Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Sister Kathryn Lust]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
What a waste of beano. You ain't no picnic in the park anyway toots!
Bye. Bet you don't look like your picture.

Since your flatulence continues, I have to agree it was a waste.

You mean the hag in the habit?

:)

[Mike DiRucci]

Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:

<quoted text>Since your flatulence continues, I have to agree it was a waste.
You mean the hag in the habit?
:)

Slow morning eh toots?

[Sister Kathryn Lust]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Slow morning eh toots?

So far, yes. I'm here for fun - and you're not supplying it.

Get with the program.

:P

[RetardO]

Is this another sister, sister act?

[Big D]

True I don’t look around to see who I can deny rights to, in an American, I value freedom.

[Mike DiRucci]

Big D wrote:

True I don’t look around to see who I can deny rights to, in an American, I value freedom.

Wow! cool.

[FT record]

For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit.

[Tata]

Big D wrote:

Last time I looked there were some 18,000 legal gay marriages in the state of California, I don’t happen to be gay, but I noticed their getting married didn’t hurt my marriage in any way at all, I feel sorry for the religious folks whose marriage are so fragile that they claim it hurt theirs.

Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.

[NorCal Native]

Tata wrote:

<quoted text>
Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.

Yep, hidden medical costs in our utility bills.......are you paranoid? or just simply an azz Bruno?

[NorCal Native]

FT record wrote:

For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit.

And it was the House Republicans who failed to provide funding for the extra security that was asked for.......so, yes the President is overall responsible for the mission.......but the Republicans have blood on their hands as well......Boehner has done everything in his power to make the President look as bad as he can!!!

[Liam R]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Not once have I used religion as a point in this debate, so again:
This has nothing to do with religion, so come up with a rational argument.

Perhaps you missed my point. I was saying that the only arguments that anyone has been able to come up with are based on religion. Without using false translations of the Bible, the anti-SSM crowd looses any semblance of validity.

And of course, the religious argument fails since the rules of one person's religion have NO bearing on the behavior of people who believe differently.

Beyond that, it simply comes down to the application of the 14th amendment. ALL citizens, INCLUDING unpopular minorities, are entitled to equal protection under the law. Discrimination against a minority requires a compelling state interest, but there is no compelling state interest in denying gays their right to marry.

This would hold true even if sexual orientation were merely a matter of choice, but the current scientific evidence shows that there is a genetic or epigenetic nature to orientation. Thus, the situation is completely analogous to allowing different races to marry, which the courts have already declared a basic right.

Some people vainly attempt to claim that the lack of children (without artificial aid) inhibits the right of gays to marry, yet there is no fertility test for heterosexual couple prior to marriage, not even a question of intent to have children is required. Thus, the lack of intrinsic childbearing capability cannot be viewed as a valid argument against SSM.

[Liam R]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your point? That the Federal government extended the practice of voting to women?
That in and of itself shows that it is not a "right", it is a privilege.
But if it makes us feel better to call it a "right" so be it, doesn't change reality.

No, it does NOT change voting from a right to a privilege. It merely indicates that prior to that time, women were categorically DENIED their right to vote, for no valid reason beyond the mere fact that they were of a different gender than the Founding Fathers. Hey, the Founding Fathers were good. Considering that they had to invent all of this from scratch, they were incredibly good. But they still suffered from the prejudidices of their time.

[Liam R]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think I am a child, then you are delirious. How can you promote something "icky" ?

Silly child, I refer to your mental age...

As for promoting something "icky", I don't. I do not "promote" anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, or axillary sex (that's: "armpit"). What I DO promote, indeed I insist upon, is that consenting adults have the right to perform and and all sexual actions to which they can agree. Note that KEY phrase: "consenting adults".

[Jazybird58]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. Don't need to. Got what I need. You?

Are you comming out? Well good for you. I am sure you can and will find love, just not from me. My wife does not share her fella.

[Edgar]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly child, I refer to your mental age...
As for promoting something "icky", I don't. I do not "promote" anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, or axillary sex (that's: "armpit"). What I DO promote, indeed I insist upon, is that consenting adults have the right to perform and and all sexual actions to which they can agree. Note that KEY phrase: "consenting adults".

I take it then that you and yours are okay with her being filmed with burros and you fellating black men since you are both consenting adults.

Right?

[Liam R]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, wise guy, how about prostitution ?

well, what about it? It is an act between consenting adults, an agreement to exchange a service for payment.

Oh, there are certainly potential complicating factors, like the possibility of one person being breaching a promise of fidelity to an outside party. And of course, sex trafficking removes the point of consent from one party. And of course, since it involves some degree of promiscuity, even with safe sex precautions, there is a risk of disease. But even with these considerations, there are remedies within the legal framework that raise serious questions regarding the validity of the laws creating a blanket prohibition of prostitution.

[Tata]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, hidden medical costs in our utility bills.......are you paranoid? or just simply an azz Bruno?

Fkk off.

[Mike DiRucci]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you comming out? Well good for you. I am sure you can and will find love, just not from me. My wife does not share her fella.

Like I said, I have what I need. I'm real proud that you do too!

I certainly don't need or want your gnarly ass or your wife's either. Why would you ask?

P.S. Maybe I am gay. So what? You some kind of homophobe or something?

TOO FUNNY!

[Edgar]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you comming out? Well good for you. I am sure you can and will find love, just not from me. My wife does not share her fella.

You're nuts. I cyber boned your missus two nites ago. She's a great on-line ho!

[Edgar]

Edgar wrote:

<quoted text>
I take it then that you and yours are okay with her being filmed with burros and you fellating black men since you are both consenting adults.
Right?

nice try, bro.

next time, hide your location. I don't live in LA.