No it doesn't even mention space aliens, don't be stupid. It bans same sex and poly marriage.<quoted text>
Yes it bans things that were already banned like poly and marrying space aliens of sexes other than Man or Woman
A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.
#188611 Apr 14, 2013
#188612 Apr 14, 2013
Is being a "queen" bad? You are an old queen, aren't you? Are queens to be discredited due solely to their queen status?
#188613 Apr 14, 2013
One man one woman only. Means no poly, no same sex. Stop being stupid.
#188615 Apr 14, 2013
Closet queens who write anti-gay propaganda while they are sneaking around sucking dick are HARDLY paragons of virtue.
“Vita e' Bella.”
Since: May 12
#188616 Apr 14, 2013
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,“what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example,“with respect to the number of people ... that could get married?”
In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.
The Court has said, he contended, that polygamy raises “questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody” and therefore “is an entirely different thing” than same-sex marriage. Moreover, Olson argued, when a “state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct,” but if “it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.”
Justice Sotomayor’s concerns about the possibility of a path from same-sex marriage to polygamy may arise from the fact that there is already a case in federal court challenging Utah’s anti-bigamy law as unconstitutional. In any event, she should be just as concerned about this question after oral argument as she was before it, because none of Olson’s distinctions can reasonably justify a prohibition on polygamy if the Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To see why, it’s first useful to note a crucial distinction that Olson overlooked, as well as the most famous Supreme Court case regarding polygamy, which he failed to mention.
Olson’s words to the Court suggest that the state somehow “forbids” same-sex marriage today just as it “forbids” polygamy. This is not true, as Adam MacLeod noted on Public Discourse earlier this week. Under current law and Supreme Court precedent, no state has constitutional authority to punish anyone for entering into a same-sex relationship. No state in fact “prohibits” same-sex marriage. If any persons wish to enter into such a relationship and call it a marriage, they are perfectly free to do so.
The real issue, the real complaint in the case that Olson represents, is that the state simply refuses to bestow on same-sex unions the same recognition that it gives to heterosexual marriages. In stark contrast, the law in many American jurisdictions not only refuses to recognize polygamous marriages; it actively punishes them. Enter into a same-sex marriage and the government will simply ignore you. Enter into a polygamous marriage and the law permits the government to prosecute you for a crime.
Unlike the distinctions Olson raised, this one is real, and it positively undermines his assurance that we can have same-sex marriage while still banning polygamy. Common sense makes it hard to see how this could be done.
Since: Dec 09
#188617 Apr 14, 2013
Did you know that Dr. George Rekers had to bow out of the Family Research Institute after he was found to have employed the services of a paid male escort (i.e.: prostitute) to accompany him to Europe?
The escort spilled the beans--including the nude massages and sex that took place.
Your dear Dr. Rekers is a big, old queen, honey! He's a self-loathing queen, but he's a queen nonetheless.
And Dr. Paul Cameron is so far up the Family Research Institute's ass that he can't be taken seriously.
I mean really... Is this the best you can come up with?
#188618 Apr 14, 2013
Same sex sexual behavior? Wow? Did we invent something new? I don't think so.'Sexual behavior' is an adequate phrase, unless, of course, your intent is to demonize.
“Vita e' Bella.”
Since: May 12
#188619 Apr 14, 2013
In Olson’s view, the state may not officially prefer heterosexual marriage by a policy so mild that it does nothing other than to leave same-sex couples alone while declining to formally recognize their unions. By what reasoning, then, could it have a right to prefer some definition of marriage by actually punishing those who choose to disregard it?
Moreover, in his summary of what the Supreme Court has “said” about polygamy, Olson omitted to mention the single most famous case dealing with this question, Reynolds v. United States (1879). In that case the Court upheld the federal law forbidding polygamy in the territories of the United States, and declined to find that the free exercise clause immunizes those who practice it for religious reasons.
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice. This raises a serious problem for the defenders of same-sex marriage.
A number of the Court’s precedents defending a “right of privacy” have already strongly undermined the idea that the majority’s moral convictions are a sufficient basis for law. If the Court finds a right to same-sex marriage, it will practically dismantle the whole concept of morals legislation. But if moral preference for heterosexual marriage cannot be a reasonable basis on which to afford it a formal recognition denied to other unions, then how can moral disapproval be a reasonable ground on which to forbid and punish polygamy?
Let us turn now from the distinctions Olson overlooked to the ones he emphasized. In the first place, Olson contended that polygamy raises serious concerns about “exploitation,”“abuse,” and “patriarchy” that aren’t relevant to same-sex marriage. Presumably he was referring to the “abuse” and “exploitation” of the children and perhaps wives of plural marriages. Yet, under the constitutional theory of marriage Olson has tried to sell, none of these considerations would be sufficient to forbid polygamy. Olson insists that marriage is a fundamental right. Standard Supreme Court doctrine holds that fundamental rights can only be infringed to defend a “compelling state interest” and that the regulations made to protect that interest must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
Everyone would concede that prevention of abuse and exploitation of children and wives is a compelling state interest. On the other hand, nobody would contend that such abuse and exploitation is the very essence of polygamy. After all, abuse and exploitation can be found in monogamous marriages, too. The most one could say is that these problems are dangers to which polygamous unions are more or less prone. In any case, under the “fundamental rights” doctrine on which Olson relies, the least restrictive means to remedy such dangers would be to recur to already existing laws punishing such abuse and exploitation, rather than going so far as to ban polygamy altogether.
Olson may also have been hinting that the state could reasonably fear that abuse and exploitation of children is more likely to arise in families where the children are not related by blood to all of their parents. This is a reasonable concern, but it could be raised just as easily in relation to same-sex marriages, where at best, only one parent can be biologically related to each child.
“Vita e' Bella.”
Since: May 12
#188620 Apr 14, 2013
What about Uranusians?
Since: Mar 09
#188621 Apr 14, 2013
Is this an important issue? I dunno, I suppose I could ask my nephew what happened. They went to a JoP for their marriage.
The above sums it up for missus sheesh and myself. Except the children part. Money is sort of involved because I didn't want my brother's meddling wives to try a grab ass on anything I've accumulated. Both are doing just that with my mother's stuff. And she's still alive!
Do we have statistics on this? Scratch that, found this Huffington Post article via google.
Apparently, women in general are more up for marriage than men are. The article offers several potential contributing factors.
Looks to be romantic love is the major driving force.
I'm not the one bringing incest into the equation. I suspect the number of siblings wanting to get hitched is surprisingly minute.
Perhaps the state would like to see less congestion in the courts due to battles from families not wanting their deceased gay son's lover to get anything. Perhaps gaining access to marriage would make them more accepted in general, thus reducing some of the stupidity that occurs when rednecks see two men holding hands.
Yet, according to the article, couples would rather marry than enter into a civil union. By the article it appears we can expect SSM divorce rates to be similar to hetero couples.
#188622 Apr 14, 2013
But if your problem is only their credibility, why do you stress their sexuality?
#188623 Apr 14, 2013
#188624 Apr 14, 2013
Because it speaks to their motivation to lie. Damn, are you completely stupid?
#188625 Apr 14, 2013
n your case, stupify.
#188627 Apr 14, 2013
No. I am not stupid.
They are motivated to lie because they are gay?
#188628 Apr 14, 2013
Nice work, there...
#188629 Apr 14, 2013
Here's the REAL crime, being perpetrated, while we bicker..
"EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the...
National Security Act of 1947
allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.
1950 Defense Production Act
gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.
Act of August 29, 1916
authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act
enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979."
#188630 Apr 14, 2013
I have never s*cked a d!ck and I am getting quite old. I don't want to try it now because I might find that I like it! And then I'd be really depressed that I have missed out all these years.
So I can pretty much guarantee you I will never suck a d!ck.
How many have you s*cked? Bet ya lost count eh Romeo? YUK!YUK!YUK! Hell yeah! Believe me so have I with the ladies!
#188631 Apr 14, 2013
There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really want to be on Ashcroft's list.
The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a "mass exodus" of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.
Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.
The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.
Now let's review the justification for any actions taken...
Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen. Due to the suspension of Posse Comitatus.
#188632 Apr 14, 2013
Watch the movies, the videos.
One video has the 6 yr old swearing that they "Love Obama", reminiscent of the North Koreans mantras of loving the "Dear Leader", thanking him for life, and vision, and everything else.
Add your comments below
|Gay/bi skype (Jun '16)||16 min||maxous_23||91|
|New years 95||Mon||Victor and adrian||1|
|Complaints Against Google+ (Jul '14)||Mar 26||F Google||114|
|Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... (Sep '15)||Mar 22||Trekkie||217|
|Portola Valley: Suspect in January residential ...||Mar 21||Liberals are dumb||1|
|Help IDENTIFY who "they" are||Mar 19||Abdt123||1|
|2 schools named after eugenics advocates to get...||Mar 19||CodeTalker||2|
Find what you want!
Search Palo Alto Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC