The repeal of gay marriage: A case not made

Judged:

4

4

3

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Dear Prints of the Revolution:
I've held back commenting on many of your posts of late, simply because your whole Malcolm X wannabee revolution schtick is over 4 decades old.
But the fact remains you are a racist and a homophobe. You begin most posts with how much you love your gay friends, black friends and lesbian friends then go on to imply some great Black/Gay conspiracy in LA schools to protect child molesters.
Your constant referral to non homosexual children blatantly illustrates that if those children were gay or lesbians then perhaps they'd be more acceptable victims to you. Any child molested is a victim, regardless of their orientation.
Your need to use the term "non homosexuals children" speaks volumes.
It's about time other people call you on your BS. I just happen to be the second or third this year.

Judged:

3

3

3

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Maine's about to have a re-do in the next couple of years. Cletus, the trend is clear: 75% of those 35 and under favor marriage equality. Support for marriage equality also closely tracks with more education.
Go play your banjo on the porch and stop interfering with your sister and your daughter, that is, when you're not out on the down low about town.

Judged:

2

2

2

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
DNF.
I hate to "prick" *(in a manner of speaking)* your balloon, but the proposal made by the free-spending out-of-control Homosexual/"Black" California legislature to pay high-paid taxpayer funded Government agents to teach Homosexuality to little non-Homosexual California children still awaits hard earned taxpayer money for its implementation. Until the money somehow magically appears, I think we can safely assume most California children who attend forced Government schools are non-Homosexuals, even though the Los Angeles school district is controlled by our Homosexual and lesbian friends, along with their "Black" compatriots.
Ronald

Judged:

3

3

3

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>well at least you aren't being racist! LMAO
Gee lets examine how much money it will cost for a history teacher to say someone was, black, white, native American, Chinese, Japanese, or Hispanic, or gay or lesbian.
My God Wall Street may crumble! The defense department may be ravaged by such funding!

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Dear Prints of the Revolution:
I've held back commenting on many of your posts of late, simply because your whole Malcolm X wannabee revolution schtick is over 4 decades old.
But the fact remains you are a racist and a homophobe. You begin most posts with how much you love your gay friends, black friends and lesbian friends then go on to imply some great Black/Gay conspiracy in LA schools to protect child molesters.
Your constant referral to non homosexual children blatantly illustrates that if those children were gay or lesbians then perhaps they'd be more acceptable victims to you. Any child molested is a victim, regardless of their orientation.
Your need to use the term "non homosexuals children" speaks volumes.
It's about time other people call you on your BS. I just happen to be the second or third this year.

Judged:

3

3

2

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate.
Fair enough. So let me try to brush away all the evasive political correctness and try to determine what you really mean. Are you saying that, as Homosexual "marriage" becomes more and more "accepted", even more of our Homosexual friends, the lesbians and the " Blacks" will fill expensive taxpayer funded Los Angeles school district administrative positions? And that, as a result, "the old morality" - the so-called "H8ate" - will be swept aside? And, because of that, the sexual abuse - of the vilest kind imaginable - of innocent little non-Homosexual children by high paid taxpayer funded district Government agent "teachers" will be the rule, rather than the exception? You never gave an answer as to why you h8ate little non-Homosexual children. Wanna' take a stab at it now?
Ronald

Judged:

3

3

2

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Maine's about to have a re-do in the next couple of years.

Judged:

2

1

1

DNF wrote:

As soon as I began to read the decision I immediately thought of the situation in NH and had to wonder just what the experts on TV were drinking that compelled them to say this won't have any impact outside CA.

Judged:

3

3

2

me wrote:

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that California’s Proposition 8 of 2008 is unconstitutional. Unless a higher court overturns the ruling, California will rejoin the growing roster of states that recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Meanwhile, the New Hampshire legislature is preparing to vote on a bill to revoke marriage equality.
According to polls, repealing marriage equality is unpopular in the Granite State. But a powerful group of politicians and allies are intent on just that. Why? Look at the Judiciary Committee’s report.
Referencing the civil unions law that preceded marriage equality, Gregory Sorg wrote “Equality of rights thus having been expressly codified, what could have been the purpose of advancing the agenda to formal marriage in 2009 if not to be able to claim society’s approbation of homosexual sex?” More accurately, gay couples sought equal recognition of their commitments, not approval of sex. Representative Sorg’s words indicate a desire to demonstrate disapproval of homosexuals by relegating same-sex couples to a separate status.
New Hampshire and California both recognize the fairness and value to society of equivalent rights for same-sex couples and intend to leave those intact. Yet Judge Reinhardt wrote for the Ninth Circuit “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”
One single institution called marriage works well for all New Hampshire couples. The committee reported no problems resulting from current law. So repeal is unnecessary. But it is divisive. And protracted litigation will follow, just as litigation followed Proposition 8.
The legislature should abandon its unnecessary, unpopular, doomed excursion into divisive politics.

Judged:

1

1

Testy Testicular wrote:

I look at what happened to the three foolhardy Iowa judges who forced this junk on normal Iowans as a better barometer of things to come when the normal public's wishes are overridden by fiat.

Judged:

1

1

DNF wrote:

As soon as I began to read the decision I immediately thought of the situation in NH and had to wonder just what the experts on TV were drinking that compelled them to say this won't have any impact outside CA.

nhjeff wrote:

I thought this might be a good place to share the letter that I sent to the editor of the local paper today:
<quoted text>

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

<quoted text>
Liberal activist judges is how the left step on the majority rights.
This is why we must vote for any republican even if not our first choice rather than any democrat.
Democrats want to stack the courts in their favor.

Judged:

1

1

1

Adam in AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
The parents, teachers, tax-payers, children, and administrators of the LA school district have this in common: they count among their members both straight and gay, black and white. While your point is quite elusive. Its very obvious that you are trying to sow fear and mistrust among people with common interests and goals. Pathetic.

Judged:

1

1

1

Ronald wrote:

<quoted text>
Adam in AZ.
Yes. I agree. According to the revolutionaries,*(now in power)*, if one has anything to say about our Homosexual friends and the "Blacks" that is not of a positive politically correct nature, he mustn't say anything at all.
My fellow kids often ask me how revolutionary Government proposes to use Government controlled Big Medicine money to "treat" their Oppositional Defiant Disorder? I always tell them that we can look to the "treatment" of those so afflicted after the revolutionaries butchered the Christian Czar and his little God fearing family in order to establish the Soviet "Liberal" Union. The revolutionaries "treated" Oppositional Defiant Disorder with good stiff sentences at hard labor in the Gulag or in Siberian salt mines.
Source: http://goo.gl/kpidz
Ronald

Adam in AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
You "agree" with yourself. You are in fact talking to yourself. Ill leave you to it