Judicial Activism Loves The Gays

[MannyIsGod]

California just got its ban slapped down by an activist judge.

Per CNN.

[TeyshaBlue]

California just got its ban slapped down by an activist judge.

Per CNN.

Gay judges.:ihit

[spursncowboys]

CNN judges?

[MannyIsGod]

Probably.

We need to appoint some Fox News Judges to get this country where it should be. God knows what happens when Obama appoints Rachal Maddow to the Supreme Court.

[boutons_deux]

Will the Utah Mormons who "activist-ically", across state lines (what happened to "states rights"?) bought the referendum win ,invade CA to make CA safe for ....? for ....?

[Jekka]

I <3 Judge Walker. http://www.baycitizen.org/proposition-8/interactive/prop-8-ruling/

[ElNono]

And the battle wages on...

[beachwood]

Awesome news. The Mormons can STFU now,.

[spursncowboys]

I wonder how judge dredd would have ruled?

[Mister Sinister]

Awesome.

[DJ Mbenga]

gay judge, in SF, but he was appointed by daddy bush. doesnt really matter, its going to the supreme court. that appeal court overturns anything

[LnGrrrR]

Good layout of the facts here...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/the-facts.html#more

[admiralsnackbar]

I wonder how judge dredd would have ruled?

You would.

[Parker2112]

If your libertarian, you have to feel good about this. If you just claim to be libertarian, but your really republican who is ashamed of his stripes, you feel sick inside.

[ChumpDumper]

Could a board conservative sum up the arguments presented for the ban in this particular case?

Thanks in advance.

[ChuckD]

Could a board conservative sum up the arguments presented for the ban in this particular case?

Thanks in advance.

We find it icky and don't want you doing it.

kthxbye
The GOP

[EmptyMan]

http://raditts.com/sa/asstitties.gif

[boutons_deux]

Strict interpretation of the Constitution and law (the OT is not in the US code) is for extreme conservatives, except when it doesn't suit their discriminatory/racist instincts.

[spursncowboys]

1 judge> 7 mllion votes
???

[coyotes_geek]

1 judge> 7 mllion votes
???

Those damn founding fathers and their judicial system. Mob rule would have been so much better.

[boutons_deux]

"7 mllion votes"

voters elect legislators who make the laws and regs. Judges and voters don't make laws.

[Drachen]

1 judge> 7 mllion votes
???

Was this ruling based on the California constitution?

[TimmehC]

Was this ruling based on the California constitution?

No, it was based on the US Constitution.

[Drachen]

No, it was based on the US Constitution.

Ok, I just wasn't sure if this was a state or federal case. If this goes to the supreme court and the court rules the same way, look for the GOP to lose one of their favorite issues while running - gays. The reason why is because they will actually be forced by their constituency to do something about it.

[FromWayDowntown]

1 judge> 7 mllion votes
???

True. If the majority of those who bother to vote in any particular election choose to prohibit women from voting or to prohibit blacks from possessing guns, no stinkin' Constitution should be able to overcome that choice.

[boutons_deux]

"no stinkin' Constitution should be able to overcome that choice."

laws granting equal (synthetic, society-defined) rights for all citizens trumps laws that deny those rights.

Rancid Paul's right to discriminate against citizens Paul doesn't like on private premises that open to the public gets trumped by rights granted to ALL the public.

[boutons_deux]

Fighting hate with humor and ridicule

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/anti-gay-protesters-getti_n_671342.html#s123083

[Jekka]

1 judge> 7 mllion votes
???


An
initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect.
The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified
scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the
voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must
find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when
those determinations enact into law classifications of persons.
Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will
the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice,
no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The
evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8
finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is
beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their
representatives.
\\
\\
\\

Page 24 - if you really disagree with the ruling you should read the entire document.

[Marcus Bryant]

Those damn founding fathers and their judicial system. Mob rule would have been so much better.

The frequent "conservative" embrace of pure democracy speaks to where conservatism lies today in upholding the American tradition.

[MannyIsGod]

1 judge> 7 mllion votes
???

LOL Government class was hard for you, huh?

[DarrinS]

One down, two more to go:

Incest
Polygamy

[Wild Cobra]

One down, two more to go:

Incest
Polygamy
And the next ones to get involved wanting changes could be NAMBLA.

[jack sommerset]

If you are against gay marriage are you a biggot?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

One down, two more to go:

Incest
Polygamy

:lmao

[vy65]

One down, two more to go:

Incest
Polygamy

Wow you're a dumb ignorant piece of shit if you think two dudes getting married = incest. You are exactly what happens when ignorance has a baby with blatant stupidity.

[LnGrrrR]

true. If the majority of those who bother to vote in any particular election choose to prohibit women from voting or to prohibit blacks from possessing guns, no stinkin' constitution should be able to overcome that choice.

judicial activism!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow you're a dumb ignorant piece of shit if you think two dudes getting married = incest. You are exactly what happens when ignorance has a baby with blatant stupidity.

just wait until jacksommerset starts talking about marrying dogs... he's not very bright but he's great for a laugh..just check my signature..

[LnGrrrR]

One down, two more to go:

Incest
Polygamy

First... they married BLACKS!

Then... they married GAYS!

What will they marry NEXT? DUN DUN DUN....

[jack sommerset]

just wait until jacksommerset starts talking about marrying dogs... he's not very bright but he's great for a laugh..just check my signature..

Speaking of that, does a dude fucking a dog affect you?

[Spurminator]

One down, two more to go:

Incest
Polygamy

Okay now you're just trolling.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

Speaking of that, does a dude fucking a dog affect you?

no it doesn't 'affect' me. does it affect you?

[jack sommerset]

Okay now you're just trolling.

Dude, if two or more people fall in love why can't they get married. Why stop at two dudes. If cousins or multiple people want to hook up, I say let them.

[jack sommerset]

no it doesn't 'affect' me. does it affect you?

Nope. Let them fuck.

[Trainwreck2100]

Okay now you're just trolling.

make your arguments against incest and polygamy, and see if those arguments were made against gay marriage

[MannyIsGod]

make your arguments against incest and polygamy, and see if those arguments were made against gay marriage

For the incest, as long as its between consenting adults then there is no issue.

For the polygamy the obvious increase in more than one person makes it different but I don't have an issue with it either. Again, with consenting adullts. Let people do whatever the hell they want.

[LnGrrrR]

Dude, if two or more people fall in love why can't they get married. Why stop at two dudes. If cousins or multiple people want to hook up, I say let them.

Honestly, I don't give a crap if three people want to marry, other than how much of a pain the issue might be contractually. I'm sure there would be some issues popping up, but assuming three people all were committed, I don't care.

Incest has some serious ramifications, as in retarded children, so that would still be a no-no.

[MannyIsGod]

The ability to have healthy children is not a prerequisite for marriage nor should it be.

[Trainwreck2100]

Incest has some serious ramifications, as in retarded children, so that would still be a no-no.

A)you're assuming they'd marry over love
2)you're asumming they're different gender (super ew)

[Spurminator]

Dude, if two or more people fall in love why can't they get married. Why stop at two dudes. If cousins or multiple people want to hook up, I say let them.


make your arguments against incest and polygamy, and see if those arguments were made against gay marriage

The argument isn't about incest or polygamy or bestiality. It's about two consenting adults of the same sex wanting to be recognized as spouses. Unless you have an argument against THAT SPECIFIC SCENARIO, you have no argument.

[Spurminator]

If you are against gay marriage are you a biggot?

Yes.

[Trainwreck2100]

The argument isn't about incest or polygamy or bestiality. It's about two consenting adults of the same sex wanting to be recognized as spouses. Unless you have an argument against THAT SPECIFIC SCENARIO, you have no argument.

A sister wants to marry her sister but can't because the law keeps them from doing it, now STFU

[SnakeBoy]

Incest has some serious ramifications, as in retarded children, so that would still be a no-no.

So do you think all people who are at higher risk of having children with medical disorders should not be allowed to get married?

How much weight should having children have in determining who can and cannot get married?

[Spurminator]

A sister wants to marry her sister but can't because the law keeps them from doing it, now STFU

You should stay in The Club. You're not good at this.

[ElNono]

tbh, this thread is kinda ghey... imo

[George Gervin's Afro]

A sister wants to marry her sister but can't because the law keeps them from doing it, now STFU

then changing the law is necessary..

two sisters would have to challenge the law..and they would probably win.

[TimmehC]

Polygamy: Big effing deal, as long is everyone is a consenting adult.

Incest: Again, consenting adults... although it would be nice if they could adopt instead of procreating, given the increased likelihood of disorders.

[Trainwreck2100]

You should stay in The Club. You're not good at this.

sorry i'm not close minded to the wants of 2 or more individuals to marry like you so obviously are.

[Spurminator]

sorry i'm not close minded to the wants of 2 or more individuals to marry like you so obviously are.

k bro :tu

[jack sommerset]

Incest: Again, consenting adults... although it would be nice if they could adopt instead of procreating, given the increased likelihood of disorders.

Perhaps if there really is a gay gene it was created by incest freaks having kids.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Perhaps if there really is a gay gene it was created by incest freaks having kids.

perhaps you're just a dumbass

[Blake]

Perhaps if there really is a gay gene it was created by incest freaks having kids.

how do you think your bigot gene was created?

[jack sommerset]

how do you think your bigot gene was created?


perhaps you're just a dumbass



Faggots

[Blake]

Faggots

unfunny, unclever bigot

:td

[SnakeBoy]

Personally I don't care about the issue very much. I lean towards allowing gay marriage just so gays will shut the fuck up. At the same time it annoys me that someone knows gay marriage is not allowed, chooses to be gay, and then whines about not being allowed to be married.

[Blake]

Personally I don't care about the issue very much. I lean towards allowing gay marriage just so gays will shut the fuck up. At the same time it annoys me that someone knows gay marriage is not allowed, chooses to be gay, and then whines about not being allowed to be married.

so you are saying the gay should just marry the straight and just shut the fuck up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Personally I don't care about the issue very much. I lean towards allowing gay marriage just so gays will shut the fuck up. At the same time it annoys me that someone knows gay marriage is not allowed, chooses to be gay, and then whines about not being allowed to be married.


People don't choose to be gay.. just ask a gay person and they will tell you..

[Drachen]

unfunny, unclever bigot

:td

Sommerset isnt really well known for being funny or clever. His schtick is more along the lines of:

"LOUD NOISES"

[jack sommerset]

unfunny, unclever bigot

:td

I'm not trying to be clever or funny. You are a fucking faggot. You are the dumbass talking about a bigot gene. Genius!!!! Real funny and clever on your part! I'm sure you make your life partner giggle all night long with that wit of yours.

[rjv]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs287.snc4/40699_1549665298675_1146373033_31578982_7619833_n. jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30929224&id=1146373033)

[SnakeBoy]

People don't choose to be gay.. just ask a gay person and they will tell you..

What is the evidence for a biological reason for their gayness?

[jack sommerset]

Sommerset isnt really well known for being funny or clever. His schtick is more along the lines of:

"LOUD NOISES"

Do you hear noises when you are on here?

[Blake]

I'm not trying to be clever or funny.

yes you are:


I'm sure you make your life partner giggle all night long with that wit of yours.

you're still not.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What is the evidence for a biological reason for their gayness?

people don't choose to be gay..they are born with the gayness.. just ask a gay person. For some reason I don't think you know many gay people

[ElNono]

I just want to know how this ruling affected those that oppose it... did anything change in your life because of it?

[jack sommerset]

yes you are:



you're still not.

Faggot

[clambake]

this thread is right up "jack the cruisers" alley.

[Blake]

What is the evidence for a biological reason for their gayness?

why do you need a biological evidence ok to approve gay marriage?

[Marcus Bryant]

If you accept that the state should regulate marriage...

Homosexual - state/public interest for a ban is maintaining tradition; traditional family as cornerstone of society. Obviously this has changed greatly in the past fifty years in the West, so obvious to see why it is on its way to becoming legal, as well as that homosexuality is accepted much more in society than incest and polygamy. Human romantic/sexual relationships overwhelmingly unrelated couples regardless if hetero- or homosexual.

Incestuous - state/public interest for a ban is birth defects in offspring.

Polygamous - state/public interest for a ban is mistreatment of younger males (assuming patriarchal polygamy would be more prevalent); also pressure for females to be assigned to husbands before age of consent; perhaps greater welfare utilization and child abandonment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

this thread is right up "jack the cruisers" alley.

you're such a phag..


sincerely,

jacksommerset

[jack sommerset]

People don't choose to be gay.. just ask a gay person and they will tell you..

George, why are you gay?

[Blake]

Faggot

now that's funny.

:lol

[Spurminator]

I just want to know how this ruling affected those that oppose it... did anything change in your life because of it?

I got raped in the butt 3 times on my way to work.

[coyotes_geek]

Polygamy: Big effing deal, as long is everyone is a consenting adult.

Agreed.


Incest: Again, consenting adults... although it would be nice if they could adopt instead of procreating, given the increased likelihood of disorders.

Also agree. I don't like the idea of kids being born out of incest. But then there's plenty of hetero couples who shouldn't be procreating either so what are you going to do?

Let consenting adults be consenting adults.

[Blake]

Also agree. I don't like the idea of kids being born out of incest. But then there's plenty of hetero couples who shouldn't be procreating either so what are you going to do?

Let consenting adults be consenting adults.

I would also have to think that sooner or later science will be able to negate the vast majority of birth defects

[Marcus Bryant]

Out of these three 'non-traditional' relationship types, the one with the most compelling public interest to ban is the incestuous relationship. Other than the reasons mentioned above, the sheer legal complexity of polygamy might also be considered, though the prevalence of divorce and remarriage has made things rather complex as it is in family law.

[SnakeBoy]

people don't choose to be gay..they are born with the gayness.. just ask a gay person.

So there is no evidence of any biological reason for being gay?


For some reason I don't think you know many gay people

Just seven, one family member the rest are friends.

[SnakeBoy]

4 of them oppose gay marriage, must be a Texas gay thing.

[Blake]

So there is no evidence of any biological reason for being gay?


for the purpose of marriage, why is it an issue for you?

[Trainwreck2100]

If you accept that the state should regulate marriage...



Incestuous - state/public interest for a ban is birth defects in offspring.

Not if they are the same sex or infertile



Polygamous - state/public interest for a ban is mistreatment of younger males (assuming patriarchal polygamy would be more prevalent); also pressure for females to be assigned to husbands before age of consent; perhaps greater welfare utilization and child abandonment.
True, but that fear comes from who is practicing it now, Muslims/wierdo cultist christians.

[jack sommerset]

So there is no evidence of any biological reason for being gay?.

No. Zero. Nada.

[SnakeBoy]

One ran of to SF to get fake married to her girlfriend. When they split up I asked her if her partner was going to get half of her business. The look on her face was pretty funny.

[SnakeBoy]

for the purpose of marriage, why is it an issue for you?

Never said it was. I don't care if it's legal or not.

[Spurminator]

4 of them oppose gay marriage, must be a Texas gay thing.

:lol Or you're a liar.

I can't even count how many I've known throughout the years and while some of them would consider themselves Republicans, not a single one of them opposes gay marriage.

[rjv]

Incestuous - state/public interest for a ban is birth defects in offspring.


of course, one could argue the same for any female having a child over the age of 35 and particularly in her 40's.

[LnGrrrR]

So do you think all people who are at higher risk of having children with medical disorders should not be allowed to get married?

How much weight should having children have in determining who can and cannot get married?

Eh, fair enough point. I guess it would theoretically be "ok", though I'd certainly personally disapprove. It'd be hell for whatever child was brought up in that household. But since we allow all types of shitty parents nowadays to have a kid anyways... :lol

[coyotes_geek]

I would also have to think that sooner or later science will be able to negate the vast majority of birth defects

Hopefully so.

[Marcus Bryant]

of course, one could argue the same for any female having a child over the age of 35 and particularly in her 40's.

Risk is much greater for incest, most likely, and at all ages.

[Spurminator]

We'll cross those bridges if/when we get there.

[ChumpDumper]

4 of them oppose gay marriage, must be a Texas gay thing.What are their reasons?

[rjv]

apparently jack has already concluded his studies on the hypothalamus, cerebral asymmetry and has also catalogued his statistical parametric mapping findings.

[jack sommerset]

It's a easy message. Gay people are born gay.

You can have a dude sucking kawk for 10 years telling his friends and family he was born that way. Then one day he is fucking chicks. Explanation, guess he wasn't born gay. Then he can go back to sucking kawk 10 years later and they will say, I guess he was born gay.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I heard that once you go gay, you always stay that way.

[jack sommerset]

I heard that once you go gay, you always stay that way.

Urban legend.

[Drachen]

What are their reasons?

Misery of married couples?? LOL

[SnakeBoy]

What are their reasons?

The family member and her partner are practicing catholics. The other two are young guys who say they are members of GAG (gays against gays), I don't know if that's a real group or just something they made up. They are totally normal dudes except for being gay and they don't like gays who make them look bad. They're young and like to try and be different so they are against lots of things for no particular reason so they may change their minds when they grow up some more.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Urban legend.

jack's gone and come back.

[Drachen]

The family member and her partner are practicing catholics. The other two are young guys who say they are members of GAG (gays against gays), I don't know if that's a real group or just something they made up. They are totally normal dudes except for being gay and they don't like gays who make them look bad. They're young and like to try and be different so they are against lots of things for no particular reason so they may change their minds when they grow up some more.


Family member/partner: are they against Holy Matrimony for gays, or civil unions.

We are talking about the part that the state can control, the legal contract of civil union. We can't legislate that Catholic churches must start marrying gays. If they are against the civil union part too, then that is a different story and is really pretty hypocritical that they are choosing one part of dogma and not the rest especially relating to the same subject.

As far as the two kids, I know a guy who is gay who can't stand gay people. You would probably never figure out he is gay just by talking to him. He would literally have to tell you. He cant stand the flamboyance or the look at me attitude that some gay people have.
-I don't, however, see what hating other people who happen to share one trait with you has to do with marriage.

I personally can't stand a lot of hetero people, doesn't mean I want to invalidate my marriage to my wife.

[ChumpDumper]

The family member and her partner are practicing catholics.They need more practice if they are homosexual. Helps them feel guilty though, that's important.


The other two are young guys who say they are members of GAG (gays against gays), I don't know if that's a real group or just something they made up. They are totally normal dudes except for being gay and they don't like gays who make them look bad. They're young and like to try and be different so they are against lots of things for no particular reason so they may change their minds when they grow up some more.So basically there are just varying degrees of self-hatred at work here.

Understandable.

[SnakeBoy]

They need more practice if they are homosexual. Helps them feel guilty though, that's important.


Catholic guilt joke...clever.


So basically there are just varying degrees of self-hatred at work here.

Understandable.

Yeah, anyone who doesn't fit the mold of far left gay activist groups must hate themselves.

[clambake]

log cabin republicans.

[ChumpDumper]

Catholic guilt joke...clever.Their being practicing catholics is a joke as well.


Yeah, anyone who doesn't fit the mold of far left gay activist groups must hate themselves.No, there are plenty of far left gay activists who hate themselves too.

[SnakeBoy]

Family member/partner: are they against Holy Matrimony for gays, or civil unions.


They are for civil unions, as am I. There is no hypocrisy in them practicing a faith that believes they and every other human being on the planet are sinners and that their sins will be forgiven.

[SnakeBoy]

Their being practicing catholics is a joke as well.


Well maybe they'll become muslims so they can have you "respect" their faith.

[ChumpDumper]

They are for civil unions, as am I. There is no hypocrisy in them practicing a faith that believes they and every other human being on the planet are sinners and that their sins will be forgiven.Are they repenting their sin of homosexuality anytime soon?

[ChumpDumper]

Well maybe they'll become muslims so they can have you "respect" their faith.Is homosexuality approved of in Islam?

[SnakeBoy]

Are they repenting their sin of homosexuality anytime soon?

Every week I would imagine. Are going to stop being an idiot anytime soon?

[ChumpDumper]

Every week I would imagine.But they stay homosexual. Do they not want to be gay anymore or are they just lying to God?


Are going to stop being an idiot anytime soon?U mad?

[SnakeBoy]

Is homosexuality approved of in Islam?

How is it that you're so stupid that you have to ask someone the answer to that question?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is homosexuality approved of in Islam?

It's definitely illegal under Sharia Law and punishable by death in some Islamic countries.

[ChumpDumper]

How is it that you're so stupid that you have to ask someone the answer to that question?So you're saying that Islam also disapproves of homosexuality.

Thanks.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a easy message. Gay people are born gay.

You can have a dude sucking kawk for 10 years telling his friends and family he was born that way. Then one day he is fucking chicks. Explanation, guess he wasn't born gay. Then he can go back to sucking kawk 10 years later and they will say, I guess he was born gay.

You know, all the people who claim that sexuality is as easy to change as your clothes, never seem to take up the challenge to do such themselves. I always hear a "I'M NEVER GONNA BE GAY" type comments. But if it's so easy to just start liking guys, surely it would be easy to start liking women again too.

I'm not saying you have to sleep with anyone. Just be "gay" for a week or so, and become sexually attracted to men. Then you can go back to liking women for the rest of your life. Any takers?

[SnakeBoy]

But they stay homosexual. Do they not want to be gay anymore or are they just lying to God?


And the non gay catholics stay human. Do they not want to be human or are they lying to God?


U mad?

Nope. Why do you ask?

[ChumpDumper]

It's definitely illegal under Sharia Law and punishable by death in some Islamic countries.See, that wasn't so difficult.

[SnakeBoy]

So you're saying that Islam also disapproves of homosexuality.

Thanks.

No I'm asking why you didn't know the answer to that question? Why didn't you know?

[ChumpDumper]

And the non gay catholics stay human. Do they not want to be human or are they lying to God?Is literally being human a sin of which the church disapproves?


Nope.Sure you aren't.

[ChumpDumper]

NoSo you're saying Islam does approve of homosexuality?[/QUOTE]

[SnakeBoy]

So you're saying Islam does approve of homosexuality?

:lol You still don't know the answer?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So there is no evidence of any biological reason for being gay?



Just seven, one family member the rest are friends.

So I guess I could ask you to prove biologically that a person is heterosexaul..

I'll wait for the proof

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You still don't know the answer?So you still aren't answering it?

I guess you don't know or just afraid answering would hurt your argument.

That's fine.

You can be ignorant or afraid.

Or both.

[clambake]

snake, i think if you go back over this thread you'll see where your tires hit the shoulder.

[spursncowboys]

Honestly, I don't give a crap if three people want to marry, other than how much of a pain the issue might be contractually. I'm sure there would be some issues popping up, but assuming three people all were committed, I don't care.

Incest has some serious ramifications, as in retarded children, so that would still be a no-no.
The way the judge interpreted the equal protection clause, no one can be withheld from being able to marry. The legal definition of marriage right now is man & woman. since he discarded that, whos to say his precedent wouldn't be set for multiple partners, children, etc as a constitutionally protected right?

[SnakeBoy]

I'll wait for the proof

Well I hope they find the proof. It will be funny to watch the gay community celebrate when scientists find the biological cause of homosexuality and then watch them protest when scientists discover a cure for it.

[SnakeBoy]

I guess you don't know or just afraid answering would hurt your argument.


What is my argument?

[ChumpDumper]

The way the judge interpreted the equal protection clause, no one can be withheld from being able to marry. The legal definition of marriage right now is man & woman. since he discarded that, whos to say his precedent wouldn't be set for multiple partners, children, etc as a constitutionally protected right?Age of consent laws have not been ruled unconstitutional.

[ChumpDumper]

What is my argument?You don't know what your argument is either?

This all makes sense now.

[clambake]

i can't imagine that scientist are looking for a cure. it would have to be a conservative scientist.........and you know how they feel about science.

[SnakeBoy]

You don't know what your argument is either?

This all makes sense now.

I haven't made any argument other than to ask of any evidence of a biological reason for homosexuality.

[spursncowboys]

so do you think all people who are at higher risk of having children with medical disorders should not be allowed to get married?

How much weight should having children have in determining who can and cannot get married?


in his perry ruling, judge walker cited both romer and lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. One jurist who agrees is justice antonin scalia, who sharply dissented in lawrence (citations omitted):

today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this court.

http://online.wsj.com/article/sb10001424052748703748904575411222207921744.html?m od=wsj_opinion_middletopopinion

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't made any argument other than to ask of any evidence of a biological reason for homosexuality.So you also don't know the difference between a question and an argument. :lol

It's all very clear now.

[CosmicCowboy]

In reading the ruling the judge seems to have very carefully restricted the ruling to gays being discriminated against. I don't see the ruling opening up any other doors unless it is just used as a precedent for future suits from pedophiles or beastiality lovers. I may not like it but I suspect this ruling has a good chance of being upheld all the way through to SCOTUS.

[spursncowboys]

well he did discard the legal definition of marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, what was the testimony in favor of the ban in this trial?

Can you conservatives give me a synopsis of the evidence?

[SnakeBoy]

snake, i think if you go back over this thread you'll see where your tires hit the shoulder.

How so? I stated that I don't care either way about gay marriage. I asked for evidence of a biological reason fo homosexuality when told it is not a choice, none has been given. I stated how many gay people I know when accused of not knowing any. I answered Chumps question as to their reasons for not supporting gay marriage. The rest is Chump trying to argue with THEIR reasons by asking stupid questions as he always does and me answering them with equally stupid questions as I always do in response to Chump.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey, what was the testimony in favor of the ban in this trial?

Can you conservatives give me a synopsis of the evidence?

nope. I don't care enough either way to read the transcripts even if I could find a copy on the internet.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's a easy message. Gay people are born gay.

You can have a dude sucking kawk for 10 years telling his friends and family he was born that way. Then one day he is fucking chicks. Explanation, guess he wasn't born gay. Then he can go back to sucking kawk 10 years later and they will say, I guess he was born gay.

you know this guy?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well I hope they find the proof. It will be funny to watch the gay community celebrate when scientists find the biological cause of homosexuality and then watch them protest when scientists discover a cure for it.

a cure for homosexuality? Why do these people need to be cured? it is who they are..

[George Gervin's Afro]

i can't imagine that scientist are looking for a cure. it would have to be a conservative scientist.........and you know how they feel about science.

But it would cure homos!

[SnakeBoy]

So you also don't know the difference between a question and an argument. :lol


So you still don't know why you are so stupid as to not know Islams views on homosexuality.

[clambake]

How so? I stated that I don't care either way about gay marriage. I asked for evidence of a biological reason fo homosexuality when told it is not a choice, none has been given. I stated how many gay people I know when accused of not knowing any. I answered Chumps question as to their reasons for not supporting gay marriage. The rest is Chump trying to argue with THEIR reasons by asking stupid questions as he always does and me answering them with equally stupid questions as I always do in response to Chump.

well, you recalled your gay friends and family members stated position.

those positions were too easy for autopsy.

[ChumpDumper]

So you still don't know why you are so stupid as to not know Islams views on homosexuality.Nah, we've already concluded you are simply afraid to answer because is undermines the argument you didn't know you made and confused with a question you asked.

[MannyIsGod]

In reading the ruling the judge seems to have very carefully restricted the ruling to gays being discriminated against. I don't see the ruling opening up any other doors unless it is just used as a precedent for future suits from pedophiles or beastiality lovers. I may not like it but I suspect this ruling has a good chance of being upheld all the way through to SCOTUS.

Pedophiles can't appeal because children can't give consent. Neither can animals.

Same old issues each time. Jeez.

:lol

Of course this ruling will stand up. The Equal protection clause is pretty fucking clear. I've said the same thing on these forums for 6 or 7 years. The moment a case found its way to the federal system it was going to be all over for this issue.

[spursncowboys]

a cure for homosexuality? Why do these people need to be cured? it is who they are..
No it is an action they choose to partake in.

[ChumpDumper]

No it is an action they choose to partake in.Prove it.

[Blake]

Never said it was. I don't care if it's legal or not.


Personally I don't care about the issue very much. I lean towards allowing gay marriage just so gays will shut the fuck up. At the same time it annoys me that someone knows gay marriage is not allowed, chooses to be gay, and then whines about not being allowed to be married.


So there is no evidence of any biological reason for being gay?

So you don't really care about them getting married.... you're just bio-curious.....and you just want the gays to shut the fuck up.

[jack sommerset]

No it is an action they choose to partake in.

Here we go again. Born or not born gay! Like I said before. Telling people you are born gay is a simple easy message. "They just have not found the gay gene yet but it's there, I promise!"

[SnakeBoy]

a cure for homosexuality? Why do these people need to be cured? it is who they are..

Hey don't get upset with me. You're the one saying it is some sort of biological disorder. I just think it's something they choose which is fine by me.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I still remember the day that I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. It's a funny story; I'll have to share it one day.

[MannyIsGod]

Whether its a choice or not is completely irrelevant to the ruling. You guys can debate it all you want but really it makes no difference.

[DarrinS]

Pedophiles can't appeal because children can't give consent. Neither can animals.

Same old issues each time. Jeez.

:lol

Of course this ruling will stand up. The Equal protection clause is pretty fucking clear. I've said the same thing on these forums for 6 or 7 years. The moment a case found its way to the federal system it was going to be all over for this issue.


Siblings and polygamists can consent, right?

[clambake]

Whether its a choice or not is completely irrelevant to the ruling. You guys can debate it all you want but really it makes no difference.

you'll eat these words once they're cured!

[MannyIsGod]

Siblings and polygamists can consent, right?

Yes. And I have no problem with either happening. I addressed this already.

[spursncowboys]

Whether its a choice or not is completely irrelevant to the ruling. You guys can debate it all you want but really it makes no difference.
good point. I'm pretty excited to see how the 9th circuit COA will rule.

[jack sommerset]

I still remember the day that I chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. It's a funny story; I'll have to share it one day.

It was easy for me. I said to myself "Jack, do you want to stick your dick in shit and have your own shit pushed back into your stomach or do you want to do what nature intended you to do with your kawk, stick it is some sweet wet cunt" I picked the pussy.

[Blake]

No it is an action they choose to partake in.

:lol were you jealous of all the abuse that snakeboy was getting?

[clambake]

It was easy for me. I said to myself "Jack, do you want to stick your dick in shit and have your own shit pushed back into your stomach or do you want to do what nature intended you to do with your kawk, stick it is some sweet wet cunt" I picked the pussy.

if you thought this at the same time.........i'd say it could go either way for you, jack.

[spursncowboys]

:lol were you jealous of all the abuse that snakeboy was getting?
how dare I have a differing view hugh. should I be like you and have no convictions unless positive it is the popular one, coward?

[spursncowboys]

shouldn't you be hanging around people hoping they peer pressure you to do something?

[clambake]

how dare I have a differing view hugh. should I be like you and have no convictions unless positive it is the popular one, coward?

tell us, which one is the popular one?

[ChumpDumper]

how dare I have a differing view hugh. should I be like you and have no convictions unless positive it is the popular one, coward?What is the factual backing of your view?

Does it run along the same lines as the testimony for the ban in this case?

[Blake]

It was easy for me. I said to myself "Jack, do you want to stick your dick in shit and have your own shit pushed back into your stomach

so you acknowledge that you can get your dick aroused for anal sex.

[spursncowboys]

What is the factual backing of your view?

Does it run along the same lines as the testimony for the ban in this case?
a proposition voted on by the citizens of cali.
this is the first judge to disregard the legal definition of marriage.

[jack sommerset]

shouldn't you be hanging around people hoping they peer pressure you to do something?

Pretty soon the trolls will argue that you really are gay. :lol

[Blake]

how dare I have a differing view hugh. should I be like you and have no convictions unless positive it is the popular one, coward?

Unlike you, dumbfuck, I know when to use the phrase "in my opinion".

[jack sommerset]

so you acknowledge that you can get your dick aroused for anal sex.

:jack

[spursncowboys]

"the evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The exclusion [of gays from marriage] exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008771,00.html#ixzz0vlnmezgj

[Blake]

:jack

so your sweet wet hand also does it for you.

Did not need to know, but duly noted for future reference.

[MannyIsGod]

a proposition voted on by the citizens of cali.
this is the first judge to disregard the legal definition of marriage.

This is the first judge to take into consideration the Constitution of the United States. This is not the first judge to make a very similar ruling to this based on state constitutions.

People in California cannot vote to overturn the Constitution.

It is very, very, very simple.

[baseline bum]

SnC's not a big believer in the constitution, so you should go about your argument differently, Manny.

[Blake]

irrelevant quote

U still jealous?

[spursncowboys]

Unlike you, dumbfuck, I know when to use the phrase "in my opinion".
How about a hyphen dumb-ass.

[Blake]

How about a hyphen dumb-ass.

Dumbfuck is not a real word, therefore it does not requires the use of a hyphen any more than the word dumbass does, dumbfuck.

Is being a dumbfuck a choice for you?

[spursncowboys]

This is the first judge to take into consideration the Constitution of the United States. This is not the first judge to make a very similar ruling to this based on state constitutions.

People in California cannot vote to overturn the Constitution.

It is very, very, very simple.
really because the quote I just posted was about evolving a definition and not about the constitution.

He said everybody is entitled to get married.

requiring people to buy something or commit a crime isn't unconstitutional but requiring a state to allow everyone in all situations to be able to marry is. :lol

All because he disregarded all precedent and legal definitions of marriage. all because there are no real differences in genders. Good to see the libs talk about the founding fathers in a good light though, instead of calling them racist slave owners and not worthy of studying.

[jack sommerset]

so your sweet wet hand also does it for you.

Did not need to know, but duly noted for future reference.

Faggot

[rjv]

Here we go again. Born or not born gay! Like I said before. Telling people you are born gay is a simple easy message. "They just have not found the gay gene yet but it's there, I promise!"

how does this, in any way, preclude a physiological process?

[LnGrrrR]

well he did discard the legal definition of marriage.

He didn't discard it so much as modify it, in the same way that judges didn't "discard" the legal definition of marriage by allowing interracial couples to marry.

[Blake]

Faggot

U aroused?

[spursncowboys]

Dumbfuck is not a real word, therefore it does not requires the use of a hyphen any more than the word dumbass does, dumbfuck.

Is being a dumbfuck a choice for you?
Use a hyphen to join words to show that their meaning is linked in some way, dumb-ass.

[LnGrrrR]

All because he disregarded all precedent and legal definitions of marriage. all because there are no real differences in genders. Good to see the libs talk about the founding fathers in a good light though, instead of calling them racist slave owners and not worthy of studying.

He didn't disregard them. He just stated that the case wasn't strong enough to support the prosecution's side. "Appeal to tradition" is a logical fallacy, after all. Just because something was done a certain way in the past doesn't mean it's the correct way to do so now.

[jack sommerset]

U aroused?

No faggot, i'm not. Put the cock down. I'm not interested in buttholing!!!!!!

[LnGrrrR]

How so? I stated that I don't care either way about gay marriage. I asked for evidence of a biological reason fo homosexuality when told it is not a choice, none has been given.

I've been thinking about this question, and I think it's somewhat of a red herring. Does it matter if they "chose" to be gay or not? Is a biological factor necessary? I think the majority of people who answer honestly understand that gender preference is a part of who a person is, and that determination is not made consciously (as one would decide, for instance, what shirt to wear). Given that, it seems to be severely limiting the "pursuit of happiness" of gay people to not allow them to marry, as most people would see marriage as a strong way to pursue happiness.

[MannyIsGod]

really because the quote I just posted was about evolving a definition and not about the constitution.

He said everybody is entitled to get married.

requiring people to buy something or commit a crime isn't unconstitutional but requiring a state to allow everyone in all situations to be able to marry is. :lol

All because he disregarded all precedent and legal definitions of marriage. all because there are no real differences in genders. Good to see the libs talk about the founding fathers in a good light though, instead of calling them racist slave owners and not worthy of studying.

Thats great that you posted something out of context but starting on page 117 of the ruling Judge Walker goes into meticulous detail on how the Equal Protection clause applies to this case.

I know that you're upset that what you want the constitution to do isn't what it does but there are clearcut and well explained reasons to why that is the case in this situation.

By all means, explain to us why that is incorrect and why this will be overturned on appeal but please stick to this case.

[spursncowboys]

"i was not at all surprised by the decision, given the way things unfolded in court," says the rev. Albert mohler, president of the southern baptist theological seminary in louisville, ky. "but after having read it, i am flabbergasted. Some say, 'where is the judicial activism you are so concerned about?' well, here it is right here. It's stunning." mohler tells time that walker's decision to define marriage in a way that includes gay couples "upends [millennia] of human experience and teaching." beyond changing marriage, he says, walker's decision goes further in that it both advances the "normalization of homosexuality in america" and attempts to marginalize the role moral and religious beliefs can play in public life and in shaping the law of the land. "once you take morality out of it, you invite a rational challenge to all manner of other laws that seek to govern our conduct in this society."


read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008771,00.html#ixzz0vlsnzypn

[LnGrrrR]

You know what else upends millenia of human experience and teaching? Women suffrage. Is the Reverend looking to outlaw that?

Slavery involves millenia of human experience as well. Bring that back?

This quote says it all...
"once you take morality out of it, you invite a rational challenge to all manner of other laws that seek to govern our conduct in this society"

Oh no! Rationality in law! Heaven forbid!

[LnGrrrR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

The old way of thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought) was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.

[spursncowboys]

Thats great that you posted something out of context but starting on page 117 of the ruling Judge Walker goes into meticulous detail on how the Equal Protection clause applies to this case.

I know that you're upset that what you want the constitution to do isn't what it does but there are clearcut and well explained reasons to why that is the case in this situation.

By all means, explain to us why that is incorrect and why this will be overturned on appeal but please stick to this case.

Heres a good article about how the SC might go.




By JAMES TARANTO (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=JAMES+TARANTO&bylinesearch=true)

For the first time, a federal judge has held that the Constitution mandates the legal redefinition of marriage. The California Supreme Court had reached a similar conclusion in 2008, and voters responded by amending the state constitution via a ballot measure known as Proposition 8. If yesterday's ruling is eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would mandate same-sex marriage nationwide. The Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-california-20100805,0,3014822,full.story) describes the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger: (http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55367172.pdf)
"California 'has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions,' U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling. . . .
Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled."Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing," the Times reports. Presumably it will be appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That circuit is notoriously liberal, so one would expect the ruling would be likelier than not to be upheld, whereupon it would go to the Supreme Court.

If the Ninth Circuit upholds Walker's decision, the Supreme Court would almost certainly agree to hear an appeal, which would present the practical equivalent of a circuit split. Although this is, so far as we know, a novel question for U.S. appellate courts, such a ruling by the Ninth Circuit would establish same-sex marriage as a federal constitutional right within that court's jurisdiction (nine Western states plus a couple of insular territories), at a time when it is illegal in all but a handful of other states.

So how would the Supreme Court rule? In the sense that it is a speculative question, nobody really knows. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html) has an amusingly uninformative piece, the gist of which is that hardly anyone is willing to venture a prediction:
Professor [Doug] NeJaime suggested the case might turn on the court's traditional swing vote, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has shaped decisions that struck down laws that discriminated against gay men and lesbians. The rational basis test used by Judge Walker is in line with the standard used by Justice Kennedy in cases like Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state sodomy law. By structuring an opinion that allows the Court to use the lower level of scrutiny, Judge Walker "is speaking to Justice Kennedy," he said.
Professor Jesse H. Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it was too soon to tell which way Justice Kennedy might come down on the issue of same-sex marriage. "I have no way of predicting how he'd come down on this, and I don't think he does, either, at this point."So it all comes down to that wild and crazy Justice Kennedy, and by gosh, you just never know what he's going to do!

We disagree, and we are prepared to offer up a prediction: When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger--perhaps under the name Brown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry--the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

This accepts the conventional assumption that the court's "liberal" and "conservative" wings will split predictably, 4-4. Yet while Kennedy cannot be pigeonholed in terms of "ideology," on this specific topic, he has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals. He not only voted with the majority but wrote the majority opinions in two crucial cases: Romer v. Evans (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=u10179) (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102) (2003).
Romer struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that nullified state or local ordinances barring discrimination on the basis of "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." This provision, adopted by ballot initiative, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Justice Kennedy wrote for the court:
We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.In Lawrence, the court overturned a 1986 ruling and held that state laws criminalizing consensual homosexual sodomy violated the constitutional right of privacy:
In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.In his Perry ruling, Judge Walker cited both Romer and Lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. One jurist who agrees is Justice Antonin Scalia, who sharply dissented in Lawrence (citations omitted):
Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.Those who see Justice Kennedy's position in Perry as difficult to predict in effect entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do" with his decisions on the court. Is this belief justified?

In arguing that it is, one might point to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-699), a 2000 case in which Kennedy joined Chief Justice William Rehnquist's 5-4 opinion striking down New Jersey's effort, pursuant to state antidiscrimination laws, to force the Boy Scouts to admit gays. But this was not in reality a decision against gay rights; it was a decision in favor of the scouts' rights to free expression and association. Kennedy's vote in this case showed him to be more principled than the court's liberals in his adherence to the First Amendment.

In Perry, however, the defendants are unlikely to be able to counter the plaintiffs' claims by arguing that forcing states to recognize same-sex marriage violates anyone's individual rights. Their appeals are to tradition, morality and the collective right of the people to self-government--worthy arguments, we would say, but ones Justice Kennedy has already rejected in Romer and Lawrence.

As to why we think Kennedy will write the decision, that's easy: The writing of opinions is assigned by the most senior justice in the majority, and Kennedy is now the court's most senior member outside the conservative bloc.

Some proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that bringing this litigation now was a foolish move. "The Supreme Court, they reasoned in early 2009, was not ready to declare a right to SSM," as Dale Capenter puts it at Volokh.com (http://volokh.com/2010/08/04/a-maximalist-decision-raising-the-stakes/). "Premature litigation, they feared, would do more harm than good. . . . Well, nothing has changed." Purely as a bit of strategic analysis, this argument seems wrong to us.

Arguably "nothing has changed" since 2009 in terms of either side's prospects for success before the Supreme Court. But with four justices now in their 70s, including Kennedy, the makeup of the court is likely to change considerably over the next decade.

The direction of that change depends on who is president and on the partisan split in the Senate, which means that it is anyone's guess. Plausible scenarios for just three years from now range from President Obama and a modest Democratic majority to a conservative Republican president and a large GOP majority.

The former outcome would produce a court more amenable to same-sex marriage, but as a hedge against the latter--which, by the way, now seems likelier than it did in 2009--it was smart for the plaintiffs to move ahead when they did, so that they are almost assured of reaching the Supreme Court while Justice Kennedy is still there.

[Drachen]

Just, um, wow. Good job reverend for further hurting the case of your side.

[spursncowboys]

I've been thinking about this question, and I think it's somewhat of a red herring. Does it matter if they "chose" to be gay or not? Is a biological factor necessary? I think the majority of people who answer honestly understand that gender preference is a part of who a person is, and that determination is not made consciously (as one would decide, for instance, what shirt to wear). Given that, it seems to be severely limiting the "pursuit of happiness" of gay people to not allow them to marry, as most people would see marriage as a strong way to pursue happiness.
this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?

[DarrinS]

"Having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted."


I really disagree with this part of Judge Walker's ruling.

[LnGrrrR]

this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?

Why not unions that are called marriages? If they provide the same benefits, why play semantics?

Or let's just change the term "marriage" to "civil union" regarding all government paperwork. That would work too.

I don't care what religious ceremonies call them.

[Drachen]

this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?

I am not being trying to argue here. Which definition of marriage are you using? Because this whole thing is only about civil unions.

[LnGrrrR]

"Having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted."

I really disagree with this part of Judge Walker's ruling.

Why? Do you have factual evidence that shows that two straight parents are better at raising a child than two gay ones? Or are you just saying you just have a hunch that a regular couple could raise a child better?

[spursncowboys]

Sounds good LnGrrrR.

[MannyIsGod]

I firmly believe the SC will uphold this ruling no matter what the ninth rules (although I expect them to uphold it as well). There is a reason that when opponents of homo sexual marriage go to court they almost always lose.

And no, that reason isn't judicial activism. Its our state and federal constitutions and their proclamations of equality. I've argued that the Equal Protection clause would be the key to homosexual marriage for years.

[LnGrrrR]

Sounds good LnGrrrR.

:tu

If churches don't want to grant gay marriage, I'm totally fine with that. But I think the government should be consistent.

[spursncowboys]

Why? Do you have factual evidence that shows that two straight parents are better at raising a child than two gay ones? Or are you just saying you just have a hunch that a regular couple could raise a child better?
I posted it before. I feel though as long as they have two loving parents, they are miles ahead of the curve.

[spursncowboys]

i posted some evidence but I'm not gonna look for it.

[LnGrrrR]

I posted it before. I feel though as long as they have two loving parents, they are miles ahead of the curve.

That was to DarrinS, SnC :) And yes, I completely agree with you. I think most children just want to be in a caring, loving family, whether those parents are straight or not.

There's so many bad parents in our world, I would think it's quite unfair to deny a gay couple the ability to raise a healthy, happy family. Heck, the first generation of gay people to marry will probably be the best parents ever. :lol You know they don't want to hear crap about being bad parents.

[Drachen]

I firmly believe the SC will uphold this ruling no matter what the ninth rules (although I expect them to uphold it as well). There is a reason that when opponents of homo sexual marriage go to court they almost always lose.

And no, that reason isn't judicial activism. Its our state and federal constitutions and their proclamations of equality. I've argued that the Equal Protection clause would be the key to homosexual marriage for years.

I wonder if they lost prop 8 on purpose. Winning prop 8 wins the battle (marriage in CA), losing prop 8 prompts this challenge, if they win all of their appeals, losing prop 8 wins the war (marriage in the USA).

[DarrinS]

Why? Do you have factual evidence that shows that two straight parents are better at raising a child than two gay ones? Or are you just saying you just have a hunch that a regular couple could raise a child better?



I can only imagine it would be a little awkward at school functions, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, I don't think it will be 5-4. I bet Chief Justice Roberts sides with those pesky gays!

[MannyIsGod]

I posted it before. I feel though as long as they have two loving parents, they are miles ahead of the curve.

THAT is something I can firmly agree with.

[DarrinS]

Oh well, I guess we should just go ahead and congratulate Whinehole and Marcus Bryant.

[LnGrrrR]

I can only imagine it would be a little awkward at school functions, etc.

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

And Manny, if you've looked at Scalia's opinion on Lawrence v Texas, I don't see how he can rule against this case.

[MannyIsGod]

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

And Manny, if you've looked at Scalia's opinion on Lawrence v Texas, I don't see how he can rule against this case.

True conservative thinkers will side with the ruling of Judge Walker.

[clambake]

True conservative thinkers will side with the ruling of Judge Walker.

manny laying out the trap.

[CosmicCowboy]

I would love to see a case in this judges court challenging the federal drug laws for Marijuana using the exact same equal protection arguments on alcohol vs. pot.

[DarrinS]

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.



I suppose.

[MannyIsGod]

I would love to see a case in this judges court challenging the federal drug laws for Marijuana using the exact same equal protection arguments on alcohol vs. pot.


The equal protection clause only applies to people not items.

I WISH there was a ruling to be had but that battle is truly legislative.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol were you jealous of all the abuse that snakeboy was getting?

How is ChumpDumper showing a lack of reading comprehension on a simple sentence and asking a completely irrelevant question and me responding to his stupid questions with stupid questions considered abuse?

[Spurminator]

Perhaps temporarily, but the same could have been said for children of interracial marriage when it was first allowed.

Funny you should say that, because that's the argument I've actually heard most often from (mostly old) people who still oppose interracial marriage.

It's all about the children. We must protect them from being different!

[DMX7]

Nah, we've already concluded you are simply afraid to answer because it undermines the argument you didn't know you made and confused with a question you asked.

:lol

[SnakeBoy]

I've been thinking about this question, and I think it's somewhat of a red herring. Does it matter if they "chose" to be gay or not? Is a biological factor necessary? I think the majority of people who answer honestly understand that gender preference is a part of who a person is, and that determination is not made consciously (as one would decide, for instance, what shirt to wear). Given that, it seems to be severely limiting the "pursuit of happiness" of gay people to not allow them to marry, as most people would see marriage as a strong way to pursue happiness.

No it doesn't matter to me if they chose to be gay or not. From my viewpoint the "it's biological" argument is really just an effort to sell the gay rights movement as the same as the civil rights movements of race and gender. I do see the flaw in pushing this idea though. That is that being gay is somehow a biological disorder that they have no control over. If that is ever proven to be true then you can't help but get to the issue of "curing" the disorder. And as I said I would find it amusing if it were proven that being gay were simply something like the body not producing enough of some chemical and gay advocates were forced to protest the medical treament of it.

[Spurminator]

I really couldn't care less if it's biological or not. To me it's like arguing whether left-handed people were born that way. It's irrelevant. They're left-handed. Who cares?

[Drachen]

I will be quite honest Chumper, as I was reading your back and forth with snake I found myself thinking, wow, it looks like Chumper is arguing with himself. He was doing exactly the same thing that you always do.

[spursncowboys]

I really couldn't care less if it's biological or not. To me it's like arguing whether left-handed people were born that way. It's irrelevant. They're left-handed. Who cares?
It doesn't matter but it's not something they are. As if it's apart of their state of being.

[SnakeBoy]

I will be quite honest Chumper, as I was reading your back and forth with snake I found myself thinking, wow, it looks like Chumper is arguing with himself. He was doing exactly the same thing that you always do.

I've done it a couple of times. Chump is usually pretty good about having is question that he asks over and over be relevant but sometimes he slips up and if I have time to kill I play ChumpDumper with him just to amuse myself. In this case he said my friends catholic faith was a joke and when I stated that perhaps he would respect their faith if they were muslims he got confused and started asking Islams position on homosexuality. He never figured it out so I played the game till I got bored with him.

[clambake]

he merely pointed out, clearly, that they had no true respect for the catholic faith.

[SnakeBoy]

he merely pointed out, clearly, that they had no true respect for the catholic faith.

Yeah, fuckin faggots got no respect for anything!

[George Gervin's Afro]

a cure for homosexuality? Why do these people need to be cured? it is who they are..

[clambake]

Yeah, fuckin faggots got no respect for anything!

but you said they felt guilt.

[SnakeBoy]

but you said they felt guilt.

Chump said that.

[SnakeBoy]

Well gotta go clean the garage out now that it's starting cool off slightly, my only task of the day. Thanks for killing some time guys.


Okay now you're just trolling.

True, but he needs to be more subtle about it to get the typical liberal responses. Like...


Personally I don't care about the issue very much. I lean towards allowing gay marriage just so gays will shut the fuck up. At the same time it annoys me that someone knows gay marriage is not allowed, chooses to be gay, and then whines about not being allowed to be married.

Yeah I got bunch of gay catholic friends :lol

[clambake]

What are their reasons?


The family member and her partner are practicing catholics.


Are they repenting their sin of homosexuality anytime soon?


Every week I would imagine.


but you said they felt guilt.


Chump said that.

you said it, too.

[LnGrrrR]

It doesn't matter but it's not something they are. As if it's apart of their state of being.

Yeesh, let's not open THAT philosophical question up, about what makes up who "you" are. :) That question has been debated by greater minds than all of us, for far longer... :lol

[Blake]

Use a hyphen to join words to show that their meaning is linked in some way, dumb-ass.

Fail-ure.

There are no definitive rules to using a hyphen, dumbfuck.

[Blake]

No faggot, i'm not. Put the cock down. I'm not interested in buttholing!!!!!!

You were the one thinking about buttholing!!!!!!

[Blake]

I've been thinking about this question, and I think it's somewhat of a red herring. Does it matter if they "chose" to be gay or not? Is a biological factor necessary?

I already asked SB about this. He said the issue for him wasn't gays getting married, the issue for him was that he just wants the gays to shut the fuck up.

[spursncowboys]

You were the one thinking about buttholing!!!!!!

butt-holing

[Blake]

this is a great point. Then why not unions which allow the same benefits as marriage?

why not marriage?

[spursncowboys]

Fail-ure.

There are no definitive rules to using a hyphen, dumbfuck.

failure is one word. But your retarded-ass is right about no set in stone rules.

[Blake]

failure is one word. But your retarded-ass is right about no set in stone rules.

Right, there's no rule about it.

Only your dumbfuckingass would call me retarded after you getting proven and admitting to be dumbfuckingly wrong. Dumb-------fuck.

[spursncowboys]

there aren't very many rules in english. jack-ass. dumbfuckingly? Really?

[Blake]

there aren't very many rules in english. jack-ass.

right, so why are you trying to make one up?


dumbfuckingly? Really?

Dumbfuckingly unreal.

[LnGrrrR]

I already asked SB about this. He said the issue for him wasn't gays getting married, the issue for him was that he just wants the gays to shut the fuck up.

That's cool with me too; I know alot of people I want to shut up. :lol

[DarrinS]

I'm pretty sure jackass isn't hyphenated.

[Drachen]

why not marriage?

Marriage = civil union as far as the government is concerned.

[Wild Cobra]

Marriage = civil union as far as the government is concerned.
Then call it a civil union for everyone.

[Drachen]

Then call it a civil union for everyone.

Ok, I don't care marriage, civil union whatever, its just not matrimony which the government cant do anything about.