Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Marcia_Marcia_Marcia wrote:

<quoted text>
No not asking for more just the same rights and asking to be protected under the same constitution as everyone else. We are not asking to be granted the right to marry so we can turn around and go into the church and tell them they have to marry us. We are not asking for a religious marriage just a state or federal recognized marriage. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Straight, white, male or female does not appear either it says man so does that mean the constitution only protects a man or does that include woman and children also? It never says anything specific on who it should protect because I am sure they did not see need to be so specific probably hoping that common sense would be used. Everyone wants to say if The Founding Fathers wanted marriage equality it would have put it in. Well the same could be said about allowing women to vote and that took how long? The point of it is all man (as in mankind) not everyone except or everyone but more rights to white Christians.

Way to go Marcia:-)

Prof Marvel wrote:

I hope everyone has been paying close attention to how I've shut-down this forum's collective homosexual brain trust.
These people are stupid -- worse still, they take pride in their stupidity.
I posted 15 reasons why the LGBT is a sex cult and rather than attack it head on they began whining and gnashing their teeth like a bunch of old women.
The problem is plan enough: without LGBT talking points they're puppets without their strings -- they can't think. They read arguments they've never seen before and they become immobile and disoriented.
Is the LGBT actually a sex cult? Who knows? But to throw down the challenge only to get the stupidity and befuddlement these idiots responded with says even darker things about what homosexuality does to a person's heart and mind.
Which brings us to the hetero morons who support same sex marriage. Who are you people? How do you let intellectual zombies as brainless as homosexuals shape and mold your thinking?
We know what their mental issues are -- what's yours?

ROTMFFLMAO........you haven't shut down anyone......and everything you have posted as been refuted many times over!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're married, right? And probably had children, right? If we are supposed to believe you with what you post.....why can't you do the same for others who tell you they are married to their wife, have grown children, with grandchildren, YET, you call them Gay and their neighbors Gay as well......why?

I didn't call his neighbors gay. He was using his childless neighbors to insinuate that is normal in marriage. I said his neighbors prove nothing, especially when 96% of marriages do involve children.

You obviously believe saying something makes it so. I don't. Our words either confirm what is or make us a liar.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't call his neighbors gay. He was using his childless neighbors to insinuate that is normal in marriage. I said his neighbors prove nothing, especially when 96% of marriages do involve children.
You obviously believe saying something makes it so. I don't. Our words either confirm what is or make us a liar.

You also continue to insult straight people on these threads and I was just curious as to why.......but, it really is irrelevant because of how you feel about Gays and Lesbians in general and also feel it is okay to disrespect our legal marriages.

Again, marriage may eventually have kids as by products of the marriage, but not all straight couples can have children or want children, and because you don't have an actual number on those particular couples, your 96% number is just that......a number.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
You also continue to insult straight people on these threads and I was just curious as to why.......but, it really is irrelevant because of how you feel about Gays and Lesbians in general and also feel it is okay to disrespect our legal marriages.
Again, marriage may eventually have kids as by products of the marriage, but not all straight couples can have children or want children, and because you don't have an actual number on those particular couples, your 96% number is just that......a number.

You impose a imposter relationship on marriage and say I am disrespecting you for calling it?

96% is not just a number, it's children.

I don't insult gays or straights, I'm both. I insult stupidity and disrespect denial.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You impose a imposter relationship on marriage and say I am disrespecting you for calling it?
96% is not just a number, it's children.
I don't insult gays or straights, I'm both. I insult stupidity and disrespect denial.

Well then I'd have to say that you definitely disrespect yourself then! Having children is only one part of marriage and the fact still remains no matter how many times you deny it,procreation is only ONE aspect of marriage! otherwise couples who state that they want NO children would be banned from marrying! So deny,and twist away,you are an expert at it,but we all see right through your obvious bigotry and hate! Fact is you hate yourself,that's as plain as the nose on your face OH great creepy one! LOL

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
Your argument using a state or local government's right to ban firearms is not accurate. In Chicago for 28 years it was illegal to own a hand gun.
High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-28/justice/us...
A state or local government can not pass a law that violates the constitution.

I think I was pretty clear when I explained that the court had screwed up the Constitution with its incorporation nonsense.

I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. Then how can we "know" anything?

Another stupid statement from you. The fact that we don't "know" something today does note negate the fact that we may "know" it tomorrow. And certainly NOT "knowing" does not equate to nonexistence.

Using your logic we could just eliminate science, we already "know" everything, and that which we don't doesn't exist anyhow.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I was pretty clear when I explained that the court had screwed up the Constitution with its incorporation nonsense.
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.

I had no idea that you where on the Supreme court much less a constitutional lawyer, who knew.

Prof Marvel wrote:

You want to pretend these things don't exist.

And you want to pretend that this nonsense you are ranting about actually matter or that anyone besides a handful of loud mouthed tightassed throwbacks gives a crap.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>I had no idea that you where on the Supreme court much less a constitutional lawyer, who knew.

I'm sorry that you are too much of an idiot to be anything but a little sheep destine to simply nod and smile each time the SCOTUS makes a ruling.

The SCOTUS was not designed to be the end all be all, nor the final say in all Constitutional matters- Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Hamilton were all quite clear on this fact. Just ask Madison and Jefferson how they felt in regards to State nullification.

"BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."- Thomas Jefferson

"If [as the Federalists say]“the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,”…, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so.… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law"- Thomas Jefferson

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves …. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. "- Thomas Jefferson

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet.… I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …" Thomas Jefferson

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I was pretty clear when I explained that the court had screwed up the Constitution with its incorporation nonsense.

I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.

It appears that you have a problem comprehending REALITY.

Yep, it's a real shame that the high court judges lack your intellect and insight. You're the expert so why won't anyone (who matters) listen to YOU?

ELH wrote:

<quoted text>
It appears that you have a problem comprehending REALITY.

It appears that you have a problem comprehending our founding.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You impose a imposter relationship on marriage and say I am disrespecting you for calling it?
96% is not just a number, it's children.
I don't insult gays or straights, I'm both. I insult stupidity and disrespect denial.

Again, it is only you that feel that I am not legally married because you can't believe that 2 women can be married and still have some diversity in it......but they can, because we AREN'T exactly the same person.

96% is just a number because you have no evidence to back up your claim that it is children.

Now, go back and play with your little group of homophobes like Sir Doctor and Riverside Redneck.....lol!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
ROTMFFLMAO........you haven't shut down anyone......and everything you have posted as been refuted many times over!!!

Sure I have.

I've shown everyone what narrow-minded little fascists you are who fit and fume when you don't get your way.

Others have shown how bankrupt and deceitful your agenda is; I've shown how you fall to pieces defending it in open debate.

None of you challenged my "15 Reasons Why the LGBT is a Sex Cult" because none of you were capable of responding to arguments not covered in your LGBT talking points.

So what you do instead is stamp your feet, fume, call names, grovel for sympathy from straight morons who support same sex marriage -- everything but debate in a rational and mature manner.

As a class homosexuals are not people of character and discipline. The typical homosexual is at the bars every night drinking far too much than he should. This usually causes him to end up having sex with a stranger. This explains the hideous behavior you people display during your penis parades.

And that's what they've become -- penis parades.

Anal sex and cock-sucking do not build character.

Same sex marriage won't change this salient fact no will all the other social engineering experiments you force on society.

You've been spotted.

Prof Hissyfit wrote:

I hope everyone has been paying close attention to how I've shut-down this forum's collective homosexual brain trust.

Remember that time when you (and your crazyass puppet mad ass Melba) became an FBI "informants"? You spent WEEKS posted non stop rants about how you were going shut down the thread and get me and Lilith and some "mannytranny" named David arrested for burning down churches, kidnapping and eating babies?

Because THAT was funny and if this current delusion is going to get half as amusing I might just start reading past the first sentience of your rants.

I heard that MadAss Melba ended up in a straightjacket, so your new "friends" KiMare and RedneckNancy are going to have to help you this time. You should probably also get the FBI involved again!

Here's the link so KiMare and RedneckNancy can get some shiny badges just like the one you have:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/podcasts/inside/junio...

BTW it's been almost a year and the FBI still hasn't gotten around to arresting me.

Or was that a spotted owl?

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
It appears that you have a problem comprehending our founding.

Much like so many of the judges appointed to the high court I'm simply not as well educated or intelligent (or a witty) as you are.

But keep digging in your heals, just like organizations against suffrage or racial integration once did. American history has already proven that the world will continue to the world will continues to move forward despite your proclamations and pronouncements

Marcia_Marcia_Marcia wrote:

<quoted text>
No not asking for more just the same rights and asking to be protected under the same constitution as everyone else. We are not asking to be granted the right to marry so we can turn around and go into the church and tell them they have to marry us. We are not asking for a religious marriage just a state or federal recognized marriage. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Straight, white, male or female does not appear either it says man so does that mean the constitution only protects a man or does that include woman and children also? It never says anything specific on who it should protect because I am sure they did not see need to be so specific probably hoping that common sense would be used. Everyone wants to say if The Founding Fathers wanted marriage equality it would have put it in. Well the same could be said about allowing women to vote and that took how long? The point of it is all man (as in mankind) not everyone except or everyone but more rights to white Christians.

You do have the right to marry like everyone else here. You mention common sense, common sense was used when the rules of the land were written for all including those who chose to be gay, who knew?? There is a big differnce between women voting and blacks voting and being free they were deemed normal and of opposite sexes never was anything ever mentioned about SSM your continued argument makes no sense and therefore redundant. This new idea of SSM is a new chapter and should be treated as such. You need to put it on a prop and have America vote to change everything to read and reflect as such, A HUGE EXPENSE just to do that let alone the future demands. Just keep things the way they are and stop rocking the boat.