Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[KiMare]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way, straight marriage is leading to SSM. So if SSM leads to Poly, and you really, really don't want Poly then you should be arguing to get rid of the root cause which is staright marriage.
See how much credit that will buy you.
Then again, if you don't think straight marriage marriage leads to SSM then your whole fear about SSM leading to Poly is unfounded and a lie.

Your headless buff ego knows no bounds...

As noted above, marriage does NOT "lead to ssm". They are, of all relational types, literally opposites.

Moreover, your gay twirl asserts that the perversion of a good thing (marriage) means you get rid of the good thing, instead of eradicating the negative element. Are you serious???

In other words, we have laws prohibiting polygamy instead of abolishing marriage, the best and intended birthplace of human fruit.

Congratulations! You boggle the mind of a half senile old man with your stupidity...

Smirk smile.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. The law and the Constitution are being manipulated. Our founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. Women and non-white people can vote. It's against the law to murder natives. Slavery is illegal...
Let's 'em roll!

If you knew history, you'd know they knew they had sounded the death knell for those issues.

While those issues have been confronted over and over in history, calling gay couples married has only extremely rarely and briefly been attempted. A clear distinction.

Ho, Ho, Ho.

[KiMare]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you don't have a good argument against gay marriage, you try to cloud the issue with the polygamy red herring. Why not start a forum on the topic of polygamy? Oh, yeah, you don't really give a damn about it.

I remembered when the slippery slide argument was discounted in the debate about legalizing abortion. There would 'never be acceptance' for the killing of viable babies. There are no restrictions. You know that, don't you.

Isn't that a Ho, Ho, Ho.

[Brian_G]

Same sex marriage is like abortion or women combat troops in the front lines. Same sex marriage is like gender apartheid marriage where before marriage had perfect gender diversity, integration and union.

Judges should rule by law, not wright law. Sympathy isn't the function of justice, maybe they should go to church, where they encourage charity and mercy. Law is for consistent results along tradition and precedent, not radical new standards of marriage.

[Pietro Armando]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
One woman is enough for me! Who the heck wants more?

Inflatables don't count.

[Jazybird58]

Hey Frankiee you sure are taring up the old ballot box. Way to go dude.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
One woman is enough for me! Who the heck wants more?

Not me! But some do. And some women want more than one husband. And sometimes three men want to marry. I say let 'em. Their rights are just as important as anyone else's.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

Hey Frankiee you sure are taring up the old ballot box. Way to go dude.

Still no intelligent argument? Give up! You're too stupid to even try.

Hey, I know! Go make a troll thread!

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Still no intelligent argument? Give up! You're too stupid to even try.
Hey, I know! Go make a troll thread!

Hey Frankiee you sure are taring up the old ballot box. Way to go dude.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Hey Frankiee you sure are taring up the old ballot box. Way to go dude.

Still no intelligent argument eh, dummy? That's because you're too stupid to argue intelligently with me. And you're just smart enough to know it. Congratulations! All those rides on the short bus weren't for naught.

Where's your hat?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Brian_G wrote:

Same sex marriage is like abortion or women combat troops in the front lines. Same sex marriage is like gender apartheid marriage where before marriage had perfect gender diversity, integration and union.
Judges should rule by law, not wright law. Sympathy isn't the function of justice, maybe they should go to church, where they encourage charity and mercy. Law is for consistent results along tradition and precedent, not radical new standards of marriage.

It certainly would be accepted better if it was done by popular vote. I think much of the opposition to same sex marriage isn't against it per se, but it is a backlash against making it legal by judicial fiat.

I think if a popular vote were held today, it would probably pass. And avoid much backlash against it.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Still no intelligent argument eh, dummy? That's because you're too stupid to argue intelligently with me. And you're just smart enough to know it. Congratulations! All those rides on the short bus weren't for naught.
Where's your hat?

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. Tell me was the judge correct?

[Neil Andblowme]

Robert wrote:

When the majority votes in favor of something it's called a law. Funny how a couple of VERY liberal judges can undo what MOST of us want, to protect the institution of marriage. Guess that's makes me every four-letter word in the book.

...starting with dumb.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. Tell me was the judge correct?

Yes. Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

I know, it's a big word maybe someone in the jackass crew will explain it to you.

[DorN]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Gays and lesbians can legally marry in any state in the union. Always had that right, and did, exercise that right, just like anybody else.

Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet". Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
...starting with dumb.

Substance Janey-Doody substance.

Jizybird looks up to you. Impress him! He likes kindergarten type ad hominem best and you the man when it comes to dopey ad hominem!

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
...starting with dumb.

And in your case, ending with dumb.

Why do you believe polygamy doesn't deserve the same consideration and respect as same sex marriage? We know it's illegal, so don't try to say that's why. That's silly!

[Frankie RIzzo]

DorN wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet". Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?

I think it wouldn't harm anyone and it should be allowed. I also think a marriage of three wouldn't harm anyone and should be allowed. Marriage is a good thing for society.

It would be best if we could vote on it. I think people get angry more at the judicial fiat way of enacting it than with same sex marriage itself.

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. Tell me was the judge correct?

Yes he was correct, such an unconstitutional measure should never have been allowed on the ballot

[Pietro Armando]

DorN wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet".

True.....and it came as a shock to many a spouse. There are openly mixed orientation marriages today. For those either it began that way, or endured after the "coming out".

Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?

A couple of points. First, same sex couples can marry, it simply won't be legally recognized. No different than polygamous marriages. Second, as "nice" as it maybe, I don't believe marriage should be legally changed for it. Some other form of legal structure could just as easily be, and has been, created in some states.

Is it about protection, or "legitimacy"?