Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn how to use a search engine, you dumb b!tch.

STFU. Cra*k + VVh0re.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. Shrimp have 92 chromosomes. Are they super human?

Well, they've got you beat. Keep looking up the food chain, even if it is at shrimp. Aspire to the true greatness. Imagine yourself as a prawn, and you can excel!

[veryvermilion]

Wring is in the air wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage is an institution that developed to bring straight couples together so they can then be intimate and bear offspring not out of wedlock. With partners who make a lifelong commitment to them and their potential offspring. Having young girls going around making babies without a male partner for financial and moral support is chaos. Just look at the inner ditties where up to 70% of the children born with in the minority communities are born out of wedlock, then end up on government support. Marriage did not come out of existence for same sex people to get together for life. There would be no need for this commitment.
And they gay movement to have marriage arouse so that their partners could be claimed on their medical insurance and such. It had nothing to do with love but a need to be able to get medical treatments and benefits.
The fact is gay partnership is not the same as straight partnership. Couple get married yes because they are in love, but straight couples are getting basically a certificate to bear children without being labeled illegitimate. There is no need for such a certificate or licensee for gay couples and there never will be. Straight couple don't want to be accused of living together in sin, meaning having sex without the consent of parents or their church, in case the woman was to get pregnant then have an illegitimate child out of wedlock.
A gay couple can never bear children of their partners DNA. They may bear illegitimate children, but a marriage license with their gay partner will never fix that status married or not. Fact is that a child will be the biological child of a person they did not marry! Even adoption by a second husband of a straight couple will not make a child legitimate if that child's mother was not married to the biological father.
Gays can adopt, and they can marry, but all that gets them is a piece of paper, it does not help their child to establish legitimacy only the biological parents marriage before they were conceived can do that. This is why marriage ceremonies and traditions came to be. It has nothing to do with gays and their wanting legal avenues to benefits given to married straight couples. It's the insurance policies they need to change not the marriage institution.

So, there's never been an 80 year old rich codger marry a 20 year old blond knock-out?

There's never been an elderly couple marry, even though neither of them want or can have children?

There's never been a couple who has fallen in love and married with no intentions of having a child?

Why should these couples enjoy the rights and protections of marriage if same-gender couples can't?

[Prop 8 Unconstitutional]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
You're such a pompous ass. The majority has not "voted away" the rights of any majority, the minority has subverted the rights of the majority to vote on this issue. you are ramrodding a fraudulent definition upon the rest of us. We didn't vote away your rights, we had sodomy laws that you have had swept away by your liberal judges, in spite of what the majority of us find acceptable. And for your information, the SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction to declare (yech) gay marriage the "law of the land", the STATES have the right to make up their own laws, so sorry, too bad, so sad, get mad. Glad to help YOU to understand the Constitution a little bit better! Hope it sticks in yer throat, along with the other stuff.... We don't "take away" rights, we vote on what we will allow, or not. THAT'S Democracy at work. Sodomy laws existed before your gay marriage legislation.

As usual you remain totally clueless! Mighty proud of you being on the Bedroom police force! Glad that you think it is any of your business as to what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms dandy Randy! There is good reason the the Supreme court overturned the sodomy laws or there would be 10's of thousands of straight people also being prosecuted along with gays moron! You think that would be right and just? it's really simple Randy,Mr. Bedroom police,the sodomy laws were overturned by the courts for the simple reason that it's none of your business nor is it none of my business what 2 people do in their bedrooms as long as no one is being hurt and it's as I stated between 2 consenting adults gay or straight! You remain the bigoted hater that you've always been,how about you stay out of my house and I'll stay out of yours! Idiot,how about you mind your own business,who knows maybe you like to watch? Is that it Randy? Are you a bedroom Voyeur,do you like to watch?

[Prop 8 Unconstitutional]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn how to use a search engine, you dumb b!tch.
STFU. Cra*k + VVh0re.

No sorry,that would be your wife loser! What's it like being a member of the U.S. bedroom po,po? LOL

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
so you think if I get the majority of brown eyed people to vote that blue eyed people should not be allowed the vote, that it would stand?

Oh that makes sense. After all just like the sexes there's only two eye colors in the world. Uhhhh huh.

No it would be deemed unconstitutional ( and rightly so )
we are not a nation of mob rule, we are a nation of law.
Our founders made darn sure we were not a nation of mob rule

Exacyly, and the people have every right to define marriage as a union of a man AND a woman, as they did in numerous state constitutional amendment votes.

[Pietro Armando]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
So, there's never been an 80 year old rich codger marry a 20 year old blond knock-out?
There's never been an elderly couple marry, even though neither of them want or can have children?
There's never been a couple who has fallen in love and married with no intentions of having a child?
Why should these couples enjoy the rights and protections of marriage if same-gender couples can't?

Because they form a union comprised of both halves, male and female, of the human race. If a lesbian, or a bisexual woman married a man, that marriage would just as valid as the examples you listed. Marriage is about the sexes, what they do, have sex, the coital sexual intercourse kind, and what that sex produces, children, even ones who grow up to post on internet forums under the moniker, veryvermillion. There will always be some opposite sex couples who cannot, or choose not, to have sex, and/or children, that's life. However they do not change the concept of marriage as a male female union.

[Pietro Armando]

Prop 8 Unconstitutional wrote:

<quoted text>
As usual you remain totally clueless! Mighty proud of you being on the Bedroom police force! Glad that you think it is any of your business as to what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms dandy Randy! There is good reason the the Supreme court overturned the sodomy laws or there would be 10's of thousands of straight people also being prosecuted along with gays moron! You think that would be right and just? it's really simple Randy,Mr. Bedroom police,the sodomy laws were overturned by the courts for the simple reason that it's none of your business nor is it none of my business what 2 people do in their bedrooms as long as no one is being hurt and it's as I stated between 2 consenting adults gay or straight! You remain the bigoted hater that you've always been,how about you stay out of my house and I'll stay out of yours! Idiot,how about you mind your own business,who knows maybe you like to watch? Is that it Randy? Are you a bedroom Voyeur,do you like to watch?

Why stop at two? I agree, what people do in their bedroom is their business, but when its brought into the public square, and is used to fundamentally alter the concept of marriage as a male female union, then it becomes everybody's business.

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Bigfoot, the Constitution trumps traditions.

So, for the sake of discussion, if an amendment were added to the U.S. constitution defining marriage as a male female relationship, would that be unconstitutional, even though its part of the constitution?

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. Shrimp have 92 chromosomes. Are they super human?

Only if they wear blue tights, a red cape, red boots, and wear a big yellow "S" on their chest.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh that makes sense. After all just like the sexes there's only two eye colors in the world. Uhhhh huh.
<quoted text>
Exacyly, and the people have every right to define marriage as a union of a man AND a woman, as they did in numerous state constitutional amendment votes.

they won’t last long, the tide has turned, the American dream of Justice, equality and freedom will ultimately win, and the tyranny of bigotry and ignorance will fall.

What is most interesting to me is how fast it is happening this time, as compared to history. They are falling so fast, and now that a majority of Americans are on the bandwagon in favor of freedom and equality, it will continue to accelerate.

It will still take some time, but historically this is very very fast.

But I have no doubts, love will defeat hate, right will defeat wrong, and justice will be done.

[Brian_G]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Look, you stupid b!tch, tell us exactly how men and woman are different.(Apart from physical differences)...

Ever notice how gender segregation marriage supporters use profanity? They don't understand culture and they don't understand the facts of life.

[KiMare]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You can disagree all you want, but you are on the side that is trying to deny rights to other Americans.
I will not let that stand, I am a patriot.
Even though as a straight person it has no effect on me, still I am a patriot, and a vet, and I will fight for the rights of other Americans, as the tide is swiftly turning, I suspect soon every real patriot will

Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.

You have no argument for 'equal' rights. If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.

Smile.

[KiMare]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
So, there's never been an 80 year old rich codger marry a 20 year old blond knock-out?
There's never been an elderly couple marry, even though neither of them want or can have children?
There's never been a couple who has fallen in love and married with no intentions of having a child?
Why should these couples enjoy the rights and protections of marriage if same-gender couples can't?

Here it is again;

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples?

An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Snicker.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Ever notice how gender segregation marriage supporters use profanity? They don't understand culture and they don't understand the facts of life.

Yes, and they allow ross-no-hope to say whatever he wants to, even if he attacks the children of the posters.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Prop 8 Unconstitutional wrote:

<quoted text>
No sorry,that would be your wife loser! What's it like being a member of the U.S. bedroom po,po? LOL

No, that would be your mama...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Prop 8 Unconstitutional wrote:

<quoted text>
No sorry,that would be your wife loser! What's it like being a member of the U.S. bedroom po,po? LOL

Shit, if it wasn't for all that crack, you wouldn't even be here. Have you met all of your possible father-candidates yet?

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
they won’t last long, the tide has turned, the American dream of Justice, equality and freedom will ultimately win, and the tyranny of bigotry and ignorance will fall.
What is most interesting to me is how fast it is happening this time, as compared to history. They are falling so fast, and now that a majority of Americans are on the bandwagon in favor of freedom and equality, it will continue to accelerate.
It will still take some time, but historically this is very very fast.
But I have no doubts, love will defeat hate, right will defeat wrong, and justice will be done.

No sir, the majority on NOT "on the bandwagon", as you so glibly claim.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
So, there's never been an 80 year old rich codger marry a 20 year old blond knock-out?
There's never been an elderly couple marry, even though neither of them want or can have children?
There's never been a couple who has fallen in love and married with no intentions of having a child?
Why should these couples enjoy the rights and protections of marriage if same-gender couples can't?

Because they meet the minimum requirements for a marriage. They have all of the required equipment.

[Brian_G]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

Yes, and they allow ross-no-hope to say whatever he wants to, even if he attacks the children of the posters.

I hear you, she's attacked my wife too. Try not to take it personally, she has no rational arguments so irrationality is her strong suit.