|
lab-rat
Hallandale, FL
|
I'm sure all the people praying for a cure for cancer or some other horrible disease are thrilled to see movie stars throw their money away just so a pair of fruits can dress up in wedding gowns. This country is going straight to hell and it is the fault of liberal screwballs like these Hollywood flakes.
|
|
“What Goes Around, Comes Around”
Since: Mar 07
Kansas City, MO.
|
Please wait...
And has either one of you nutbuckets donated ANY money to ANY cause????
|
|
bill
United States
|
Judged:
1
1
lab-rat wrote: I'm sure all the people praying for a cure for cancer or some other horrible disease are thrilled to see movie stars throw their money away just so a pair of fruits can dress up in wedding gowns.
This country is going straight to hell and it is the fault of liberal screwballs like these Hollywood flakes. I can't imagine how much money that the Religous Right and conservatives raise to support banning gay marriage.
|
|
“What Goes Around, Comes Around”
Since: Mar 07
Kansas City, MO.
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
bill wrote: <quoted text>
I can't imagine how much money that the Religous Right and conservatives raise to support banning gay marriage. I know. Patheic isn't it?
|
|
mike- nottingham
Baltimore, MD
|
Mr. Speilberg, his wife and Brad Pitt have some strange ideas of what constitutes Democracy. Californians voted overwhelmingly against Gay marriage. A divided California Court of Appeals by a 5-4 decision invalidated that vote. So 5 people have the right, according to Spielberg and company to throw out the vote of 17 million people. Only in LaLa Land is that considered the right thing to do. These perverts and their ilk cannot win in the ballot box so more and more they are relying on liberal Judges to invalidate the votes of the people on important issues such as Gay marriage and partial birth abortion, i.e. infanticide. If God forbid Nobama is elected you can expect more Judges like those in California to be appointed to the Federal Bench.
|
|
Mutt
Perry Hall, MD
|
Another tinsel-towner with the guts to put his money where his mouth is. Bravo
|
|
Gimmie a Break Idiot
Delray Beach, FL
|
MMM wrote: Actually Lab=Rat, your hatred is the reason the country is already in the hell created by folks like you.
Many people contributed to this fund. These folks are forward thinking people who recognize the value of all Americans and the American Ideal that all peoples must be treated equally under our laws. These people are not forward thinking but are actually back hole thinkers.
|
|
Real World
Fort Lauderdale, FL
|
Joe wrote: I suppose if there weren't any gays or Jews or gay Jews, there wouldn't be any Hollywood. Any excuse for the Jew haters to make a comment.But like it or not, you are right.Jews did invent the hollywood studio system. Every major studio was started by Jews. And to this day most of Hollywood is run by Jews.Remember that when you are watching a Hollywood made movie or tv show.
|
|
|
oh please
Pompano Beach, FL
|
Judged:
1
this is a moral issue. where does money play a role in this.
|
|
mike- nottingham
Baltimore, MD
|
Judged:
1
1
Real World wrote: <quoted text>Any excuse for the Jew haters to make a comment.But like it or not, you are right.Jews did invent the hollywood studio system. Every major studio was started by Jews. And to this day most of Hollywood is run by Jews.Remember that when you are watching a Hollywood made movie or tv show. I assume you are Jewish. If I were you Hollywood and the trash produced by it would be the last thing I would cite as an example of fine things done by Jews. Art. Literature, Medicine, Law yes. Hollywood: BIG NO!
|
|
really
Hollywood, FL
|
mike- nottingham wrote: Mr. Speilberg, his wife and Brad Pitt have some strange ideas of what constitutes Democracy. Californians voted overwhelmingly against Gay marriage. A divided California Court of Appeals by a 5-4 decision invalidated that vote. So 5 people have the right, according to Spielberg and company to throw out the vote of 17 million people. Only in LaLa Land is that considered the right thing to do. These perverts and their ilk cannot win in the ballot box so more and more they are relying on liberal Judges to invalidate the votes of the people on important issues such as Gay marriage and partial birth abortion, i.e. infanticide. If God forbid Nobama is elected you can expect more Judges like those in California to be appointed to the Federal Bench. the courts are there precisely to make sure someone's rights haven't been violated. so your idea of democracy is being able to vote anything into law? even as it strips away individual rights to a certain group? in a couple decades, i'm sure even someone like you will see this is much like the laws prohibiting interracial marraige had to be struck down. if the law wouldn't interfere in people's business, then there wouldn't be any need to fight it. what could you possibly care if other people have rights that doesn't affect you at all? you don't have to agree with their choices, but they don't interfere with your life.
|
|
bald eagle
Hollywood, FL
|
oh please wrote: this is a moral issue. where does money play a role in this. and why did the gov't decide to insert it's opinion on a moral issue? some believe divorce is amoral, let's try to take that away. people should be allowed to live as they please, when it doesn't affect anyone else.
|
|
“Does not play well ”
Since: Nov 07
Salina, KS
|
Please wait...
Actually, you have some pretty strange notions as to the American system of governance. We're not a true democracy, but a constitutionally based representative republic that has democratic features. Yes Californians voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but in doing so that vote was found by the California Supreme Court on a 4-3 vote to have violated the rights of a minority of the people of the state. What is really neat about our constitutionally based system is that the rights of the minority can in fact be protected from tyrannical acts of the majority such as voting away their guaranteed rights. Allowing the voters to have a direct say on legislative issues through referenda is good only up to the point where a "majority" begins to abuse their authority to force through legislation that harms the rights of others and this is something that we all should be wary of. Which of your fundamental civil rights of your own are you willing to allow to be put up for such a vote in the hopes that a "majority" are going to be with you in defending them? mike- nottingham wrote: Mr. Speilberg, his wife and Brad Pitt have some strange ideas of what constitutes Democracy. Californians voted overwhelmingly against Gay marriage. A divided California Court of Appeals by a 5-4 decision invalidated that vote. So 5 people have the right, according to Spielberg and company to throw out the vote of 17 million people. Only in LaLa Land is that considered the right thing to do. These perverts and their ilk cannot win in the ballot box so more and more they are relying on liberal Judges to invalidate the votes of the people on important issues such as Gay marriage and partial birth abortion, i.e. infanticide. If God forbid Nobama is elected you can expect more Judges like those in California to be appointed to the Federal Bench.
|
|
mike- nottingham
Baltimore, MD
|
Judged:
1
1
really wrote: <quoted text>
the courts are there precisely to make sure someone's rights haven't been violated.
so your idea of democracy is being able to vote anything into law? even as it strips away individual rights to a certain group? in a couple decades, i'm sure even someone like you will see this is much like the laws prohibiting interracial marraige had to be struck down.
if the law wouldn't interfere in people's business, then there wouldn't be any need to fight it. what could you possibly care if other people have rights that doesn't affect you at all? you don't have to agree with their choices, but they don't interfere with your life. You mean ALLEGED individual rights don't you? Alleged rights that 4 of the Judges did not say existed. So by ONe vote the voice of the people in California is silenced on an issue that was important enough to cause a record turnout. This nonsense is plainly Judicial tyranny and to compare this in any way to miscegenation laws is an insult to African Americans.
|
|
“Does not play well ”
Since: Nov 07
Salina, KS
|
Please wait...
Actually the rights are not alleged, but very real. The right to marriage is a fundamental one and any attempt by the state to deny it requires a clear and compelling state interest in doing so and sadly for you, the fact that at the time of that vote a "majority" wanted to discriminate against Lesbian and Gay couples is neither. we are also entitled to equal protection under the law and in California discrimination is prohibited based solely on one's sexual orientation, be they gay, straight or anywhere in between. Laws that have the effect of discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation are in violation of those equal protection guarantees. As for your out of hand rejection to the end of anti-misegenation laws, attempting to deflect the comparison as somehow racist is merely a refuge from actually having to deal with the issue. Laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage were more or less a tradition in the state at the time they were overturned having been a part of the law since the formation of the state. They to were found to be in violation of the state's guarantee of equal protection and the landmark case that overturned that hate based law was used as the fundamental basis for overturning the voter enacted prop. 22. mike- nottingham wrote: <quoted text>
You mean ALLEGED individual rights don't you? Alleged rights that 4 of the Judges did not say existed. So by ONe vote the voice of the people in California is silenced on an issue that was important enough to cause a record turnout. This nonsense is plainly Judicial tyranny and to compare this in any way to miscegenation laws is an insult to African Americans.
|
|
mike- nottingham
Baltimore, MD
|
Judged:
2
1
Rick in Kansas wrote: Actually the rights are not alleged, but very real. The right to marriage is a fundamental one and any attempt by the state to deny it requires a clear and compelling state interest in doing so and sadly for you, the fact that at the time of that vote a "majority" wanted to discriminate against Lesbian and Gay couples is neither. we are also entitled to equal protection under the law and in California discrimination is prohibited based solely on one's sexual orientation, be they gay, straight or anywhere in between. Laws that have the effect of discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation are in violation of those equal protection guarantees.
As for your out of hand rejection to the end of anti-misegenation laws, attempting to deflect the comparison as somehow racist is merely a refuge from actually having to deal with the issue. Laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage were more or less a tradition in the state at the time they were overturned having been a part of the law since the formation of the state. They to were found to be in violation of the state's guarantee of equal protection and the landmark case that overturned that hate based law was used as the fundamental basis for overturning the voter enacted prop. 22.
<quoted text> Contrary to what you said Equal Protection of the Law in the 14th Amendment does NOT mean that everyone has to be treated the same. All it means is that if the State treats different people differently there must be a rational basis for doing so. Since marriage is traditionally between a man and woman for the propagation of children in a stable environment there was no rational basis to say that a MAN AND WOMAN of different races could not marry. Not so with people of the same sex. Under your rationale there would be no basis for the State to ban marriage between first cousins or siblings or any other cause celebre at the moment with Tinsel Town.
|
|
Surf52
Baltimore, MD
|
Judged:
1
They just want to help all their "special" friends. Barf bags sold seperately.
|
|
“A half-truth is a whole lie”
Since: Jun 08
Alpharetta, GA
|
Please wait...
Imprtnrd wrote: And has either one of you nutbuckets donated ANY money to ANY cause???? No kidding! It's not like this is the only thing they donate to, it's a story used to create conflict. I'm sure nobody would be commenting if it read "Spielberg donates to Cancer Charity" but since the issue is controversial, it makes it to the news. I would love for papers/news to start highlighting positive stories. oh, but I guess I am a dreamer...
|
|
Boy Wonder
Fort Lauderdale, FL
|
Judged:
1
Rick in Kansas wrote: Actually the rights are not alleged, but very real. The right to marriage is a fundamental one and any attempt by the state to deny it requires a clear and compelling state interest in doing so and sadly for you, the fact that at the time of that vote a "majority" wanted to discriminate against Lesbian and Gay couples is neither. we are also entitled to equal protection under the law and in California discrimination is prohibited based solely on one's sexual orientation, be they gay, straight or anywhere in between. Laws that have the effect of discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation are in violation of those equal protection guarantees.
As for your out of hand rejection to the end of anti-misegenation laws, attempting to deflect the comparison as somehow racist is merely a refuge from actually having to deal with the issue. Laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage were more or less a tradition in the state at the time they were overturned having been a part of the law since the formation of the state. They to were found to be in violation of the state's guarantee of equal protection and the landmark case that overturned that hate based law was used as the fundamental basis for overturning the voter enacted prop. 22.
<quoted text> Where does anyone think they have the right to marriage. Who bestowed that "right" on anyone?
|
|
Surf52
Baltimore, MD
|
bill wrote: <quoted text>
Newsflash. We are in the year 2008. You seem to be stuck in the 1950s. And what worked then, worked in the 1850's and will work in 2050. Just not to homophiles and their admirers.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Gemini
