Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[sheesh void of hate]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>There's plenty of evidence of same sex marriage affecting our prisons:
In the rest of North America, even prison systems are beginning to recognize and accommodate gay marriages. Canada allows same-sex prisoners to wed while still incarcerated. Last October, two male inmates of a federal penitentiary in Quebec province married in the prison chapel. It was the third gay marriage to be performed in a federal prison in Canada since gay marriage was recognized on the national level in July 2005.15 Canada permits “private family visits” for a broad range of relatives including same-sex couples, but the visitor cannot be another prisoner.16 In Mexico, the National Human Rights Commission ruled in February 2007 that conjugal visits must be allowed to same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as are extended to straight couples, and Mexico City’s jail had its first same-sex partner conjugal visit the following July.17
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticl...
If you believe penitentiaries should be places for penitence instead of honeymoon romps and forced same sex marriage.

What you point out about isn't exactly a rash of forced gay marriages, is it Brian?

Give us the ample evidence for the FORCED ones you keep bleating on about.

THREE marriages in Candadian Federal clinks since July 2005! OMG there's an epidemic! Sound the alarm! The ship is goin' down!

Oh, BTW, which of those three were shotgun weddings?

Ya see Brian, this is why people say you're dumb. They're not insulting you, just pointing out a fact.

I think it is time for you to put down that forced same sex marriage trumpet and find a new one. It appears to be obstructed.

[DorN]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Doubtful, since rape is a control issue, and prison is filled with dysfunctional people... Personally, I am leaning towards isolation cells for the duration of the term of any rapists...

----------
Castration also cuts down on the hostility of a man.

[Big D]

sheesh void of hate wrote:

<quoted text>
What you point out about isn't exactly a rash of forced gay marriages, is it Brian?
Give us the ample evidence for the FORCED ones you keep bleating on about.
THREE marriages in Candadian Federal clinks since July 2005! OMG there's an epidemic! Sound the alarm! The ship is goin' down!
Oh, BTW, which of those three were shotgun weddings?
Ya see Brian, this is why people say you're dumb. They're not insulting you, just pointing out a fact.
I think it is time for you to put down that forced same sex marriage trumpet and find a new one. It appears to be obstructed.

You should be happy at the opposition to gay marriage, look at them, the intellectual level they represent, how far into a barrel of total crap they have to scrape to try and come up with an argument against it.

This is why they have lost every case, this is why Prop 8 will be overturned. It is the quality ( or lack thereof ) of this opposing it, their immorality, their lack of any argument that makes this social change possible.

[DorN]

DorN wrote:

<quoted text>
----------
Castration also cuts down on the hostility of a man.

That is if rapist in prison are castrated.
If same sex marriage in prison is legal, then some sexual frustration will be alleviated..

[RalphB]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>While I don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, I agree with the view of same sex marriage. It's not constitutional, it was imposed on the US by a court so it's also undemocratic. Many gay and lesbian activists are on our side and prefer referendum and legislation to the left's imperialistic secularism.
Morality makes a great personal value, but we need to discuss these issues in public. I oppose shutting down civil discourse.

This little tidbit caught my attention, "It's not constitutional". I fail to see how Marriage Equality is unconstitutional. Can you explain that? The only thing I see in your post that could be remotely related to that statement is when you say, "it was imposed on the US by a court". Now that may be true in some cases, but it was also voted into being by legislatures, and by the people (witness recent elections). All three vehicles mentioned are ENTIRELY Constitutional, as far as I know. Can you point out how any of them are unconstitutional? I really look forward to your answer. Thanks.

[DorN]

The benefit to society of allowing gays to legally marry the person of their choice is that gay people will not have to marry straight people in order to receive the benefits of marriage.
As it is now many gay people do stay in the closet and marry straight people.

[Big D]

DorN wrote:

The benefit to society of allowing gays to legally marry the person of their choice is that gay people will not have to marry straight people in order to receive the benefits of marriage.
As it is now many gay people do stay in the closet and marry straight people.

Or as Robeert Kline puts it... so they have the right to be miserable too.

[Jazybird58]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>While I don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, I agree with the view of same sex marriage. It's not constitutional, it was imposed on the US by a court so it's also undemocratic. Many gay and lesbian activists are on our side and prefer referendum and legislation to the left's imperialistic secularism.
Morality makes a great personal value, but we need to discuss these issues in public. I oppose shutting down civil discourse.

Dear Brian, for some reason I feel you are full O crap. I remember you as well as Chief posting page after page on a thread that asked if Homosexuality was a sin. If I remember you thought it was and sick. Yet now its AOK.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Dear Brian, for some reason I feel you are full O crap. I remember you as well as Chief posting page after page on a thread that asked if Homosexuality was a sin. If I remember you thought it was and sick. Yet now its AOK.

Where's your hat?

[Queedioo]

With the times moving so fast what's a person to do?

Has there been a vote taken?

[Brian_G]

Jazybird58 wrote:

Dear Brian, for some reason I feel you are full O crap. I remember you as well as Chief posting page after page on a thread that asked if Homosexuality was a sin. If I remember you thought it was and sick. Yet now its AOK.

The statement above is untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never discussed sin or written homosexuality is sick, those are Jazybird58'S words, not mine.

Many homosexuals believe in protecting male/female marriage too. Conservatism doesn't have a sexual orientation.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The statement above is untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never discussed sin or written homosexuality is sick, those are Jazybird58'S words, not mine.
Many homosexuals believe in protecting male/female marriage too. Conservatism doesn't have a sexual orientation.

Even though I disagree with your position on same sex marriage I will back you up on that.

Your posts often state you have nothing against homosexuals, only same sex marriage.

[Manne Quin]

Former California Highway Patrol lieutenant is looking at seriuos prison time for molested two underage relatives.

El Centro, California a jury on Feburary 05, 2013 Tuesday convicted 46-year-old John Swaim on four counts of lewd acts on a child under 14.

The female victims, who are related to Swaim, are now 17 and 20 years old.

Just activate the firing squad to save the California tax payers money.

[Big D]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The statement above is untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never discussed sin or written homosexuality is sick, those are Jazybird58'S words, not mine.
Many homosexuals believe in protecting male/female marriage too. Conservatism doesn't have a sexual orientation.

Protecting? I don’t understand, homosexual marriage does not attack heterosexual marriage in any way at all. There are over 18,0000 legal homosexual marriages in California now, It certainly did not hurt my marriage, how did it hurt yours?

[SLO drugs]

A detective with the San Luis Obispo Police Department was arrested by the FBI.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/02/05/23827...

Small time police departments hate it when they are found out and arrested for playing fast and lose.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Protecting? I don’t understand, homosexual marriage does not attack heterosexual marriage in any way at all. There are over 18,0000 legal homosexual marriages in California now, It certainly did not hurt my marriage, how did it hurt yours?

The argument is that once we make marriage mean everything, it will mean nothing.

It is a valid argument until you consider that who marries who is self limiting. There just won't be that many gay, poly or incestuous marriages to cause that problem.

Poly and incest marriages won't hurt your marriage either.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The argument is that once we make marriage mean everything, it will mean nothing.
It is a valid argument until you consider that who marries who is self limiting. There just won't be that many gay, poly or incestuous marriages to cause that problem.
Poly and incest marriages won't hurt your marriage either.

The argument is moot, Homosexuals already can marry, in many states, hundreds of thousands are legally married now

I don’t care about poly marriage that is Frankies obsession not mine. Poly marriage is not about to be made legal in the next couple of decades, religious fanatics following that path have made certain of that.

but for same sex marriage, it is already a reality, and it has not hurt heterosexual marriages one tiny little bit.

It is a moot argument

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Such steorotypes from of a country you've never been to.

I was there just last year, you didn't see me? It's such a tiny little country you should have seen me. Maybe you just don't remember.

Even if I was never there, I've seen enough of you guys fly out of there to know you're a very gay country! What with that sissy accent too!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
The argument is moot, Homosexuals already can marry, in many states, hundreds of thousands are legally married now
I don’t care about poly marriage that is Frankies obsession not mine. Poly marriage is not about to be made legal in the next couple of decades, religious fanatics following that path have made certain of that.
but for same sex marriage, it is already a reality, and it has not hurt heterosexual marriages one tiny little bit.
It is a moot argument

What did I just say jackass? What a dope!

You consider poly my "obsession", and "off topic", and not reality only because you fear discussing it.

What do you have against three atheist men marrying? How will it hurt you or your marriage?

[Dusty Mangina]

Kimare, you have yet to back up a previous statement, so I'll ask again:

In which culture/s was SSM legally recognized previously? Still waiting for your answer.

Just pull down your drawers and talk to the mangina. Don't keep you internal lesbian waiting.