Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[akpilot]

Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:

<quoted text>
and no mention of slaverly or sufferage either...

That's right, because they were issues left to the states. That is until 3/4ths of the States agreed to add that control to the Federal Government through a Constitutional Amendment ratified by them.

Thus far there is no such Amendment for marriage. It is still a State issue.

[akpilot]

Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:

<quoted text>
You probably should have read the article before posting it...The last line was: "It is absolutely worth waiting for"....

Worth waiting for?

The question you really should be asking yourself is- is the SCOTUS really ready to demand all 50 States must accept same sex marriage?

If I was you, I would be more concerned with the fact that the SCOTUS decided to hear a case which already forced same sex marriage onto the people of a State against their vote, and the court this case came from is the MOST overturned court by the SCOTUS in the land.

[ProudDad]

Helen wrote:

<quoted text>And they stink!

I`ve noticed the odor is more ripe in warmer temps. Go downtown to the city in the summer and you`ll come across ni`gstenches.

[Quest]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Worth waiting for?
The question you really should be asking yourself is- is the SCOTUS really ready to demand all 50 States must accept same sex marriage?
If I was you, I would be more concerned with the fact that the SCOTUS decided to hear a case which already forced same sex marriage onto the people of a State against their vote, and the court this case came from is the MOST overturned court by the SCOTUS in the land.

No, we are asking about a case where an established sight to marry was stripped from a minority group based only on animus.

Although, right now the Court is asking primarily about standing on Prop 8.

We shall see.

[Winston Smiths dog]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want to equate the rare exceptions to procreation in marriage to the absolute desolation of procreation in ss unions???
Really?
Kind of silly stupid, don't you think???
Smirk.

Yes it is silly stupid when someone makes a comment that has no basis in fact.

http://www.dinklife.com/topic/trends-news/mar...

If that doesn't work copy and paste these together:

http://www.dinklife.com/topic/trends-news/
married-without-children-more- couples-opting
-be-%E2%80%98childless-choice% E2%80%99

and this:

http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_house.htm...

Rare exceptions? Indeed.

Oh, BTW, same sex couples can employ some of the same methods for procreation that sterile heterosexual couples resort to.

To quote Mike DiRucci...
Dopey!

[Mike DiRucci]

Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are confussing me with Mrs DeDouche

Naah, I wouldn't confuss [sic] you!

Who's Mrs. DeDouche? Is that that hot redhead in the pictures that you claim is yourself? I wouldn't confuss [sic] you with her! She's hot and you're not.

Fun!

[Mike DiRucci]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You know I am, was it even a contest?
LOL

Yeah, he thinks you're real hot too. But don't let it go to your head, the jackass wears a tin foil hat for chrissakes!

Imagine walking into say a biker bar and calling another man "sugarnipples"! Guess jazzybird doesn't go out much.

[Mike DiRucci]

Laquesha Jefferson PhD wrote:

The DiDuchie/Studly online bromance continues You two boys really need to stop acting like adolenct delusionalpreteen girls, you know the cluless little twits who think the entire world is hanging on their every word. Time for you fellas to get a room, or at least start PMing each other.
Seriously... STFU it's getting creepy.

Are you confusing ("confussing") us with some gay guys you know? I'm not gay and I doubt Mr. Hudson is either. But tell us about it. Why do you hate gays? Is there something bad about them?

Calling gays "creepy" is stupid. Especially here. They're not creepy. But you certainly are!

What a jerk!

P.S. Re-post those pictures of that hot redhead!

[Jazybird58]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
What the hell is " tl;dr " ? Is that also gay slang ?

to long did not read.

[Jazybird58]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
No-one has tried to pass the bible off as law, merely quoted it, from time to time...No, I am not a Christian, and, Thank You for the compliment, about the cut-n-paste job, I like it, too. Makes a lot of sense, and saved me a lot of time...

Qusetion. Why do people referance the bible at all. Its not a law, nor does it pertain to the question of same sex marriage? Answer, Jesus Freaks think that the bible is law. Now move on asshat

[Wahoo]

The PackOderms are polluting th post.

[Mona Lott]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
"Yes, polygamy hurts people because they go to jail for it." Priceless! But how does it hurt you miss thing?
"Yes... I argue against equal rights..." Yes you do, bigot. And you do it very poorly.
And that old Mona gem: "Polygamy is illegal because it's against the law." That's my favorite!
SO Funny!
Post more!

You can laugh all the way to jail.

If you're so gung-ho to marry more than one person, what's stopping you?

[Mike DiRucci]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
You can laugh all the way to jail.
If you're so gung-ho to marry more than one person, what's stopping you?

I'm not. It's just that I support equal rights for everyone including homosexuals and poly.

And of course, bigots like you made polygamy illegal. So you cannot do it. Similar to same sex marriage in most states. You won't go to jail for SSM like you will for poly, but you still cannot do it.

It's very telling that you hate the fact that ssm is not allowed, but you cheer the fact that poly is not allowed. It suggests that you are a hypocrite.

[akpilot]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
No, we are asking about a case where an established sight to marry was stripped from a minority group based only on animus.
Although, right now the Court is asking primarily about standing on Prop 8.
We shall see.

Standing? Are you even following the case?

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to equate the rare exceptions to procreation in marriage to the absolute desolation of procreation in ss unions???
Really?
Kind of silly stupid, don't you think???
Smirk.

Winston Smiths dog wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it is silly stupid when someone makes a comment that has no basis in fact.
http://www.dinklife.com/topic/trends-news/mar...
If that doesn't work copy and paste these together:
http://www.dinklife.com/topic/trends-news/
married-without-children-more- couples-opting
-be-%E2%80%98childless-choice% E2%80%99
and this:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_house.htm...
Rare exceptions? Indeed.
Oh, BTW, same sex couples can employ some of the same methods for procreation that sterile heterosexual couples resort to.
To quote Mike DiRucci...
Dopey!

Nothing you said addressed the facts I stated.

They certainly did not disqualify my facts;

1. Heterosexual couples who do not procreate are still a large minority.

You simply argue that heterosexual couples are delaying or may not at this time choose to have children (those 'decisions' change all the time). Minor fluctuations in rates does not change my facts.

2. Gay couples are 'absolutely desolate' by mutual procreation.

You blatantly attempt to make the same idiotic, deceitful comparison.

-The unnatural barrenness of heterosexual couples to the absolute mutual desolation of every single gay couple.

-Even worse, your 'solution' leaves the child always absent one parent and one gender! A horrible and cruel deprivation of a child's well-being. Something that is diabolical and should be criminal. Anyone deliberately perpetrating this on a child is despicable.

This is a example of what evil consequences the attempt to equate duplicate couples to marriage leads to...

Your denial is sick and dangerous!

[akpilot]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>to long did not read.

See Spot run.

Is too long for you.

[Rose_NoHo]

17Patriot76 wrote:

That judge is violating the U.S Constitution by taking the power of the peoples votes... Same sex marriage isn't protected under the U.S Constitution!

Equal protection of the law is protected under the U.S n! That includes marriage laws!

Constitutio

17Patriot76 wrote:

Obviously it wouldn't be controversial if it was!

You don't think inter-racial marriage was controversial? How old are you? 12?

17Patriot76 wrote:

The founders wouldn't have supported same sex anything because it fell under the "Sodomy Law" that was in effect until the Liberal party was formed in the late 1800's..

The founders are worm poop now.
Some even supported slavery, and murder of Natives.
If funny that the same people who claim they are for small government want the government telling us which sex positions we can use. And they think putting men in jail is a good way to get then to stop engaging is sodomy.
It's the 2010's now..

17Patriot76 wrote:

The dictionary clearly defines Marriage as 1 man & 1 woman in holy matrimony...

Which dictionary, stupid?
Dictionary.com doesn't say anything about "holy" and it mentions "
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marria...

17Patriot76 wrote:

So in reality Government really has no say in marriage because it comes from the church! Churches are against homosexuality (unless they're 501C3).....
It's alright enjoy it while it lasts lol The American Resistance will return America back to the Good Moral Country we used to be with the soon to come 2nd American Revolution!! GOD BLESS AMERICA & THE AMERICAN PATRIOTS

What did you like the best about Good Moral America? Slavery? Women being denied the vote? Jim Crow? Slaughter of Natives and the theft of their lands? Concentration Camps? Let's hear it.
GODLESS AMERICA

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
"you're wrong"??? That's your argument.
How old are you?
Marriage is a cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. SS couples are a direct contradiction. A violation of nature. You could be blind as a bat and dumb as a rock and still know they are not the same. Even a child says, "Are you serious???"
Smirk.

Stupid, marriage is a legal contract. And you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to enter that contract.

Do you think you should have been aborted? You describe yourself as a mutated monster, or something similar.

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want to equate the rare exceptions to procreation in marriage to the absolute desolation of procreation in ss unions???
Really?
Kind of silly stupid, don't you think???
Smirk.

You are silly stupid. The ability to reproduce is just not a requirement for marriage.

Deal with that fact, for once.

[Mike DiRucci]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to equate the rare exceptions to procreation in marriage to the absolute desolation of procreation in ss unions???
Really?
Kind of silly stupid, don't you think???
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Nothing you said addressed the facts I stated.
They certainly did not disqualify my facts;
1. Heterosexual couples who do not procreate are still a large minority.
You simply argue that heterosexual couples are delaying or may not at this time choose to have children (those 'decisions' change all the time). Minor fluctuations in rates does not change my facts.
2. Gay couples are 'absolutely desolate' by mutual procreation.
You blatantly attempt to make the same idiotic, deceitful comparison.
-The unnatural barrenness of heterosexual couples to the absolute mutual desolation of every single gay couple.
-Even worse, your 'solution' leaves the child always absent one parent and one gender! A horrible and cruel deprivation of a child's well-being. Something that is diabolical and should be criminal. Anyone deliberately perpetrating this on a child is despicable.
This is a example of what evil consequences the attempt to equate duplicate couples to marriage leads to...
Your denial is sick and dangerous!

If you want to put a chink in the armor of "Procreation is irrelevant in marriage" tell em you support incest marriage. Listen to the stuttering and double talk! Fun!

I do. I support all forms of marriage among consenting adults. I find some of the biggest bigots against less common forms of marriage are same sex marriage advocates. Funny that. You'd think maybe they are hypocrites.