Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
Because we didn't have an issue to use it, and we still don't. The Feds are well aware that homosexuals don't fit into the existing moral and normal society. You are the ones with the fight, so obviously you are the "Queer" / "Odd" man out !!!! deal with it

Well, thank you for admitting that you don't have an issue.

Bill Of Rights wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey good lady,where you been hiding? Did the F.B.I. finally show up at your door for your crimes against humanity and drag you away? LOL,Just kidding,good to see you around again! ;)
I'm OFF topic!

Off topic and also nutsack moron.

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, my being queer doesn't make me "odd man out". Odd man out is a grown man that doesn't know that penguins can't fly. THAT is odd man out. Actually, that's idiocy at its finest!! LOL!!!!
We're here, we aren't going away, you aren't preventing us from establishing relationships, and we aren't accepting any second class status. YOU deal with it Penguin Boy!!!
But please, until that day comes, please continue playing the Helen Massery role. Like her, you are a WONDERFUL example of your kind!!

LOL ... I know you want to change the world, but the Feds just don't see it YOU queer odd little fat man ... LMAO

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>Well, thank you for admitting that you don't have an issue.

The issue has been resolved by the Feds ... LMAO

ELH wrote:

<quoted text>
No shortage of parents? Seriously? Are you REALLY as uninformed and ignorant as your posts sound?
How 'sweet'! You are so very "concerned" about "the benifit of the child" that you what to make sure that they arer all adopted by one of those heterosexual christian couple with a stable marriages who are lining up to adopt them. NEWS FLASH! This is going to happen right after YOU or any of your self righteous 'friends' adopt a child over three from foster care....by which I man the 5th of Never...
There are almost on half million children in the U.S. foster care system. over 125,000 of these children are available for ADOPTION right now. TODAY. Immediately
Directly.Forthwith. Hereupon. Instantaneously. Straight away. Tout de suite. URGENTLY.
And while 85% of child available for adoption are OVER the age of three, almost 60% of children who are actually adopted are LESS than two years old.
If you consider "Missing a gender in parenting as a negative"...You need to DO THE MATH!!!! unless, of course, you think that a "missing gender" more "negative" for a child than being parentless and alone.
So...perhaps it's time for you to (at least) get educated before you post and at least sound like you know WTF you are talking about? Meanwhile do stop spewing your (considerable) ignorance all over the internet. Smile :)

Please post your sources.

Smile.

I LOVE POOP!

Jonah1 wrote:

No dear, the twirling is all yours.
<quoted text>
And this has relevence to you initial statement that heterosexually headed households best....how exactly? This has relelvence to prove you stupid statement that there are plenty of heterosexual households "lined up" to adopt....how exactly?
<quoted text>
Um, same question....relevence please!
<quoted text>
Did someone insinuate or state they weren't? Nope, sure didn't, just more twirling from KiMare.
<quoted text>
No, actually the above were examples of your inibility to stay on subject.
<quoted text>
No dear, straight twirling is when ass clowns like yourself introduce completely irrelevant talking points in order to steer away from previously stated stupidity.
<quoted text>
At lease we are capable of making actual points. Let us know when you can do the same numbnuts.
No professional organization specializing in the development of children supports your bigotry. Not one. So why on earth would anything YOU have to say about raising children be taken into consideration over them?!! LOL! But please, don't let that stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself!! Carry on!!

You jumped in at the end of a conversation, hence your more than usual confusion.

Please post the studies (not opinions) that verify your opinion.

By the way, did you read this article?

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/sandbox/20...

The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:

<quoted text>Dear Paco.
Thank you for moving back to Mexico. You see in the United States of America things are a little different. States that currently have a ban on same sex marriage will have to change their laws.

Only in your dreams..........LOL

States rights..........LOL

Jonah1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, its 31 to 9. By the end of this year it will be 31 to 11. You see, our side continues to grow while your side continues to die out. Enjoy the 31 while you have them. Their unconstitutionality will be declared soon enough. LOL!!

Just a few years ago we had only one and now we have 31..........LOL

In the same time period you gained two..........ROTFLMAO

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
The issue has been resolved by the Feds ... LMAO

I guess you haven't heard.... DOMA = unconstitutional.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a few years ago we had only one and now we have 31..........LOL
In the same time period you gained two..........ROTFLMAO

And all of them will be overturned by a stoke of the pen by SCOTUS. Doesn't that just break your little black heart? 9 Justices can overrule all those stupid people's votes.

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 17
There are two ways to defend gay marriage. Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views.
No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy.

President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage Wednesday, making him the latest — and most prominent — U.S. politician to call for gay nuptials. Here are a few other prominent political figures who have supported gay marriage.

At the same time, however, one can sympathize with others who feel great trepidation at the radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions, one that, until yesterday, was heterosexual in all societies in all places at all times.
The empathy argument both encourages mutual respect in the debate and lends itself to a political program of gradualism. State by state, let community norms and moral sensibilities prevail. Indeed, that is Obama’s stated position.
Such pluralism allows for the kind of “stable settlement of the issue” that Ruth Bader Ginsburg once lamented had been “halted” by Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, an issue as morally charged and politically unbridgeable as gay marriage.
Argument B is more uncompromising: You have the right to marry anyone, regardless of gender. The right to “marriage equality” is today’s civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights — and just as inviolable.
Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.
Second, if marriage equality is a civil right, then denying it on the basis of (innately felt) sexual orientation is, like discrimination on the basis of skin color, simple bigotry. California’s Proposition 8 was overturned by a 9th Circuit panel on the grounds that the referendum, reaffirming marriage as between a man and woman, was nothing but an expression of bias —“serves no purpose other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.”

Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand[ing] rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights.
Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.
No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction.
Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution — a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being — given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped.
He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for the U.S. Senate and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again.
When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine.
Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him to nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility toward proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.
True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
WTF???
Gays shoved laws forward that prevented teachers who slept with thier students getting fired???
Laws that allow porn in the classroom????
LOL!!- Buddy....you're crazirt than our resident Sraightjacket Sam 'KiMare'...LOL!!!
Were gays behiong the 9/11 attacks as well in your dicked up world?

LOL Not what I read. Apparently there are alot of gay activists pushing for porn in the classroom

http://www.wnd.com/2007/06/42193/

Face it gaytards, the crazies are YOU & your homosexual community. The government should have never taken you perverts out of the insane asylums

KiMare wrote:

Pretty strong stuff. Which is why it was so surprising that Obama, after first advancing Argument A, went on five days later to adopt Argument B, calling gay marriage a great example of “expand[ing] rights” and today’s successor to civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights.
Problem is: It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.
No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Times poll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction.
Moreover, there is the problem of the obvious cynicism of his conversion. Two-thirds of Americans see his “evolution” as a matter not of principle but of politics. In fact, the change is not at all an evolution — a teleological term cleverly chosen to suggest movement toward a higher state of being — given that Obama came out for gay marriage 16 years ago. And then flip-flopped.
He was pro when running for the Illinois Legislature from ultra-liberal Hyde Park. He became anti when running eight years later for the U.S. Senate and had to appeal to a decidedly more conservative statewide constituency. And now he’s pro again.
When a Republican engages in such finger-to-the-wind political calculation (on abortion, for example), he’s condemned as a flip-flopper. When a liberal goes through a similar gyration, he’s said to have “evolved” into some more highly realized creature, deserving of a halo on the cover of a national newsmagazine.
Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him to nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility toward proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.
True, he was rushed into it by his loquacious vice president. But surely he could have thought this through.

What I found hilarious about Obama is that ever since he stated he supported the perverts & their SSM propaganda, many Blacks & Hispanics quickly disliked him. LOL And the gay community thinks the Black community supports them...LOL Those poor delusional souls.

thisGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
What I found hilarious about Obama is that ever since he stated he supported the perverts & their SSM propaganda, many Blacks & Hispanics quickly disliked him. LOL And the gay community thinks the Black community supports them...LOL Those poor delusional souls.

You mean being against SS 'marriage' was more important than race?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you know how long it takes to adopt?
Do you know how much it costs?
Do you know that foster care and adoption are distinct situations?
The above are examples of gay 'twirling'(otherwise known as 'spin' among hetero's). Gay twirling is leaving out or distorting information to make a deceitful point.
Every point gays make utilizes twirling.

Do we even answer this??

LOL!!!

'Twirling'????

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope.......LOL
I run my Donzi when I feel a need for speed.....

Wahoo.

Internet braggards are more insecure than 4 week old wet kittens being dropped off at the dog pound I swear.

Hey loser....grow some balls, get some character, and someday become a man.

LOL!!!

Geeezus already.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
You could.....LOL
But we don't call you a male golfer..........ROTFLMAO
Nor will we call you abnormals married..........LOL

Don't golf.

And you can make any claim you want in your world....it's the world we share in which you're nothing but a worthless punk incabable of doing so much as changing the speed limit by as little as 1 MPH so who cares what you call what.

LOL!!!

Bruno wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL ... I know you want to change the world, but the Feds just don't see it YOU queer odd little fat man ... LMAO

"The Feds"....LOL!!!

I'm smelling a possible conspiracy theorist clooooose by.

LOL!!!