Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Rose_NoHo]

akaidiot wrote:

<quoted text>
That is your answer to your inability to back up your accusations with actual fact?
You really are a mental midget, I wouldn't be surprised if you have a post it note on your monitor reminding yourself to breath.

I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right, when I want to understand the meaning of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment I should come to Rose for an explanation and not Jacob Howard, Lyman Trumbull, John Bingham, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry Deming, Benjamin G. Brown, Ignatius Donnelly etc..
My guess- you have never heard of any of those people.

You are a funny b!tch!
Thanks for the laughs.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps if you took the time to educate yourself you might know how many of them would have felt.

It doesn't matter.
The Supreme Court made the decision.

akpilot wrote:

"It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!"-- James Madison
"The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."-- George Mason
"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]."-- George Washington
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence."-- John Adams
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."--John Jay
Now educate yourself so you can stop looking so damn stupid.

Loving v VA was about marriage, not slavery. You really should educate yourself, and not just copy/paste.
LOL @ you!

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
First, your argument isn't with me, take it up with MSNBC.
Second, everyone knows you have no argument when you resurrect Hitler and make ridiculous assertions about what I believe (slander).
Third, any true believer knows that love and truth are inseparable in the Christian faith. Again, if you were a professional social worker, you would understand the impact of denial.
Fourth, leave marriage and children alone. Imposing an imposter relationship on marriage will not fix your unhappiness.
Smile.

One thing Topix has taught me is Christianity = hate. You are one of the, Oooops, I was going to say people but people only have 46 chromosomes. You are one of those who show that it's pure hate.
Do you think you should have been aborted?
Did god make a mistake making you?
LOL!
:)

[Rose_NoHo]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Normally, things that aren't normal, are abnormal.

You mean like impostor "people" who have two different sets of tissue?

KiMare wrote:

This is why scientists are trying to understand homosexuality. It is also why no culture in human history has fully accepted homosexuality as normal.

No culture in human history has fully accepted defective freaks like you as normal. Many were killed, or just left to die.
:)

KiMare wrote:

How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that???
Snicker.

How are you going to understand scientific information if you can't understand something as simple as that, defect???
:)

[Rose_NoHo]

Big D wrote:

No you are confusing it
Marriage is not only about having children, if it is in your religion, fine, but no one else has to conform to your religion.
We are talking about law here, law that applies to everyone, not just people that believe in this god or that god or one book or another.
The law does not, and never has made the intent or ability to have children a pre-requisite for getting a marriage license
You want to put that on a ballot, go ahead, it will fail, but it will put in the spotlight people that have your opinion and the way you want to degrade every marriage where someone could not or chose not to have children.

Pietro Armando won't deal with the issues you bring up, and just plays word games, that's why I stopped replying to him.

[Harriette VVVoom]

Well shucks. The divine Sarah has shown us the way again and this time maybe we'll have the lugknuts to listen. She pointed out that Hugo Chavez and Kim from N. Korea are one and the same and that Karl Rove and she are no longer romantically but now only physically involved since he became involved in the election of the popes and the surrounding scandal. She shows us how to react to this by pointing out the great land and business opportunities in Cyprus and the market there for retrieved gold taken from rest home residents here for payment of the upcharges on their freeloading depenz accounts. She winsomely points the way to shipping retirees to Turkey and Wazikistan where they can be warehoused for far less moolah for far less time. She also mentions the bishops collection of souvenir evanescent jockstraps but I dont want to go there. You go there, says she..and I will vote for her again to be Governor for a full term, or more parts thereof.

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
NO, that may be the reasons your marriage exists ( 8in which case I feel very very sorry for your wife ),

Actually your marriage exists for the same reason, as does mine. There are two sexes, human reproduction is sexual, and our society, as have many across the globe, throughout time and place, figured this out. As to the feeling sorry part, you response seems to indicate, you feel wives are interchangeable with men. Personally my wife is all woman, but if some like 'em....

but it sure was not the reason for mine. You don’t get to define what everyone else’s marriage is about.

The states does that, at least legally. I have every right to advocate for monogamous conjugal marriage as the legal definition, as do you monogamous two person model regardless of gender composition, and polygamists also have the right to advocate for their definition.

I know people who married later in life, I know people that married with no intent of having children, I know people that married without the ability to have children

What a coincidence, so do I. I also know people whose mother and father were not only married, but had sex to create them.

and you think their marriages is less than others are.. you are wrong... dead wrong, and a VAST majority of Americans will agree with me on that.

Actually, Big Denial, I don't, stated just that. Let's go to the audio tape:

Pietro Armando said:
Those who cannot, or choose not, to have children do not degrade thier own, nor the marriages of any other husband and wife. Quite the contrary, such marriages reinforce the conjugal nature of the martial relationship, and what that nature produces, children. Even those husbands and wives who choose not to, nor cannot, have children are still they themselves, the products of a male female union.

The intent or ability to have children is NOT and has NEVER been a requirement to get a marrage license.

Silly rabbit, why the heck would it have to be a requirement? Do you think married couples won't have sex? That there won't be any "oops" babies? As my father used to say, "two go to bed, but three get up". That's not tradition, that's good old fashioned facts of life.

I don’t give a darn about tradition,

Not any tradition? Even the tradition that says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife"?

I certainly don’t give a darn about what you think is important.

That's because I won't climb the mountain to seek out your wisdom. I'm sure you have enough politicians, and judges doing that already.

I don’t have to run every marriage past you for approval, you have no authority.

Nor do you sparky, but thanks for trying.

Marriage is about 2 people making a promise, to become partners in their lives, it is about love, and respect and a commitment to one another.

Is that on the marriage license? Are THOSE pre-requisites? Are they legal requirements? Besides, marriage has always been about "2 people", polygamy is a valid form of marriage world wide, and its practiced in this country, albeit without legal recognition.

Tradition is unnecessary ( people can have a cerymony, or not, as they choose )

Who said anything about a ceremony?

Children are not a requirement ( no law will automatically decree a dissolution of a marriage based on intent or ability to have children, one of the parties has to WANT a divorce, and then any reason works, including eating crackers in bed )

Here's a newsflash for ya! The state doesn't care, from a legal standpoint, about your hallmark card version of marriage. "Love", "respect", "commitment", etc., are neither legally defined, nor a requirement for issuance of a license. If you're going to rant on about procreation is not a legal requiremnt, ya better throw in the all the rest as well.

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

True, but they have said procreation is the reason marriage either exists, or that the compelling state interest. Here's one example.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Pietro Armando won't deal with the issues you bring up, and just plays word games, that's why I stopped replying to him.

Awwww....Rosie, yes I have, numerous times. Reread my posts, you'll see.

[Bischops Chops]

Marriage vows should be a matter of church approval while states and their subsidiary l'il governments should issue licenses recognizing contracts of union beyween signatory parties. Make kids, make noise, make a mess, make bliss or whoopee...do what you may with what you got permission to do it with and dont pizz off the neighbors or make them move.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's obvious BS. Why even bother?

You don't bother because like everything else you post it lacks any basis in reality.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm stating a simple fact, dummy.
The courts haven't said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

You have serious issues with critical thinking don't you?

I guess everything has to be in picture form for you to comprehend it.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't matter.
The Supreme Court made the decision.
<quoted text>
Loving v VA was about marriage, not slavery. You really should educate yourself, and not just copy/paste.
LOL @ you!

You're an idiot. Your response doesn't even slightly resemble a logical retort to my post.

Do need help functioning?

[akpilot]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
True, but they have said procreation is the reason marriage either exists, or that the compelling state interest. Here's one example.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

You are wasting your time on Rose, unless like me you are simply entertaining yourself at her expense conversing with her is simply an exercise in futility.

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
First, your argument isn't with me, take it up with MSNBC.
Second, everyone knows you have no argument when you resurrect Hitler and make ridiculous assertions about what I believe (slander).
Third, any true believer knows that love and truth are inseparable in the Christian faith. Again, if you were a professional social worker, you would understand the impact of denial.
Fourth, leave marriage and children alone. Imposing an imposter relationship on marriage will not fix your unhappiness.
Smile.

Oh... So all of a sudden your vast knowledge of epigenetics comes from MSNBC? Good to know that you've really looked into this matter to a depth that you can knowledgeably discuss it.

But you're not interested in discussing it with any depth of knowledge, you just want to beat people over the head with something you heard about in passing.

Why would any of us expect any difference from you.

I compare you to Hitler because you both advocate the same thing. You both believe that purity of the human race is in part based on the elimination of homosexuals. Is this not true? If I'm mistaken, please "straighten" me out.(wink)

And we will not stop our pursuit of the rights and protections of legal marriage. We are within our rights as American citizens to pursue them.

[Rose_NoHo]

akaidiot wrote:

<quoted text>
You have serious issues with critical thinking don't you?
I guess everything has to be in picture form for you to comprehend it.

You make a lame attack because I'm right, and you don't have the 'nads to admit it.
The courts have never said you have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
And speaking of critical thinking, since you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry, the fact gay couples can't reproduce is a non issue when it comes to marriage.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You're an idiot. Your response doesn't even slightly resemble a logical retort to my post.
Do need help functioning?

I was talking about the 14th Amendment and Loving v Va, and you replied with a bunch of stuff about slavery...
And you say I'm an idiot! LOL!
Thanks for the smile.:)

[VacuLocked]

Nutters are running around looking for GOP, Republican and Tea Party member's to shorten their out look on life.

[The Flying Eagle]

If you want to wake up with a sore butt then that's your problem, but don't make it mine!

It's ok to be gay in hell!