage. Many feel that such a law is discriminatory. That discrimination could be based in hate, religious beliefs, or something else. I didn’t mean to imply that everyone who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman is a hater, but I do feel that if you support a law banning same sex marriage then you are discriminating. JMHO.

Cousin lovers believe that a law that prohibits first cousin marriage is discriminatory.
Let's not even get into polygamy, pedophiles, and aggies (who want to marry their sheep).

[NorCal Sooner]

Cousin lovers believe that a law that prohibits first cousin marriage is discriminatory.
Let's not even get into polygamy, pedophiles, and aggies (who want to marry their sheep).

So you're comparing polygamists, pedophiles, and people having sex with sheep to gays and lesbians wanting the right to marry. Lets not forget that at one time laws banning mixed marriages (blacks and whites) existed in about 17 states, but the courts ruled these laws to be discriminatory. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in 5 states. It's only a matter of time...

[meoveryouxinfinity]

So you're comparing polygamists, pedophiles, and people having sex with sheep to gays and lesbians wanting the right to marry. Lets not forget that at one time laws banning mixed marriages (blacks and whites) existed in about 17 states, but the courts ruled these laws to be discriminatory. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in 5 states. It's only a matter of time...

I was joking about the second part. Slippery slope anyone? But yes. I am comparing gay marriage to brother/sister and first cousin marriage and polygamy. How can you not? Whatever makes people happy, right? I mean, how can you say that two women have the right to marry but two first cousins don't? You can say it's not a legitimate argument but it is.
(PS first cousins have a VERY low rate of serious birth defects. I did research on this for my genetics class.)
Would it be okay for two female first cousins to marry? I mean, they're not having kids right?? How can you say for sure that a male and female first cousin want to have kids?? This is discrimination too, but I don't see anyone beating their chest about it crying.
BTW, internationally, first cousin marriage is VERY common.

Anyway the real discussion centers around states' rights. California has overturned the public's ruling on gay marriage. Something put to a VOTE OF THE VOTING PUBLIC (albeit via the legislative branch) is sent to the judicial branch and overturned with disregard to the public opinion. I think that's wrong and an abuse of checks and balances.

[BoulderSooner79]

Something put to a VOTE OF THE VOTING PUBLIC (albeit via the legislative branch) is sent to the judicial branch and overturned with disregard to the public opinion. I think that's wrong and an abuse of checks and balances.

But that's exactly the job of the courts in the system of check and balances. The public will often vote for something totally unconstitutional and it's up to the courts to determine that.

[Soonerjeepman]

Anyway the real discussion centers around states' rights. California has overturned the public's ruling on gay marriage. Something put to a VOTE OF THE VOTING PUBLIC (albeit via the legislative branch) is sent to the judicial branch and overturned with disregard to the public opinion. I think that's wrong and an abuse of checks and balances.

yup...so much for majority rules...and as far as being "unconstitutional"...it isn't. I suppose the government spending more than they are taking in is ok?

as far as the "survival of the fittest" ...put all gay men, all gay women, and the heterosexuals on separate islands...only 1 group would survive...but I guess basic genetics isn't a valid argument...

[AlboSooner]

This is the slow but relentless attempt by the pro-gay rights groups to make gay relations not merely tolerated, but accepted as normal. In reality they couldn't care less about getting married as many of them are promiscuous. It's all about proving to themselves and to us that homosexual relations should be accepted as something as normally occurring as heterosexual relations. They are after world-wide acceptance. That is their final and ultimate mission.

While they may lose a battle here or there, or a proposition here or there, I think their overall strategy is brilliant, and it will work in the end.

[bixby28]

Marriage between a man and a woman is what I consider legitimate, IMHO. That being said, I don't get wound up about homosexuals wanting the right to marry. If they are going to be together anyway, then let them have it. With my beliefs being as they are, it's their lifestyle to live with.

[BoulderSooner79]

yup...so much for majority rules...and as far as being "unconstitutional"...it isn't.

Again, that's for the courts to decide when it gets challenged. I'm not saying it is or isn't in this case - I'm not part of the judiciary as I assume you are not either.

[NorCal Sooner]

I was joking about the second part. Slippery slope anyone? But yes. I am comparing gay marriage to brother/sister and first cousin marriage and polygamy. How can you not? Whatever makes people happy, right? I mean, how can you say that two women have the right to marry but two first cousins don't? You can say it's not a legitimate argument but it is.
(PS first cousins have a VERY low rate of serious birth defects. I did research on this for my genetics class.)
Would it be okay for two female first cousins to marry? I mean, they're not having kids right?? How can you say for sure that a male and female first cousin want to have kids?? This is discrimination too, but I don't see anyone beating their chest about it crying.
BTW, internationally, first cousin marriage is VERY common.

Anyway the real discussion centers around states' rights. California has overturned the public's ruling on gay marriage. Something put to a VOTE OF THE VOTING PUBLIC (albeit via the legislative branch) is sent to the judicial branch and overturned with disregard to the public opinion. I think that's wrong and an abuse of checks and balances.

Last time I checked first cousin marriage was legal in most states and I think all states allow the marriage of second cousins. Polygamy is a more complicated issue. It's common in some religions and has been around for thousands of years. However, most in the US feel it leads to human and civil rights abuses. In my opinion that is indeed the case in many instances. I would not support the abuse of anyone’s civil rights. I don't put same sex marriage in the same category as polygamy. Just as first cousin marriage, same sex marriage isn't going to really affect most heterosexual Americans one way or the other.

It doesn't matter if the California voting public passed a law prohibiting same sex marriage. If it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.

BTW – I’m not accusing you of being hateful or bigoted. You seem to think things out and form your conclusion. I respect your opinions but just don't agree with you. And don’t let my location fool you into thinking that I have a horse in this race, so to speak. I’m straight and married with children. I just happen to think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that they should have the right to marry. It’s just not a complicated issue for me.

[usaosooner]

Props to Nic Harris

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Last time I checked first cousin marriage was legal in most states and I think all states allow the marriage of second cousins.
False. First cousin marriage is illegal, restricted, or prohibited in most states:
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266


Polygamy is a more complicated issue. It's common in some religions and has been around for thousands of years. However, most in the US feel it leads to human and civil rights abuses. In my opinion that is indeed the case in many instances. I would not support the abuse of anyone’s civil rights. I don't put same sex marriage in the same category as polygamy. Just as first cousin marriage, same sex marriage isn't going to really affect most heterosexual Americans one way or the other.
Polygamy leads to civil rights abuses? This makes no sense, whatsoever. I think you mean simply human rights abuses. Civil rights are rights afforded by the constitution. So, being in a polygamist relationship takes away your 2nd amendment right to bear arms? The freedom of speech? LOL doesn't make sense. But I'll just assume you're saying that polygamist relationships are more conducive to human rights violations: abuse, etc. That's simply a generalization you can't make. I could say that homosexual relationships are more conducive to unprotected sex--spreading AIDS. True? Maybe. But you would have to look at it case-by-case.


It doesn't matter if the California voting public passed a law prohibiting same sex marriage. If it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional.
Judicial review is an essential part of the law-making process. But prop 8 was NOT a statute (law), it was a constitutional amendment. Statutes and their applications can be found constitutional or unconstituional. The TEXT of the amendment to the constitution cannot (by definition) be unconstitutional because it IS a part of the constitution. The application of the amendment can be constitutionally challenged. Now, if the constitutional amendment violated the FEDERAL constitution, it could be deemed unconstitutional, but it would be sent to the US Supreme Court, surpassing the California courts.
**My parents are constitutional law professors**


BTW – I’m not accusing you of being hateful or bigoted. You seem to think things out and form your conclusion. I respect your opinions but just don't agree with you. And don’t let my location fool you into thinking that I have a horse in this race, so to speak. I’m straight and married with children. I just happen to think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that they should have the right to marry. It’s just not a complicated issue for me.
I don't have a problem with people being gay. I am a conservative and don't support gay marriage but like other people said.. it doesn't really effect me. I just don't like how it has become more acceptable to actually be gay than to be a "homophobe". As for there being "nothing wrong" with homosexuality? It's deviant, risky behavior.
-It's not normal or natural. Gays can't procreate! ha, ha, HA!
-It's not like any other sin: you can't be gay and Christian. Habitual sin!
-People aren't born gay. If gay is an inherited trait, it would die out pretty damn fast.

[NorCal Sooner]

False. First cousin marriage is illegal, restricted, or prohibited in most states:
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Polygamy leads to civil rights abuses? This makes no sense, whatsoever. I think you mean simply human rights abuses. Civil rights are rights afforded by the constitution. So, being in a polygamist relationship takes away your 2nd amendment right to bear arms? The freedom of speech? LOL doesn't make sense. But I'll just assume you're saying that polygamist relationships are more conducive to human rights violations: abuse, etc. That's simply a generalization you can't make. I could say that homosexual relationships are more conducive to unprotected sex--spreading AIDS. True? Maybe. But you would have to look at it case-by-case.

Judicial review is an essential part of the law-making process. But prop 8 was NOT a statute (law), it was a constitutional amendment. Statutes and their applications can be found constitutional or unconstituional. The TEXT of the amendment to the constitution cannot (by definition) be unconstitutional because it IS a part of the constitution. The application of the amendment can be constitutionally challenged. Now, if the constitutional amendment violated the FEDERAL constitution, it could be deemed unconstitutional, but it would be sent to the US Supreme Court, surpassing the California courts.
**My parents are constitutional law professors**

I don't have a problem with people being gay. I am a conservative and don't support gay marriage but like other people said.. it doesn't really effect me. I just don't like how it has become more acceptable to actually be gay than to be a "homophobe". As for there being "nothing wrong" with homosexuality? It's deviant, risky behavior.
-It's not normal or natural. Gays can't procreate! ha, ha, HA!
-It's not like any other sin: you can't be gay and Christian. Habitual sin!
-People aren't born gay. If gay is an inherited trait, it would die out pretty damn fast.

Getting a little testy there aren’t you. I apologize, I did mean human rights. As for generalizing, these are not simple black or white issues. In some cases we do have to speak in general terms. It’s just not possible to look at every single case. I’m very happy **your parents are constitutional law professors**. I am not. I’m a chemist and a US citizen with my own beliefs and views. I also have the exact same rights and voting privileges as **your constitutional law professors parents **. Also, I do know for a fact that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. However, I’m sure you can talk to **your constitutional law professor parents** and explain how this never really happened. As for you last paragraph, wow…… but you are entitled to your opinion.

[Frozen Sooner]

Judicial review is an essential part of the law-making process. But prop 8 was NOT a statute (law), it was a constitutional amendment. Statutes and their applications can be found constitutional or unconstituional. The TEXT of the amendment to the constitution cannot (by definition) be unconstitutional because it IS a part of the constitution. The application of the amendment can be constitutionally challenged. Now, if the constitutional amendment violated the FEDERAL constitution, it could be deemed unconstitutional, but it would be sent to the US Supreme Court, surpassing the California courts.
**My parents are constitutional law professors**

Then you misunderstood your parents. The constitutionality of a state constitution can be challenged in federal district court, and in the case of Prop 8 it was and found unconstitutional. It's now in front of the 9th Circuit and can then be appealed to the US Supreme Court. If I recall correctly, the 9th Circuit has certified a question of appellate standing to the California Supreme Court.

You can also challenge the constitutionality of a state constitution as violative of the federal constitution in state court: the state courts are presumed competent to review the constitutionality of any state enactment, including state constitutional amendments. This power is inherent in the Supremacy Clause: Federal constitutional law, Federal statutory law, and treaties are the supreme law of the land, displacing contrary state constitutions and statutes. However, the decision of the state supreme court could be appealed on writ of cert. to the US Supreme Court, bypassing the lower federal courts.

It's very very rare for the Supreme Court to take cases directly. While the grant of original jurisdiction under Article III contemplates suits where a state is a party, you'll notice that the Prop 8 suit does not have a state as a party--it names Governor Schwartzenegger as a defendant, not the state of California. This is an Ex parte Young suit to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional law (and yes, constitutions are laws, they're just the supreme law of the jurisdiction), not a suit directly against a state. Further, the grant of original jurisdiction naming states as parties does not contemplate suits where states are DEFENDANTS (see the 11th Amendment, Hans v. Louisiana).

And while I don't have con law professor parents, I *did* get As in Con Law and Federal Jurisdiction. :D

[jk the sooner fan]

And while I don't have con law professor parents, I *did* get As in Con Law and Federal Jurisdiction. :D

well arent you the one

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, it certainly doesn't make me as knowledgeable as someone with Con Law professor parents.

[The Profit]

Judicial review is an essential part of the law-making process. But prop 8 was NOT a statute (law), it was a constitutional amendment. Statutes and their applications can be found constitutional or unconstituional. The TEXT of the amendment to the constitution cannot (by definition) be unconstitutional because it IS a part of the constitution. The application of the amendment can be constitutionally challenged. Now, if the constitutional amendment violated the FEDERAL constitution, it could be deemed unconstitutional, but it would be sent to the US Supreme Court, surpassing the California courts.
**My parents are constitutional law professors**


Which is exactly what has happened. Federal appeals court in California has ruled that Prop. 8 was indeed unconstitutional. It will go the US Supreme Court, where the lawyers representing the opponents of the law are David Boies and Ted Olson, two of this nation's most outstanding attorneys. Boies represented Al Gore and Olson represented George W. Bush in the famous supreme court case that handed Bush the presidency. When you see guys like Boies and Olson, who represent opposite political spheres, agreeing that something is unconstitutional, it probably is.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Judicial review is an essential part of the law-making process. But prop 8 was NOT a statute (law), it was a constitutional amendment. Statutes and their applications can be found constitutional or unconstituional. The TEXT of the amendment to the constitution cannot (by definition) be unconstitutional because it IS a part of the constitution. The application of the amendment can be constitutionally challenged. Now, if the constitutional amendment violated the FEDERAL constitution, it could be deemed unconstitutional, but it would be sent to the US Supreme Court, surpassing the California courts.
**My parents are constitutional law professors**


Which is exactly what has happened. Federal appeals court in California has ruled that Prop. 8 was indeed unconstitutional. It will go the US Supreme Court, where the lawyers representing the opponents of the law are David Boies and Ted Olson, two of this nation's most outstanding attorneys. Boies represented Al Gore and Olson represented George W. Bush in the famous supreme court case that handed Bush the presidency. When you see guys like Boies and Olson, who represent opposite political spheres, agreeing that something is unconstitutional, it probably is.
My bad, I thought it was challenged in the state courts (I think it was and upheld)...But the federal constitutionality brings it back to the main issue, like I said, which is states' rights.

&many "conservative" people take "liberal" stances on constitutionality issues. If you thoroughly analyze them you understand the underlying thinking behind the justices' votes. But without in depth analysis, the justices usually vote oppositely of how the general public would think.

[stoopified]

So pro-Prop 8 is hate? Thinking that marriage is a man/woman thing is hating? Hmm.Not agreeing with the gay agenda is hating,where you been? :)

[sappstuf]

I don't understand the discrimination argument at all.

If California voters wanted to define the game of baseball, could softball players cry discrimination? The games are 98% the same, yet are clearly defined as different games. There is no discrimination involved.

Gay couples can call it unions or whatever they want. They can have the same rules as far as insurance, ect goes. I don't really care what they do, because it does not affect me.

But it isn't, by definition, marriage in the state of California. That isn't discrimination, it is a definition of what something is.

On a side note, Judge Walker really jumped the shark when he made statements of "fact" including "beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."

[yermom]

so in California there are gay unions that allow all the same rights?

i don't understand why the state or country cares who is in a "civil union" i don't care what you call it.

leave the restrictions to the Sunday houses of pretend