Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good to know that I could get under your skin.......lol!!!
Sorry to inform you Penguin Boy......but I DON'T have a boyfriend/girlfriend.......I'm legally married......SHE'S MY WIFE:-)

You didn't .. call it what you want it is still not normal and that is what makes the both of you second class.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I'm a Lesbian.......I'm not the one accusing others of being something just TO MAKE YOURSELF feel better!!!
I know WHO I AM and I have NO ISSUES with it.....and I AM an AMERICAN CITIZEN......not a second class citizen like you think!!!

lol ... ok what ever makes you feel good ...

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea, Bruno probably get's shunned by women and men alike......that's why he needs to come hang out in a Gay/Lesbian blog in order to make himself feel like a "REAL" man!!!
I doubt if it's working.......lol!!!

Oh did you change this into a gaylesbian blog ??? I thought is was to debate SSM. You are sooo screwed up ...

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
It may have been someone else who brought it up, but you choose to engage in the off topic discussion.
Feel free to prove your assertions regarding the link between the legal protections of marriage and procreation. I don’t think you can.
The reality is that marriage contracts started to secure rights to property. Have you ever heard of a dowry?
I don’t think you can indicate a law in any state in the union that says anything about procreation or procreative ability relative to the legal protections of marriage. That is because no such statute exists.

Yawn.. And if you don't like the discussion you are free to see your way out of it.

BTW idiot, I already said the procreation argument is a ridiculous one, try to keep up.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the 14th Amendment pretty much states that you may not use the law to force your lifestyle onto others. It guarantees equal protection of the laws for all persons, marriage is one such protection of the law, and homosexuals are persons.
Feel free to indicate how allowing same sex couples to marry has any impact whatsoever upon people who would not enter into such a union. For that matter, feel free to indicate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Better luck next time.

Wow, do you live in fantasy land? It is obvious that you have no idea what the 14th Amendment was meant to do. You should read some history, perhaps start with the Constitutional debates regarding the amendment.

Bruno wrote:

You didn't .. call it what you want it is still not normal and that is what makes the both of you second class.

Let me help you out, the following is section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Nowhere does the amendment make mention of normalcy, nor does it provide for the creation of second-class citizens, only a fool would claim that it does. Period, end of story.

Can you offer any rational basis for your opinion?

Prof Marvel wrote:

<quoted text>And incidentally, since the only available data on gay adoption is Lesbian parents, you don't have any proofs.

Question: How Many Children Have Gay Parents in the US?

A: The actual number of children being raised by gay or lesbian parents is tough to estimate as many LGBTQ people keep their sexual orientation a secret to avoid harassment. But an article by the Child Welfare League of America states the following research, "A 1995 National Health and Social Life Survey by E.O. Lauman found that up to nine million children in America have gay or lesbian parents (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002)."

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:
•An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
•An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
•More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
•Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
•Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
According to research, the quality and time put into parenting is more important than the sexual orientation of the parents.

akpilot wrote:

Yawn.. And if you don't like the discussion you are free to see your way out of it.
BTW idiot, I already said the procreation argument is a ridiculous one, try to keep up.

Or, I can point out when the weak of mind wander off topic.

You may have said the procreative argument is ridiculous, but that does not alter the fact that the state has no interest in procreation relative to marry. Citizens who are incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry; and it is absurd to assert that there would be a procreative requirement of marriage, which would only apply to homosexuals, solely to exclude them from equal protection of the laws.

akpilot wrote:

Wow, do you live in fantasy land?

No, I leave that to you.

akpilot wrote:

It is obvious that you have no idea what the 14th Amendment was meant to do.

It was meant as one of several measures to end slavery, and it was written so that no majority could hold ANY subset of US citizens as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws. Nothing you have said negates this simple fact.

akpilot wrote:

You should read some history, perhaps start with the Constitutional debates regarding the amendment.

You should embrace reality, then perhaps you wouldn’t so often make yourself look foolish.

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh did you change this into a gaylesbian blog ??? I thought is was to debate SSM. You are sooo screwed up ...

It's a thread in the Gay/Lesbian forum on topix......if ya ever bothered to look at the bottom of your page......and it might appear in other forums on topix as well!!!

So, no need to thank me for your brief education:-)

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't .. call it what you want it is still not normal and that is what makes the both of you second class.

Obviously I did.......thanks for the lovely response.......lol!!!

Sorry Bruno, but being attracted to women and especially to my wife is as NORMAL for me as being attracted to women is for you........and maybe if ya'd stop being a jerk.......you might understand, but being a jackazz is so much more rewarding for ya!!!

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me, you flaming idiot, but it is the JUDGE that demands YOU prove your case that it is harmful, not the prosecution. They can certainly argue that you didn't make your case. For one thing, there isn't any evidence that proves it is harmful. No evidence = not guilty

Actually it is Reason that demands that he [or she] who makes a claim is responsible for proving it. Judges are supposed to use their reason. For instance, those who claim such a thing as God exists are responsible for offering the evidence necessary to prove their case. After thousands of years where no reliable evidence has been presented people are starting to claim that there is no God. Since the Fundies have never had any proof for the simple reason that there isn't any, they are now twisting things around and demanding that those who claim there is no God prove their case.

I, myself would be happy to prove there is no such thing as God just as soon as the fundies are finished proving there is.

If fundies make the claim that gay adoption or marriage is bad it is their job to prove it. They can't because there is noting wrong or worse about same sex couples getting married and adopting children. This is all about their deeply held beliefs which are total BS.

Mrs-Whitewater wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey There Sweets,
You kinda have the description correct, but you have the wrong person. lol. You see, I am 4'9", have sandy brown long straight hair, one eye that is brown and the other is a green brown, I have lost a bunch of weight and now I am only 390lbs. I hope to have another 50lbs gone by the end of the year but we will see.
So, if you are fishing for your perfect physical match, I'm sure I would fit the bill but there is only one small problem...I'm married to a beautiful woman who stands nearly 6' tall and is oh so worth the climb if you know what I mean.
Sorry
Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater
Proud wife of Rose T-H

Oh Honey........you may be small, but you sure are full of surprises;)

Life was so much nicer when gays stayed in the closet and the “men” only came out to work at beauty shops and the “women” came out of necessity. We didn’t have to worry about our K-12 kids being taught that perversion was OK. We could take our kids to Disneyland and not worry about it being “gay day” and subjecting them to perversion. TV shows were wholesome. Parades were filled with fun and not half naked men kissing on each other. I wish with all my heart that I could turn back the hands of time to those cherished days of innocence.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Or, I can point out when the weak of mind wander off topic.

If that were the case you would be having this discussion with the person who brought up the topic, not the one who responded to it.

But lets be honest here, you really don't care about the topic, you are just upset because I don't agree with you.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I leave that to you.
<quoted text>
It was meant as one of several measures to end slavery,

Slavery had already ended, try reading the 13th Amendment. 13 comes before 14..

Keep trying though.

Curious wrote:

Life was so much nicer when gays stayed in the closet and the “men” only came out to work at beauty shops and the “women” came out of necessity. We didn’t have to worry about our K-12 kids being taught that perversion was OK. We could take our kids to Disneyland and not worry about it being “gay day” and subjecting them to perversion. TV shows were wholesome. Parades were filled with fun and not half naked men kissing on each other. I wish with all my heart that I could turn back the hands of time to those cherished days of innocence.

It’s nicer when we follow the mandates of the US Constitution and provide equal protection of the laws for all.

Read the 14th Amendment.

akpilot wrote:

If that were the case you would be having this discussion with the person who brought up the topic, not the one who responded to it.
But lets be honest here, you really don't care about the topic, you are just upset because I don't agree with you.

No, I do care about the topic. The reason I am “upset”(in reality the answer is more like amused by your inept nature) is that you have diverged from the topic. I enjoy pointing out when the weaker minds wander from the topic.

akpilot wrote:

Slavery had already ended, try reading the 13th Amendment. 13 comes before 14..

Keep trying though.

The 14th Amendment was written specifically to guarantee that no other class of people or minority could become the subject of majority tyranny and have their rights stripped from them. Actually, the US Supreme Court has held that even constitutional rights may be infringed when doing so serves a compelling state interest.

Your regular retreat from this concept as though you are an constitutional scholar, without actually offering any argument for your position speaks volumes.

Are you capable of indicating a rational reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? It certainly appears that you can’t. Just as it appears you don’t have the basic reading comprehension to understand the 14th Amendment.

Feel free to actually make an argument.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
No, however if you are the one making a claim it is your responsibility to support that argument. You can’t merely make an unfounded allegation and demand that others disprove it.
Well, you could, but it would indicate that you aren’t really functioning in reality.
<quoted text>
You’ve repeatedly made an allegation that you are apparently incapable of supporting with fact. Feel free to make a factually supported argument.
<quoted text>
Actually, in MOST jurisdictions in this country, your hypothetical court proceeding would not exist, because gay adoption is legal in most jurisdictions.
Actually, citing your same example, you are the plaintiff. You are the one making the claim that same sex adoption is harmful. So, once again, the burden of proving that assertion lies with you.
What is more, the thread is dealing with gay marriage. How is gay adoption in any way applicable to the legal protections of marriage?

No, moron. You're the plaintiff/complainant and what your complaining about is my denial of your adoption application.

You would bring this action in civil court. Your pleadings would set forth the wrongs you accuse me of. If there exist law or precedent showing adoption agencies have the right to deny adoption based on lifestyle -- which they do -- you would have to show that men in drag or men in penis suits are not harmful to the child.

Good luck with that.

I need not say anything at all to get your action dismissed. This, in fact, is precisely what happens with "frivolous" suits -- the defendant merely asks the court to dismiss the charges.

Honestly, do you really think I'd have to prove a man in a penis suit is unfit to be a parent?

I -- the defendant -- would not.

It's also not how science works.

You don't go to the CDC and demand it proves amyl nitrate doesn't cause HIV. You present your evidence it does and the CDC responds to it.

To sum up, lides, legally and scientifically your head is up your ass -- you've got everything ass-backwards. Instead of presenting a case for drag queens adopting kids, you're demanding we present a case against it -- which again, we need not do.

And there's nowhere in the country where drag queens can adopt kids -- which is something else you're hopelessness confused about.

The long and short of all this, lides, is your comments are ignorant based which is why most people here avoid them.

Human Rights Campaign Quietly Removes Illegally Obtained Tax Information from Website
"We demand that federal authorities immediately launch an investigation into this crime...This is reminiscent of Watergate."—Brian Brown, NOM president—

Washington, D.C.— Following the release yesterday of proof by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the source of leaked confidential donor information, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) removed from its website all reference to NOM's un-redacted 2008 1099 tax form, which it had previously posted. The action by the Human Rights Campaign comes within a day of NOM's attorneys contacting them and demanding they remove the materia is a clear indication of the seriousness of the criminal activity that has occurred.

"They now realize that they have done something tremendously wrong here or they would not have removed the references," NOM President Brian Brown said today. "A felony has been committed and the Treasury Department must investigate who within the IRS has committed it, and whether people with the Obama Administration or the HRC are co-conspirators in the criminal release of our confidential tax return. We demand that federal authorities immediately launch an investigation into this crime. This is not a routine leak of some obscure document. We're talking about someone in the Obama Administration's IRS releasing to a group headed by President Obama's national co-chair the private tax return containing confidential donor information of their main opponent. This is reminiscent of Watergate, and the American people are entitled to know the truth of what has occurred."

On March 30 The Huffington Post ran NOM's 2008 1099 tax form without redacting confidential donor information. The outlet said it obtained the scanning of the document from the Human Rights Campaign. The president of that organization, Joe Solmonese, is a national co-chair of President Obama's reelection campaign. At press time, The Huffington Post had not removed its scanning of the 1099.

"As we stated in our letter to The Huffington Post, we demand they immediately take down all references to our illegally released tax documents," Brown said...
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nl...

Brian_G wrote:

Your point?