Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Jazybird58]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>When will education find your crew. The 14th Amendment does not support your position.
There is a dispute, and it figured in the Proposition 8 case, over the current meaning and impact of a decision the Supreme Court made in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson. There, without briefing and hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a Minnesota gay couple. The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected their claim that denial of a marriage license for them violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. That “summary dismissal” is a binding precedent, just as a full-scale decision would be, if a later case is found to be a close or exact parallel to the Baker lawsuit.

Hi Dr Demented how ya been? Still trolling the school yards?

[Obama Out Of Gas In LA]

Gas prices and Liberals don't mix. Go home Obama we don't want you here loser.

[Tata]

No matter how long this SSM issue goes on, gays will always be second class and looked at as an odd cult. If this issue was something to be concerned abour the Feds would have resolved it long ago. California is not as easy of push over as other states however Californea is in a worse financial mess than other states and therefore must make the best logical coice for the people. If the wrong choice is made in favor of the gay cults it may cauase problems for them down the road . . .

[Jenkins]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Love it.
But that doesn't change the fact we can exist and survive without marriage.

Queer marriage should be outlawed for the sake of the little children.

[PottyTrained]

When will your politican get potty trained?

[CINDY]

When is the Cindy is driving to Montclair, California?

[State of Snakes]

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>Queer marriage should be outlawed for the sake of the little children.

And now gay Parenting!

[State of Snakes]

It's none of your business what we do in the bedroom nor that we can't bare fruit yet we'll gladly steal yours through dss and share our mental masturbations with young schoolchildren and try to be where all other young children like to congregate.

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, you don't like the decision anymore.
It's OK Rose. You will get over it.

Liar. I love the decision. I'm glad interracial marriage isn't illegal.

You don't have any real arguments, so you lie about my positions.

[Rose_NoHo]

Ronald wrote:

I love my Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and yes, even the simple African.(

Why are fundies such racists?
(Did bother reading the rest of your post.)
Christianity = hate!
That's what I've learned from Topix.

[Rose_NoHo]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>When will education find your crew. The 14th Amendment does not support your position.
There is a dispute, and it figured in the Proposition 8 case, over the current meaning and impact of a decision the Supreme Court made in 1972, in the case of Baker v. Nelson. There, without briefing and hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a Minnesota gay couple. The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected their claim that denial of a marriage license for them violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. That “summary dismissal” is a binding precedent, just as a full-scale decision would be, if a later case is found to be a close or exact parallel to the Baker lawsuit.

The 14th Amendment grants all US citizens equal protection, so denying all US citizens equal protection violates the 14th Amendment.

This isn't rocket surgery...

[Rose_NoHo]

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo".
Yes. I agree. If Africans

Why are fundie such racists?
(I don't bother to read your posts.)
The Romans had the right idea, just too few lions.
Think how much better our world would be without the scourge of that hateful, racist religion, Christianity!

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, let's try this ....
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, the evidence does suggest that children raised by lesbians or gay men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey—an advocate for SSM and a sociologist—reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following:“lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions.” Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She also found that a “significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.” Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting.
*Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001.“(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially pp. 168-171

Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Your copy/paste babble doesn't show anything wrong with homosexuality. There is nothing wrong with having a homoerotic relationship or attraction.

[Ronald]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are fundies such racists?
(Did bother reading the rest of your post.)
Christianity = hate!
That's what I've learned from Topix.

Rose_NoHo.

How come every time I come out in support of your position you attack me?

Ronald

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Here it is. I found it, even though you said said nothing comes up.....
http://www.rentboy.com/

Stupid, that's not a pedophile site! AND I wrote it as "rent boy dot com" in the post you replied to (guess that was too complex for you to understand), I did that so people wouldn't accidentally click on an adults' only link.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
No, we call rose_no-hope a monkey because it has the intellect of an ape. We all have valid points that have been made repeatedly, only to have to hear chongo use "roses law" as if it is an authority on the matter, and that resortation to childish name calling has been committed by your hero, rose_no-hope,

You mean childish name calling like calling me "rose_no-hope"?

R Hudson wrote:

more than any other poster in here. And insofar as your claim goes, we heterosexual normal people are being forced into the unfortunate position of having to defend normality, for the sake of society.

Homosexuality is no threat to society.

R Hudson wrote:

Obsession ? If you poofs weren't forcing our children into having to learn about the whole sick phenomenon of gayness in school,

Rose's Law...

R Hudson wrote:

and by holding your detestable parades (complete with gigantic phallic symbols and men dressed as women) on Main Street USA, why, the whole issue would be avoidable. but due to your pushing of legislation, and your lobbying for "equal representation", which covers about 10% of the population, we are forced into polarization on the matter.
Oh, BTW, I love to watch 2 women having it off, who wouldn't want to be with a woman ? It is having to watch men prance around like they can be mistaken for women that makes me want to vomit.....Please, be clear on the matter.

You homophobes act as if you can't step outside without running into a gay pride parade. If you don't like them, quit finding out when they are going to be, and stop traveling to go see them. Problem solved.

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
In case you hadn't noticed, it is our country , too. With the laws being changed to suit a minority.

Still upset we got rid of Jim Crow Laws, huh?

R Hudson wrote:

We liked it the way it was, so if you want to accept them so freely, why don't YOU get the f_ck out of OUR country, where everything was good, and go form yourself a new one ?

Why don't you go form one where all people, even members of minority groups like blacks and gays, are *NOT* promised equal rights?

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, let's get technical......
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a member of the retrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2] a condition in humans in which progressive failure of the immune system allows life-threatening opportunistic infections and cancers to thrive.
HIV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's nice.
But that doesn't change the fact that HIV and AIDS are often used interchangeably, even though it's not technically correct. And it made sense to do in a post that said, "Anal sex causes HIV".

[Rose_NoHo]

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>Queer marriage should be outlawed for the sake of the little children.

Too easy...
Rose's Law

[Rose_NoHo]

R Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage, like the real people get to do ....

Stupid, I asked for a *special* right gay people are asking for.