California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[Jason z]

Good one on the children's right being violated it probably comes from the same people who rather would leave a failed aborted baby die on the table because that is sooo wrong to provide healthcare, yet don't give capital punishment to a deserving criminal...kinda upside down world we live in.

:thumbsup:

Remember this is coming from the guy who made a fucking thread about how our incoming president would fuck up. How unamerican can you get? Look who the cry baby is. Obama won jerk off. Deal with it.

 

[bodie54]

"We're a democracy and our strength is that majority wins the vote," said John Kirkpatrick, a church member. :glugglug:

Not if that majority vote violates basic civil rights. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery the judiciary would invalidate the vote. Why is this essential concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

 

[don_equis]

Remember this is coming from the guy who made a fucking thread about how our incoming president would fuck up. How unamerican can you get? Look who the cry baby is. Obama won jerk off. Deal with it.

Yeppers that's me and I also said have your cake and choke on it..that is very american and patriotic to always stay vigilant unlike some folks like you who think elected oficials are gods or it's a major crime to critize them and one last thing I got over IT as stated before so you should tell that to your buddies in California.

Not if that majority vote violates basic civil rights. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery the judiciary would invalidate the vote. Why is this essential concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

This is not the same as slavery, unless some of these folks got sex slaves, bad attemp on trying to associate this with racial discrimination and such...yeah I wonder why can't you people grasp that proposition 8 was voted and approved in a democratic process...make the case and use the proper legal channels to get your case through.

 

[Dawn]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Does same-sex marriage threatens the life of anyone?
Does same-sex marriage threatens liberty of anyone?
Does same-sex marriage threatens the pursuit of happiness of anyone?

 

[LBP 76]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Does same-sex marriage threatens the life of anyone?
Does same-sex marriage threatens liberty of anyone?
Does same-sex marriage threatens the pursuit of happiness of anyone?

Good point.

You make a lot of 'em it seems.


Don't worry California gays and lesbians; eventually you will be able to legally marry there. It's inevitable.

The winds of change are blowing.

 

[YMIHERE]

Not if that majority vote violates basic civil rights. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if the majority voted to reinstitute slavery the judiciary would invalidate the vote. Why is this essential concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

Indeed. Obviously don_ equis does not know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. With such an obnoxious sense of humor it's not surprising that the truth to him is what he feel to be true. Don't bother him with concepts and facts for he believes in truthiness.

 

[bodie54]

This is not the same as slavery.

The foundational issue is the same in both instances: i.e. whether in the eyes of the law the majority vote violates the constitutional rights of the minority.

Ever heard of Plessy vs Ferguson?

make the case and use the proper legal channels to get your case through.

And that's exactly what will happen. In the interim it seems clear that you, the great defender of democracy, also want to deny them their right to assembly, and free speech.

 

[Facetious]

no bingo tonite ?

 

[tubuler]

Jebus says it's not nice to poke in the naughty place.

 

[YMIHERE]

no bingo tonite ?

Sorry, bingo was outlawed by voters in a democratic process. :tongue:

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Sorry, bingo was outlawed by voters in a democratic process. :tongue:

Well FUCK! I'm not paying taxes now.

 

[don_equis]

The foundational issue is the same in both instances: i.e. whether in the eyes of the law the majority vote violates the constitutional rights of the minority. - shit that happens every day then.

Ever heard of Plessy vs Ferguson? -nope but I'll look it up



And that's exactly what will happen. In the interim it seems clear that you, the great defender of democracy, also want to deny them their right to assembly, and free speech.

- being a beligerent violent mob is not a right, it's rioting.

Ok look me being the bigger most compassionate person in here even more than that Tubuler dude out there. I will provide a couple of solutions for this dilema and forgive me if I already have stated them before.

1. Do not break up the folks that have already been married, put a "grandfather clause" in effect.

2. Tell these people the party is over it's not 1999 and to put down their pitchforks and torches and to walk their candy asses home and start calling their lawyers or legislators. Educate them on how democracy works or does not.

3. Propose something called "civil unions". But don't go around trying to force churches under non discrimination law to marry them or get sued. That's probably what got the religious mor einvolved into this...just speculatin

4. Shit why just stay limit it to that, how about in a federal level come up with a law that ensures than when you croak your money, retirement, social security goes to that special person that you want to and that the goverment does not get to keep it. Tax filling too.

So for you all that are ranting and condoning these folks behavior what do you propose? what are your solutions? be part of the solution not part of the enablers...rights that's thrown out there so easily these days also, do you all think that Mr Hands who I am assuming was gay had a right to let a horse fuck him in the ass? well he did died from his stupid ploy in case you don't know about this bizare case....anyways I am sleepy got to wake up early, you all behave and don't listen to tube or LB....or shit on my post anyways :rofl:

 

[Facetious]

So for you all that are ranting and condoning these folks behavior what do you propose? what are your solutions?

Don't get the results you want ? Install and / or shop your judge.
Selective Tyranny of the Judiciary, but only as they see fit. :nono:

Ain't they great, further "undermining the pillars of the city" ?

 

[calpoon]

Er, did you just said "tit" level? what's wrong with "tit" or "tits" :nanner:

haha. now that was a Freudian slip. this IS Freeones, after all.

 

[Jason z]

Yeppers that's me and I also said have your cake and choke on it..that is very american and patriotic to always stay vigilant unlike some folks like you who think elected oficials are gods or it's a major crime to critize them and one last thing I got over IT as stated before so you should tell that to your buddies in California.




This is not the same as slavery, unless some of these folks got sex slaves, bad attemp on trying to associate this with racial discrimination and such...yeah I wonder why can't you people grasp that proposition 8 was voted and approved in a democratic process...make the case and use the proper legal channels to get your case through.

How do treat elected officials as gods? I fucking hated bush from day 1. I don't even live in california. Nice try.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Ok look me being the bigger most compassionate person in here even more than that Tubuler dude out there. I will provide a couple of solutions for this dilema and forgive me if I already have stated them before.

Ok, cool. Let's see what kind of original ideas that you have to offer this world...

1. Do not break up the folks that have already been married, put a "grandfather clause" in effect.

That's already being discussed in California. Not a new idea.

2. Tell these people the party is over it's not 1999 and to put down their pitchforks and torches and to walk their candy asses home and start calling their lawyers or legislators. Educate them on how democracy works or does not.

I'm sure people are already doing that. They're called the police. Not a new idea.

3. Propose something called "civil unions". But don't go around trying to force churches under non discrimination law to marry them or get sued. That's probably what got the religious mor einvolved into this...just speculatin

Civil Unions are something that already exist. Not a new idea.

4. Shit why just stay limit it to that, how about in a federal level come up with a law that ensures than when you croak your money, retirement, social security goes to that special person that you want to and that the goverment does not get to keep it. Tax filling too.

I don't even know what that means and I'm actually quite sure that you meant to post that in another thread, because it has nothing to do with gay-marriage or this discussion what-so-ever.

Hmm, WELL...that was disappointing. I was hoping for something that would be ear-marked as "revolutionary", so future children of this country could read about it in their History 101 books when they are learning about Homosexuals v. United States: The Day The Earth Stood Still...In A Pair Of Fabulous Pumps.

So for you all that are ranting and condoning these folks behavior what do you propose? what are your solutions? be part of the solution not part of the enablers...rights that's thrown out there so easily these days also, do you all think that Mr Hands who I am assuming was gay had a right to let a horse fuck him in the ass? well he did died from his stupid ploy in case you don't know about this bizare case....anyways I am sleepy got to wake up early, you all behave and don't listen to tube or LB....or shit on my post anyways :rofl:

Sleepy or just really, really drunk? :dunno:

 

[don_equis]

Ok, cool. Let's see what kind of original ideas that you have to offer this world...



That's already being discussed in California. Not a new idea.



I'm sure people are already doing that. They're called the police. Not a new idea.



Civil Unions are something that already exist. Not a new idea.



I don't even know what that means and I'm actually quite sure that you meant to post that in another thread, because it has nothing to do with gay-marriage or this discussion what-so-ever.

Hmm, WELL...that was disappointing. I was hoping for something that would be ear-marked as "revolutionary", so future children of this country could read about it in their History 101 books when they are learning about Homosexuals v. United States: The Day The Earth Stood Still...In A Pair Of Fabulous Pumps.



Sleepy or just really, really drunk? :dunno:

What's wrong with them ideas if they are have been proposed then, what else do these people want? You know what chef go marry your pet turtle yer freak...I am not eating at your restaurant no more.

:thumbsup: <--hows that for a digital rectum exam buddy!

 

[ChefChiTown]

What's wrong with them ideas if they are have been proposed then, what else do these people want? You know what chef go marry your pet turtle yer freak...I am not eating at your restaurant no more.

Are you still drunk?

"What's wrong with THEM ideas if THEY ARE HAVE BEEN proposed THEN..."

:thumbsup: <--hows that for a digital rectum exam buddy!

I love rectal exams. I just wish your digital thumb was bigger so the walls of my colon would stretch out a little more and make the experience much more enjoyable.

 

[don_equis]

Are you still drunk?

"What's wrong with THEM ideas if THEY ARE HAVE BEEN proposed THEN..."



So what other ideas? I don't see no one else sugesting anything but complaining about the results from this democratic process.

Item number four has to do with shared benefits that I hear them complain about, like wills, joint tax returns, etc..so it does has to do with this thread.



I love rectal exams. I just wish your digital thumb was bigger so the walls of my colon would stretch out a little more and make the experience much more enjoyable.

Man are you kidding me? here :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

<picks up his pet rat and walks out of here>

 

[Rattrap]

Not completely on topic, but somewhat related and I couldn't find a thread that was better suited for it:

Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban

Within lies such gems as:

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent Gill, said the case was the first in the nation in which numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban.

...and, the other side of the coin:

The state presented experts who claimed there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gay couples, that they were more unstable than heterosexual unions and that the children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma.

Thoughts?