Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>That one is so gonna run up your vote total.

No one cares about your fake "votes" except you. That's because you are an arrested development idiot.

Hope that helps!

[Neil Andblowme]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
On what grounds might that be? And no, not the "they're already kin" dodge either.

But they ARE, Blanche.

[FatOffs]

New Jersey, that's where that FAT governor lives?

Maybe Chris Christie has eaten too many "heart Attack Burgers".

[Neil Andblowme]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>That one is so gonna run up your vote total.

He must be up to about 500 by now.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>But they ARE, Blanche.

So what? So's my cousin and I can marry her.

She won't even have to change her name. Please explain that to us Miss Thing.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>He must be up to about 500 by now.

Not quite, Jizzy cannot effectively rig the votes that fast. Takes him a little time. It's a rather tedious process, and a very challenging one for an idiot like Jizzy!

Not to mention childishly silly. But that's our dopey Jizmbirdy58! He's an arrested development loser/idiot.

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no idea
still that idea would work
every religion could define "marriage" for their own little private cult
and the government would only recognize the contract of a civil union, which is all the government needs, the legal contract.
One church could call marriage between only a man and a woman
Another church could do same sex marriages
and even Mormon boy could have his poly marriage and call it that
and all would be recognized equally by the law governing civil unions
and they could point fingers at each other all day long calling the other heathens and it would mean absolutely nothing.
The nice part about doing it that way is that even non-relationship unions could be done. 2 older women for example not in a sexual relationship, but close friends with no family could join in such a civil contract for mutual support.

Hmmmmmm....can't say that it doesn't have any merit.....perhaps the gov't could issue a "relationship coupon" good for one relationship of one's choice complete with gov't benefits. Kody uses his for wife number 1, she uses it for wife #2, who in turn uses it for wife #3. That would help the fundamentalist Mormons.

I don't think it'd fly though.. Let's just keep marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife. But we'll use the civil union concept for non conjugal marital unions. Everybody wins. Thanks for the idea Big D.

[Tops]

You were not invited to comment.

[RiccardoFire]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>

One church could call marriage between only a man and a woman
Another church could do same sex marriages

Lawsuits idiot! Just like the Boy Scouts. Churches would have their tax exemption taken away if they discriminate against gays being married and sued.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....can't say that it doesn't have any merit.....perhaps the gov't could issue a "relationship coupon" good for one relationship of one's choice complete with gov't benefits. Kody uses his for wife number 1, she uses it for wife #2, who in turn uses it for wife #3. That would help the fundamentalist Mormons.
I don't think it'd fly though.. Let's just keep marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife. But we'll use the civil union concept for non conjugal marital unions. Everybody wins. Thanks for the idea Big D.

Of course Big D's plan is stupid. His first job to initiate it would be to tell all the gay married couples that he's downgrading their marriages to civil unions. I'd love to see how that works out for him!

Then of course he'll have to sell it to all the hetero married couples.

Big D is a simplistic dummy and we can safely dismiss his views on the subject as naivety and dopiness.

I don't mean to be so rude, it's just that he is insignificant.

[Neil Andblowme]

Pietro Armando wrote:

Let's just keep marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife. But we'll use the civil union concept for non conjugal marital unions. Everybody wins. Thanks for the idea Big D.

That ship has sailed..... sorry.

[Neil Andblowme]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Lawsuits idiot! Just like the Boy Scouts. Churches would have their tax exemption taken away if they discriminate against gays being married and sued.

What a liar.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
That ship has sailed..... sorry.

Yes! And soon other ships will sail too. In it's wake.

Oh that's right! Those ships are "illegal"! So that can't happen. Silly me.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
What a liar.

What a jackass!

[Big D]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
What a liar.

Yeah we have noticed that

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course Big D's plan is stupid. His first job to initiate it would be to tell all the gay married couples that he's downgrading their marriages to civil unions. I'd love to see how that works out for him!
Then of course he'll have to sell it to all the hetero married couples.
Big D is a simplistic dummy and we can safely dismiss his views on the subject as naivety and dopiness.
I don't mean to be so rude, it's just that he is insignificant.

Yes, I have heard that from Gay friends of mine, they didnt like the idea either.

But I still think it would solve all the issues

It wont happen I know... it is a shame

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I have heard that from Gay friends of mine, they didnt like the idea either.
But I still think it would solve all the issues
It wont happen I know... it is a shame

I call bullsh!t, you don't have any gay friends.

Another dopey fake Big D story.

[Dusty Mangina]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Lawsuits idiot! Just like the Boy Scouts. Churches would have their tax exemption taken away if they discriminate against gays being married and sued.

Not true.

Churches have always had the right to turn away anyone for any reason.

The states that already have marriage equality have stated that churches are under no obligation whatever to marry people.

[RiccardoFire]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
Not true.
Churches have always had the right to turn away anyone for any reason.
The states that already have marriage equality have stated that churches are under no obligation whatever to marry people.

True...right now. Of course no gay in their right mind would file suit against a Church until it's legal in all States. The cause comes first, I'm talking about the future.

[RiccardoFire]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I call bullsh!t, you don't have any gay friends.
Another dopey fake Big D story.

He's a sad old man that lives in the past thinking he is smarter then everyone else. He hates to be challenged.