Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and since you were busy trying to get all of us to believe what intellectual scholars you and Rose are, perhaps this time you could actually respond to the historical fact which I presented.
That is if either of you is capable of thinking past the 3rd grade level.
----------
BTW, since you agree Article V isn't made up, perhaps now you could read it. Then we could discuss how it was violated during the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
If we ever get you educated that far, which is highly doubtful, we can then discuss the use of martial law during the ratification when the vote didn't go the way they liked the first time.

You need to get a life as well loser.

Who but some loser punk like you would spit venom at a group of people like gays whom have nothing to do with you nor cause harm and are looking for a basic right to live their lives freely yet you just don't like it.

I'll bet my penny collection there's at least 12,904 things people don't like about you yet even I would protect your ability to live free in a free country.

You're a putz. Mind your own God damned business and leave gays alone idiot. Have a good week -

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Ohhhhh.....but of course it does...sigh....so the 14th amendment enacted in 1866 after the Civil War applies to marriage. I'm sure the craters of that amendment had gay marriage in mind.

They didn't have interracial marriage in mind, either. Or just about anything we consider commonplace today, including the device you are typing on, and yet we still create laws and guidelines for such things.

But the concept of equal protection under the law is timeless.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, with you any discussion of historical fact is a red herring.
You tend to call most everything you don't understand as such.

XBox does like blueberry pie. I don't what that has to do with the matter at hand. Perhaps s/he bakes the pies for the Pride picnics.

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
They didn't have interracial marriage in mind, either. Or just about anything we consider commonplace today, including the device you are typing on, and yet we still create laws and guidelines for such things.
But the concept of equal protection under the law is timeless.

What is interesting is that interracial marriage existed at that time, in New York City, of all places. White Scottish, and Irish immigrant women married "colored" men. I do have a question though, who is a person who is, to use a modern term, biracial supposed to marry, if the races are only supposed to marry intraracially?

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, with you any discussion of historical fact is a red herring.
You tend to call most everything you don't understand as such.

Red herring over pasta is delicious.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe Rose has two degrees. How many do you have?

Luke warm, and cold?

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
...yawn...
Then we can discuss the glories of blueberry pie. It's about as relevant as your stupid Article V red herring.

Red herring tastes delicious over pasta.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, dummy, the leg lamp is an idealized image of the female form upon which (straight) men hang their fantasies.

I thought it was a prop in a movie.

Like that idiot who claims he thinks I'm a man, then tries to insult me by telling me I'm really well hung, you need to work on your insults.

Thanks Rosie, I'll take that under advisement.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Except Regnerus didn't study "children of same sex parents." Yes sir ree shit-for-brains.

Sigh...X Box...you really need to expand your thinking skills.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, the Brown's suit is NOT asking for decriminalization of polygamy

Once again, I'm aware of that.

. Why do you continue to lie about it?

Why do you continue to lie that I haven't acknowledged it?

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, with you any discussion of historical fact is a red herring.
You tend to call most everything you don't understand as such.

I don't understand? What does discussing Article V have to do with Prop 8? You want to rehash the ratification of the 14th Amendment, go right ahead. The rest of us realize that's all been settled DECADES ago.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, I'm aware of that.
<quoted text>
Why do you continue to lie that I haven't acknowledged it?

Why do you continue to post that the Browns are working to decriminalize polygamy?

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Sigh...X Box...you really need to expand your thinking skills.

Regnerus did not study children born or adopted into same-sex parent families, only those who seem to recollect one of their parents ever having a same-sex relationship.
Regnerus compared that group, most of which had experienced family dissolution, only to stable, married, opposite-sex families — i.e. he compared unstable to intact.
Regnerus ignored whether the children lived with or were raised by the parents who had a same-sex relationship.
Regnerus only identified these “gay” parents based on the recollection of the children, not based on how the parents actually identify or live their lives.
Most of the factors Regnerus analyzes were adult outcomes, not childhood outcomes, and could very well have had nothing to do with the relationships of the children’s parents.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh look, Dan wants to chime in and protect the equally irrelevant Rose.
I'm sorry that both Rose and you have such trouble accepting what the courts have said. I guess you don't like the DOMA ruling anymore huh?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Dan thinks the court said you need to "get a grip Skippy"!

And he thinks they said "freedom to marry can easily be seen as a right"!

And "freedoms on how to live as long as they don't harm others were at the crux of the forming of our government"! Or such some silly sh!t.

TOO Funny!

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, the Brown's suit is NOT asking for decriminalization of polygamy. Why do you continue to lie about it?

http://fox13now.com/2013/02/20/polygamous-fam...

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Might be.
But funny thing....you won't see me in here for the next few months like you.
And give this some thought....gays will have mine, Clint Eastwood, the President's and others support to marry despite your angst. Go crawl in the hole you emerged from loser...LOL!!!

Gays have my support too.

The only thing I don't like about that fact is that I'm on the same side as a hot headed dumbass like you.

The bottom line is, I support marriage equality, you do not.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to get a life as well loser.
Who but some loser punk like you would spit venom at a group of people like gays whom have nothing to do with you nor cause harm and are looking for a basic right to live their lives freely yet you just don't like it.
I'll bet my penny collection there's at least 12,904 things people don't like about you yet even I would protect your ability to live free in a free country.
You're a putz. Mind your own God damned business and leave gays alone idiot. Have a good week -

If someone disagrees with you they "need to get a life as well loser"?

Either list those 12,904 things people don't like about him, or fork over your silly penny collection tough guy!

Dan. What a dope!

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't understand ...

That's obvious.

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you continue to post that the Browns are working to decriminalize polygamy?

Because he wants to believe that they are.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Because he wants to believe that they are.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22643...