Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[Mr.Nick]

Let me guess Eric Rudolph was just a "white dude?"

Fucking idiots...

 

[g5000]

Next they will start the list of demands.

Please read the ruling. Just the first two pages. It goes right to your point about marriage and the propagation of the human race.

 

[g5000]

What the fuck will people say next??? Jesus didn't exist?

This has nothing to do with you accepting cash and prizes from the State when you marry.

 

[bodecea]

Let me go tell our daughter she doesn't exist. Let me go tell all the children of gay couples they don't exist.

You have spoken.

Yeah, I can't wait to tell the five babies I had that they don't exist. I can anticipate my son's response..."does that mean I don't have to go to school?"

Your son's response is predictable. Otherwise, as long as I do not have to pay for your children....

As long as we don't have to pay for yours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why even put it on the ballot if the fucking thing was "illegal" to begin with?

What the fuck....

Ignorance of the Constitution and its case law coupled with an irrational hatred of homosexuals.

If the government can override democracy then what CANT THEY DO??

Government isn’t ‘overriding’ democracy – everyone is subject to the rule of law, including private citizens acting in a legislative capacity via referendum. If the majority acts in an un-Constitutional manner, just as a legislative body, that act will be struck down.

It’s impossible to explain the principle of the rule of law in any other terms, if you don’t get it, then you just don’t get it.

The only tripe and tired tactic here is the invention that being gay is a choice. Please provide evidence it is. And while you are at it, tell us about the day you decided to be straight.

"Hmmm, gay or straight? Gay or straight? Which shall I be?"

However homosexuality may manifest, legally it is irrelevant, one need not be ‘born’ into a certain class of persons to realize protection of the Constitution:

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “‘Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'” Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. “The guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equallaws.'” Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Romer v. Evans

Something tells me that the Roberts court wants no part of this argument. That should worry us all.

As usual in such cases, it will be decided by Justice Kennedy, who wrote both the Romer and Lawrence opinions.

 

[bodecea]

May as well say the "Spanish" committed the inquisition instead of Christians.

The spanish did commit the inquisition...It was queen Isabella who asked the permission of the church to purify her country......


and by the way.... you keep not answering a simple question...

do you think heterosexual people feel they have the right to marry?

Marriage is not a government issue....

What I believe is irrelevant...

Really? So there is no such thing as marriage laws and marriage licenses?

 

[Mr.Nick]

the spanish did commit the inquisition...it was queen isabella who asked the permission of the church to purify her country......


And by the way.... You keep not answering a simple question...

Do you think heterosexual people feel they have the right to marry?

marriage is not a government issue....

What i believe is irrelevant...

you are the one calming it is not a right for gay couples to marry..

I am asking you... Do you think heterosexuals feel they have the right to marry. Its a simple question, try you best to answer.

marriage is not a federal government issue do you not understand that??? It's not our federal governments position to regulate marriage - it never has been and it shouldn't be.

Do you understand that???? For the 25th fucking time!

 

[bodecea]

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Really? .... Far be it from me to correct you... but either of a lesbian couple can produce a child... gay couples both male and female make fabulous loving parents and adoptive parents.

You did not pay attention. No same sex couple can have a child without the participation of a third party or parties. Adoptive families do not have the genetic materials of BOTH parents. Do you think that marriage should now be expanded to include a third spouse for child bearing purposes?

Men and women only need a man and a woman.

So....? YOu are talking about procreation....neither a requirement for marriage, nor is marriage required for it.

 

[Cuyo]

marriage is not a government issue....

What i believe is irrelevant...

you are the one calming it is not a right for gay couples to marry..

I am asking you... Do you think heterosexuals feel they have the right to marry. Its a simple question, try you best to answer.

marriage is not a federal government issue do you not understand that??? It's not our federal governments position to regulate marriage - it never has been and it shouldn't be.

Do you understand that???? For the 25th fucking time!

swing and a miss...

 

[syrenn]

Have it your way. Sex between a man and a women produce children. No matter how magnificent the sex between two men or two women, they will not have children.

I understand that one of the liberal goals is to destroy the concept of marriage and the family along with it. I"m not disputing that.

Really? .... Far be it from me to correct you... but either of a lesbian couple can produce a child... gay couples both male and female make fabulous loving parents and adoptive parents.

You did not pay attention. No same sex couple can have a child without the participation of a third party or parties. Adoptive families do not have the genetic materials of BOTH parents. Do you think that marriage should now be expanded to include a third spouse for child bearing purposes?

Men and women only need a man and a woman.

Adopted children do not share genetic material of either parent or other family members... are you saying they should not have been adopted? Do adopted children somehow destroy family values?

It would also seem to me that heterosexual couples are in need of a third party to become pregnant these days. Are you saying that it should no longer be a right or that it somehow it is wrecking their family? I am sure that sperm donor clinics will be very unhappy being put out of business.. and the men who donate will now be a second husband.

 

[Katzndogz]

Really? .... Far be it from me to correct you... but either of a lesbian couple can produce a child... gay couples both male and female make fabulous loving parents and adoptive parents.

You did not pay attention. No same sex couple can have a child without the participation of a third party or parties. Adoptive families do not have the genetic materials of BOTH parents. Do you think that marriage should now be expanded to include a third spouse for child bearing purposes?

Men and women only need a man and a woman.

So....? YOu are talking about procreation....neither a requirement for marriage, nor is marriage required for it.

Does that have something to do with what syrenn said?

I didn't think so.

 

[Mr.Nick]

What the fuck will people say next??? Jesus didn't exist?

This has nothing to do with you accepting cash and prizes from the State when you marry.

And in what universe do you believe I even believe the state should recognize any marriage??

I hate both the federal and state governments by the way... They're both my enemy..

I laugh when cops are killed...

 

[gallantwarrior]

Equal treatment under the law qualifies as a civil right. It's right there in the Constitution.

This apparently needs to be pounded into some heads.

You say this and then say that two consenting adults that happen to be related CAN be discriminated against. Which is it?

So you are saying incest is as harmless as gay marriage?

Otherwise, you are being logically inconsistent. You cannot justify legalizing a harmful practice just because a harmless one is legal.

I am very curious why you brought up incest. Do you believe it to be harmless?

Anyone else familiar with line breeding?
Jane Anderson - Line Breeding

 

[bodecea]

marriage is not a government issue....

What i believe is irrelevant...

you are the one calming it is not a right for gay couples to marry..

I am asking you... Do you think heterosexuals feel they have the right to marry. Its a simple question, try you best to answer.

marriage is not a federal government issue do you not understand that??? It's not our federal governments position to regulate marriage - it never has been and it shouldn't be.

Do you understand that???? For the 25th fucking time!

If marriage is not a federal issue, why are there federal laws about it? Please explain that one please.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, Jesus was considered a heretic and a lunatic...

Both actions lead to his death.

Romans did not take orders from Jews

It was Italians who crucified Jesus

Jews were behind the entire crucifixion.....

What the fuck is wrong with some of you???

Italians pounded the nails into Jesus and hung him on the cross

Don't you read your Bible?

 

[syrenn]

marriage is not a government issue....

What i believe is irrelevant...

you are the one calming it is not a right for gay couples to marry..

I am asking you... Do you think heterosexuals feel they have the right to marry. Its a simple question, try you best to answer.

marriage is not a federal government issue do you not understand that??? It's not our federal governments position to regulate marriage - it never has been and it shouldn't be.

Do you understand that???? For the 25th fucking time!

Not a government issue?


Tell that to the IRS...a branch of the federal government....

 

[bodecea]

What the fuck will people say next??? Jesus didn't exist?

This has nothing to do with you accepting cash and prizes from the State when you marry.

And in what universe do you believe I even believe the state should recognize any marriage??

I hate both the federal and state governments by the way... They're both my enemy..

I laugh when cops are killed...

One of those things that just should not remain small.

 

[Cuyo]

What the fuck will people say next??? Jesus didn't exist?

This has nothing to do with you accepting cash and prizes from the State when you marry.

And in what universe do you believe I even believe the state should recognize any marriage??

I hate both the federal and state governments by the way... They're both my enemy..

I laugh when cops are killed...

You got problems dude, and I don't think this place is the prescription.

 

[g5000]

The only tripe and tired tactic here is the invention that being gay is a choice. Please provide evidence it is. And while you are at it, tell us about the day you decided to be straight.

"Hmmm, gay or straight? Gay or straight? Which shall I be?"

However homosexuality may manifest, legally it is irrelevant, one need not be ‘born’ into a certain class of persons to realize protection of the Constitution:

Yes, I understand that. It is just that there are many logical fallacies which are used to assault gay marriage and I take them on for sport.

But you will notice I frequently return to the point that all of this hoopla would be irrelevant if the federal and state governments had not institutionalized marriage in the law, and that everyone was fine with that until people they didn't like started swimming in the bonus pool.

 

[del]

What the fuck will people say next??? Jesus didn't exist?

This has nothing to do with you accepting cash and prizes from the State when you marry.

And in what universe do you believe I even believe the state should recognize any marriage??

I hate both the federal and state governments by the way... They're both my enemy..

I laugh when cops are killed...

you're seriously fucked in the head.

seek professional help