Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Seriously?!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>Stupid, it says all US citizens should get equal protection under the law. Do you know what ALL means? It can't mention every citizen by name. Free clue: gay people are included. Do you know what "equal protection of the laws" means? Again, they can't mention every law that ever was and would be. Another free clue: that includes marriage laws.

my little trampy ho they can have all of the same protection under the law and marry someone of the opposite gender
That makes them equal

But you say they need special privileges but so do your buddies in nambla
They want to change the laws also

When will the gay Olympics start?

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
my little trampy ho they can have all of the same protection under the law and marry someone of the opposite gender
That makes them equal
But you say they need special privileges but so do your buddies in nambla
They want to change the laws also

That's like saying everybody had the equal right to sit in the section assigned to their race.

What special privilege would there be? You homophobes always argue out of both sides of your mouth. Straight people would also be able to marry someone of the same sex.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>That's like saying everybody had the equal right to sit in the section assigned to their race.

What special privilege would there be? You homophobes always argue out of both sides of your mouth. Straight people would also be able to marry someone of the same sex.

But they don't allow straight people to marry the same sex, just like gays. So how is it fair to provide special rights to gays that is not provided to straights?

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
But they don't allow straight people to marry the same sex, just like gays. So how is it fair to provide special rights to gays that is not provided to straights?

Damn, you're dumb!
Can a man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a woman marry a woman? No.
Yes != No.
Can a woman marry a man? Yes.
Can a man marry man? No.
Yes !=No.

Straight people would also be able to marry someone of the same sex, so there would be no special rights.
Right now, women have a right men don't have, and men have a right women don't have. Why are you against equal rights? Do you hate America?

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't sprew any more nonsence than you AKPA.. YOU DICK STFU

Pretty much everything you post is nonsense.

BTW, it's NONSENSE, not NONSENCE.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>Damn, you're dumb!
Can a man marry a woman? Yes.
Can a woman marry a woman? No.
Yes != No.
Can a woman marry a man? Yes.
Can a man marry man? No.
Yes !=No.

Straight people would also be able to marry someone of the same sex, so there would be no special rights.
Right now, women have a right men don't have, and men have a right women don't have. Why are you against equal rights? Do you hate America?

Put the cap back on the glue!

Do women have the right to marry the opposite sex? YES!

Do men have the right to marry the opposite sex? YES!

We all have that equal right, why are you against equal rights? You must hate America because it is you that wants to destroy the equality that exist!

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Damn, I'm dumb!

Most people agree.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
But they don't allow straight people to marry the same sex, just like gays. So how is it fair to provide special rights to gays that is not provided to straights?

It's not "special" if you have the same right. Geez, buddy.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's like saying everybody had the equal right to sit in the section assigned to their race.
What special privilege would there be? You homophobes always argue out of both sides of your mouth. Straight people would also be able to marry someone of the same sex.

You were so ho close ho ho. You were right for the first sentence then just went back to being stupid. At the time, sitting in ones designated space was the law, then the law got changed. When the law gets changed THEN you can act smart for once.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
But they don't allow straight people to marry the same sex, just like gays. So how is it fair to provide special rights to gays that is not provided to straights?

Kind of cool. Like if they call me a derrogatory name like homophobe it's cool. If I call one of them a phaggot I'm a bigot. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Bill Of Rights wrote:

<quoted text>
Well your mouth is open isn't it? LOL,Close it and poof! No more lie's will come out! LOL

You naughty naughty boy you!

akpilot wrote:

The issue is the uniform. You can't wear it to anything political where you might associate the service with the event.
You can't even wear it to a political rally.
I hate to say it, but with all the nonsense Bruno spews on this forum, he did bring up a very interesting point.
Homosexuals claim they want to be treated equally, well this is clearly a case where they have the chance to and may not seize it by wearing their uniform to make a statement, something others cannot do.

While there are always going to be political elements to gay pride parades, they are in and of themselves non-partisan events. It is no more "political" than any other parade made up of diverse elements. My question would be, are they going to complain as loudly about the military color guards and other active duty, uniformed military personnel that are going to be visible at the Republican National Convention (and the Democratic Party's party too)?

commonpeeps wrote:

<quoted text>Kind of cool. Like if they call me a derrogatory name like homophobe it's cool. If I call one of them a phaggot I'm a bigot. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Pretty pathetic isn't it.
Incest and homosexuality are closely related and should be illegal.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>It's not "special" if you have the same right. Geez, buddy.

Correct and that same right we all have is to marry the opposite sex! So why is it fair to attack those that share this equal right?

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

But they don't allow straight people to marry the same sex, just like gays. So how is it fair to provide special rights to gays that is not provided to straights?

I take it you're the idiot we're supposed to argue with? Hi. Dear, just like opposite sex marriages, there is no sexual orientation requirement for a same sex marriage either, moron. Just because you probably don't want to take advantage of your right to marry someone of your same sex (whatever that is) doesn't make it a special right for those who do. No more so than you're not wanting to exercise your right to marry a deadbeat parent, felon doing time, who isn't of your same race makes all those other Supreme Court cases the bestowal of a "special right". I'd tell you to think about it, but I'm worried you might hurt yourself.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct and that same right we all have is to marry the opposite sex! So why is it fair to attack those that share this equal right?

And in some States you also have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not "special" if you have the same right. Geez, buddy.

You already have the same right's- just like everyone else you can marry someone of the opposite sex.

Geez, buddy.

Oh my god. This is so rude, I'm lesbian and I live in San Diego what if I wanted to get married to a girl? I mean seriously? I have to travel all the quest to a different state to get married? Lovely. What's up with the f***cked up society today.