Drudge: 1 JUDGE VOIDS 7,000,000 VOTERS...

Rana said:
Says who, you? that is not a fair analogy. It seems to me that the gay track record for relationships is no different from the straights.
Click to expand...
Actually its not, but its a well known fact queer couples can't have offspring by themselves.
 
Yurt said:
you give up too easily...

you have not demonstrated how homosexual marriage is that different from any other so called sham marriage....all you've demonstrated is that you don't support the US constitution because you want to deny due process and equal rights to those who engage in, what you believe to be, sham or immoral activity in marriage....

you will support all those types of marriages i listed, and yet you won't support gay marriage because you don't like it....unfortunate for you, our 3rd branch of government says you're wrong

:)
Click to expand...
You haven't demonstrated how Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually its not, but its a well known fact queer couples can't have offspring by themselves.
Click to expand...

Actually, having offspring is not a requirement for marriage.

Since it is not required of anyone else, to deny gays based on their lack of offspring shows bigotry on your part, not lack of fitness for marriage on theirs.
 
Rana said:
They are asking for legal rights, not the right to the ceremony, you know this is the underlying issue, right. they want to be able to cover their partner under their insurance plans, to be able to adopt and have legal rights in medical situations. You know, those kinds of things! They just want to be 'normal', whatever that is?
Click to expand...
Covering ones 'partner' under an insurance plan is between the employee and employer....not the US government

Marriage is not a federal legal requirement for adoption is it....I really don't know the present law.

There are any number of legal documents to cover "medical situations" that can be entered into by anyone that wants to make such arrangements...

They want to be "normal" ? by being abnormal ?
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a union of man and women....
not man and man, women and women, man and monkey, women and horse, etc.....
We, so far refuse as a society, to be coerced into accepting pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, or any number of other things as socially acceptable....but the side of perversion is winning the battle....what will be, will be.....
 
If its not a requirement than queer couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Again, marriage need a definition, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
 
bravo said:
Covering ones 'partner' under an insurance plan is between the employee and employer....not the US government

Marriage is not a federal legal requirement for adoption is it....I really don't know the present law.

There are any number of legal documents to cover "medical situations" that can be entered into by anyone that wants to make such arrangements...

They want to be "normal" ? by being abnormal ?
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a union of man and women....
not man and man, women and women, man and monkey, women and horse, etc.....
We, so far refuse as a society, to be coerced into accepting pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, or any number of other things as socially acceptable....but the side of perversion is winning the battle....what will be, will be.....
Click to expand...

There are around 1,400 benefits given to married couples, just by getting married. The fact that some of those benefits can be gained in other ways is irrelevant.

No one is coercing you into accepting anything. What they are doing is saying that the gov't cannot offer benefits to one group and deny them to another based solely on religious doctrines and a vague "icky factor".
 
Southern Man said:
If its not a requirement than queer couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Again, marriage need a definition, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
Click to expand...

We draw the line at consenting adults. Anything less is bigotry.

As for the gays not being able to adopt, that is nonsense. Unless you wish to ban straight married couples from doing the same.
 
Southern Man said:
You haven't demonstrated how Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

lmao....i have multiple times...

you haven't demonstrated what legitimate interest a state has in denying gays the right to marry...

do i really have to pull up my posts citing that marriage is a fundamental right for all and that voters cannot decide or take away fundamental rights and that denying homosexuals the opportunity to obtain a marriage license denies them their due process and equal protection rights...?

i will if youi really need me to
 
i would like to remind the prop 8 opponents what prop 8 actually did:

prop 8 changed/amended the california constitution to restrict marriage only between a man and a woman, it amended the definition of marriage in the california constitution.
 
Southern Man said:
No, you've cited "precedence", the usurpation tool of the liberal and statist.
Click to expand...

:lolup:

damn that third branch of our government, how dare they interpret the constitution!!!

and btw...they weren't all liberals....but do continue to repeat that falsehood

here is hint: that precedence is called law :)

you've cited no law btw
 
Yurt said:
:lolup:

damn that third branch of our government, how dare they interpret the constitution!!!

and btw...they weren't all liberals....but do continue to repeat that falsehood

here is hint: that precedence is called law :)

you've cited no law btw
Click to expand...

I love how some people hold the Constitution as sacred until it does not fit there needs, then its not important anymore. Its usirping the will of the people.
 
The federals have to make the laws of equality so the state laws and employee requirements will fall in line and protect the people from the predators. When states and businesses don't do the right thing, then the Feds have to step in and gay unions are one of the examples.

I hate when people compare apples to oranges. S & M between two adults is none of my business, the same with bestiality, if that is what an adult wishes to do and they have the consent of the animal, it is none of my business.

And you are just ignorant on pedophilia, it is like rape, the child does not consent and must be protected. This is not the case of two consenting adult who are in love.
It is just stupid to pretend that any of the issues you mentioned are even on the same level as the others.

Marriage may have been set up to be for a man and woman, but it isn't the wonderful. sacred institution you all are trying so hard to protect from the homosexuals.
 
Southern Man said:
If its not a requirement than queer couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Again, marriage need a definition, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. The lines change all the time, otherwise, I would not be allowed to vote and I know you secretly think that would be a fine idea, but it really isn't.
 
Placing my elitism on the table, as always, I want to point out that 7 Million voters are irrelevant. I disagree with the judge, but I don't give a damn how many people support a particular measure, because the people are stupid proles. Especially in that particular state.
 
Threedee said:
Placing my elitism on the table, as always, I want to point out that 7 Million voters are irrelevant. I disagree with the judge, but I don't give a damn how many people support a particular measure, because the people are stupid proles. Especially in that particular state.
Click to expand...

gfy
 
Threedee said:
Placing my elitism on the table, as always, I want to point out that 7 Million voters are irrelevant. I disagree with the judge, but I don't give a damn how many people support a particular measure, because the people are stupid proles. Especially in that particular state.
Click to expand...
you are funny oooooo
 
If a majority voted for slavery to be reinstated, would it be Constitutional to do so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top