Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Big D]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
We're not a theocracy, stud. We're a democratic republic.

Good grief... someone got it right!:)

We are indeed

[Ronald]

Apollo11911 wrote:

<quoted text>Hi Ronnie, the laws in this nation are not based on your book of 10,000 lies.

Apollo11911.

Yes. That is the prevailing myth that the Godless "Liberals" have been increasingly promoting ever since the Republicans undermined States rights by inflicting their 14th Amendment upon the nation. The fact is, though, we are a nation of States. All of our State Constitutions express their purpose that our people might be free to worship and to enjoy the many blessings of God.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/c5sxpt4

Even prior to the States being formed, then existing entities were all - without exception - dedicated for the purpose of glorifying God. That fact was common knowledge until the Godless "Liberals" used the Republican's infamous 14th Amendment for the purpose of "dumbing down" American education in Brown v Topeka Board of Ed.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/rhts

Ronald

[Xavier Breath]

Pietro Armando wrote:

So if a gay person marries, of their own free will, some one of the opposite sex, are they a first class, or second class citizen?

Would you like a gay man to marry your daughter?

[Xavier Breath]

martinezjosei wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct!
But Muslims are making up the difference!
We should have ZERO Muslim immigration, not a continued open door to potential enemies.

You do realize we have freedom of religion in the USA, don't you?

[Xavier Breath]

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Big D.
Exactly. It is always darkest before the dawn. According to the historical record:
"Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors." (Isaiah 46:8)
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," (Isaiah 46:9)
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isaiah 46:10)
"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.(Revelation 12:12)
"And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (Revelation 12:13)
"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation 12:17)
"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Matthew 24:9)
"And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another." (Matthew 24:10)
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." (Matthew 24:11)
"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matthew 24:12)
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)
Ronald

Look, nutbag.... your Buybull is NOT an historical record.

[Xavier Breath]

Pietro Armando wrote:

Brian G. brings up aspects that others who support SSM simply don't like.

Have you read any of his posts? I know children who have a better grasp of logic. His posts are exercises in semantics and hyperbole. Like or dislike is irrelevant.

[Ronald]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>
We're not a theocracy, stud. We're a democratic republic.

Dusty Mangina.

Exactly. The republican rule is subject to Constitutional law. Unlike what the post 60s 70s era Godless "Liberal" political activists would have us believe, "Democratic republics" are antipodal to that of "a democracy".

Our Christian non-Homosexual founding fathers were sticklers about detail. Yet, at 1787 years after Jesus, they all affixed their name to the document that established the Constitution "in the year of our Lord, 1787". The best Godless "Liberals" and their community activist bedfellows can come up to explain this away is that the dead White men suddenly became disinterested in detail, in favor of "a living Constitution".

Source: http://tinyurl.com/cxrqmhv

Ronald

[Big D]

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Dusty Mangina.
Exactly. The republican rule is subject to Constitutional law. Unlike what the post 60s 70s era Godless "Liberal" political activists would have us believe, "Democratic republics" are antipodal to that of "a democracy".
Our Christian non-Homosexual founding fathers were sticklers about detail. Yet, at 1787 years after Jesus, they all affixed their name to the document that established the Constitution "in the year of our Lord, 1787". The best Godless "Liberals" and their community activist bedfellows can come up to explain this away is that the dead White men suddenly became disinterested in detail, in favor of "a living Constitution".
Source: http://tinyurl.com/cxrqmhv
Ronald

You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.

It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.

You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.

[Pietro Armando]

Apollo11911 wrote:

<quoted text>Or just because a few states have allowed slavery in their states, why should they have to as well, when the voters of the latter states said no?

For a god....sometimes you sound like a mere mortal. Comparing the issue of slavery, which was ultimately settled after much death and destruction to voting to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife, is ridiculous. Oh Madone!

[Pietro Armando]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you like a gay man to marry your daughter?

I would like my daughter to marry a man who will treat her with love and respect. If he's gay, they both know it, and they choose to marry, would you say its not a valid union of husband and wife. Suppose a lesbian married a man, would their marriage be any less valid than any other husband and wife union?

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
For a god....sometimes you sound like a mere mortal. Comparing the issue of slavery, which was ultimately settled after much death and destruction to voting to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife, is ridiculous. Oh Madone!

Yes women got the vote with only a fraction of the violence ( although there was some ) and homosexuals will get the right to marry with even less.

Our nation is growing up, freedom is won by showing people what is right, instead of violence

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.
It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.
You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.

Surprise Big D, that "petty little belief system" is all around, and to a certain degree, "forced on the rest of us". In God We Trust adorns our currency, the President is sworn into office with his hand on a Bible, cities are named after saints, sports teams have religious names, and on it goes. You should come down from the mountain more often, mix among the common folk.

[Yes yes yes]

Yes, the people who post stupid comments and or positions are as nuts as RNC, GOP, Republican and Tea Party member's.

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes women got the vote with only a fraction of the violence ( although there was some ) and homosexuals will get the right to marry with even less.
Our nation is growing up, freedom is won by showing people what is right, instead of violence

Homosexuals have the right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in all fifty states, just like any body else. The catch is they don't wish to exercise that right like everybody else.
Freedom is not unlimited, nor without government regulation. Marriage is no different. Why do you speak of freedom by subjecting one's intimate personal sexual relationship to government control? It seems what you ask for is not what you actually seek.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Surprise Big D, that "petty little belief system" is all around, and to a certain degree, "forced on the rest of us". In God We Trust adorns our currency, the President is sworn into office with his hand on a Bible, cities are named after saints, sports teams have religious names, and on it goes. You should come down from the mountain more often, mix among the common folk.

Oh I am aware of that, I have my own petty beliefs, don’t take offense.

Every president does so by a choice, that is their choice. I did notice when I was a jury Forman recently that all mention of it has been removed from the courts, only affirming they will tell the truth. I don’t mind when your beliefs and rules of that belief is a choice, it is only when you try to apply your beliefs to others not of you belief that you are going to run into a brick wall.

I actually defend your right to believe this religion or that religion and I will help see to it that your children are not preached to from a position of authority by other religions as well.

I was never on the mountain so to speak, but many others that have been there for a long time are being shown the way down.

We are growing up, the time of Santa Claus is passing. It will take a long time, I know... but it is good to see it well started.

[heartandmind]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you read any of his posts? I know children who have a better grasp of logic. His posts are exercises in semantics and hyperbole. Like or dislike is irrelevant.

or, to put it differently, they're bumperstickers.

your last sentence is entirely true.

just wait until ol' brian likens same sex marriage to sex with a corpse.

ugh.

maybe in his little world that's how sex is - but not in most other people's worlds.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Surprise Big D, that "petty little belief system" is all around, and to a certain degree, "forced on the rest of us". In God We Trust adorns our currency, the President is sworn into office with his hand on a Bible, cities are named after saints, sports teams have religious names, and on it goes. You should come down from the mountain more often, mix among the common folk.

You are aware that our money also has the phrase "New Secular Order" written in Latin... right?

those phrases like "in God we Trust" as added to our currency decades after our founders, just as "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's and against the wishes of the descendants of the author who did not include such a passage as he didn’t want the pledge to be any kind of prayer, as so apply to everyone equally.

You are talking to someone that knows a whole lot more about this subject than you realize.

You are free to believe, and others are free to believe something else, or not believe at all, and there should be zero difference in the eyes of the law.

If you don’t agree with that statement, then you are not an American, THAT is why justice wears a blindfold.

[Ronald]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.
It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.
You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.

Big D.

You spent far too much time studying the Koran, and parts of the Talmud, and much of the Bagividad Ggita and several other religious works. Had you spent more time studying the Bible, you would be more familiar with well-established Christian Biblical principles. According to the instruction manual:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)

Ronald

[heartandmind]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
I would like my daughter to marry a man who will treat her with love and respect. If he's gay, they both know it, and they choose to marry, would you say its not a valid union of husband and wife. Suppose a lesbian married a man, would their marriage be any less valid than any other husband and wife union?

it would be considered a fallacy or a sham of a marriage. even the catholic church understands this and allows those types of marriages to be nullified. furthermore, in some instances, those types of marriages would be considered to be illegal insofar if the couple is found to have married under the conditions as described (one being homosexual and the other heterosexual, for example)...they could be found to be trying bilk an insurance company for example, or perhaps for immigration purposes or any number of other possibilities of marrying under false pretenses otherwise known as "fraud"...it may not be fraud to the 2 involved, if they both know about the other, but they entered into the marriage with the idea to defraud for some purpose (insurance, pension, immigration, housing, etc). it may difficult to prove, but if you tick off the DA or SA in the area enough, they could come after you. so, do you really want your daughter to enter into a fraud?

[heartandmind]

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Big D.
You spent far too much time studying the Koran, and parts of the Talmud, and much of the Bagividad Ggita and several other religious works. Had you spent more time studying the Bible, you would be more familiar with well-established Christian Biblical principles. According to the instruction manual:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Ronald

right. so where is that phrase in any of the constitution, the bill of rights, or any federal or state law?