Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Yurt said:
so you have nothing.....more lies....just like onceler

i can play this game too:

jesus told me you and onceler can get married

;)
Click to expand...

Did you take too many psycho pills this evening Yurt? There is no lie in the post you quoted.
Do I tell you your beliefs are lies?
 
i see...onceler - jesus said so

yurt - where did he say so

onceler - i won't tell

dune and onceler are liars

using their logic....jesus told me so.
 
The part that people really don't seem to take away from that story is that Abraham was a really shitty father. If I heard a disembodied voice tell me to murder ANY of my children I would seek help immediately. If I raised a knife to my son and someone called me and the police came I would go to jail no matter how strong the voice was
 
Yurt said:
jesus told me that onceler, soctease and dune are liars.

:D

at least onceler admits he made it up. seriously, i don't think jesus cares one way or the other. you hacks are as bad as right wingers using god to deny homosexuals their right to a civil marriage.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals have a right to a civil marriage, as far as I know. Are you telling me, a homosexual has been denied a license to marry because they are homosexual? Where? When? I know of many homosexuals who did marry, so I know that some do indeed get married. Oh, I get it... what you meant to say is... "deny homosexuals the right to call homosexual relationships marriage, and be treated the same by society?"

Look...... IF the definition of 'home ownership' meant that you either owned or were purchasing a home, and the association of renters and leasers wished to argue their rights as 'homeowners' was being violated because they didn't get to claim their rental fees as a tax deduction.... you would say they were out of their minds, wouldn't you? The same is the case here. You want to call homosexual partnerships "marriage" and claim your rights are being denied... but you are not being denied anything. What you want to do is not "marriage."
 
Dixie said:
Homosexuals have a right to a civil marriage, as far as I know. Are you telling me, a homosexual has been denied a license to marry because they are homosexual? Where? When? I know of many homosexuals who did marry, so I know that some do indeed get married. Oh, I get it... what you meant to say is... "deny homosexuals the right to call homosexual relationships marriage, and be treated the same by society?"

Look...... IF the definition of 'home ownership' meant that you either owned or were purchasing a home, and the association of renters and leasers wished to argue their rights as 'homeowners' was being violated because they didn't get to claim their rental fees as a tax deduction.... you would say they were out of their minds, wouldn't you? The same is the case here. You want to call homosexual partnerships "marriage" and claim your rights are being denied... but you are not being denied anything. What you want to do is not "marriage."
Click to expand...

But renters have the RIGHT to just find another place to live, if they don't like where they are and suffer nothing.
Are you saying that Homosexuals are just going to move on and find another partner, if they don't like the one they have now; because then, why would they want to get married and have it recognized?
 
dixon76710 said:
You are the idiot. Perhaps you are reading the word AND to mean OR. It doesnt.

Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage

"MALE" and "FEMALE". MAN and WOMAN. HUSBAND and WIFE, FATHER and MOTHER. Words have meanings.
Click to expand...

I will allow wikipedia to own you on this....As I am tired of your lack of reading comprehension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_marriage_in_California

1850 statehood to 1872On September 8, 1850, California entered the US as the 31st state of the union. At the time marriage statutes described marriage as "a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is required" [9] with gender specific pronouns applied to "husband" and "wife". Later court decisions and some statutes dating from both statehood and the 1872 codification of the civil law state; "Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage."[10][11] The code makes no mention of what gender may marry which.


"are Capable"= no explicit ban on same sex marriages

My post #247 still stands lil dixon

I though you were capable of reading comprehension but I see youre not able to......

Again I will refer to my sig line in regards to you!
 
Last edited:
Prop 8 reminds me of the constitutional Amendment in CO passed long, long ago that was overturned by the courts stating that you cannot have special "rights" based on sexual preferences/orientation.

Almost all constitutional Amendments of the States that are written to limit the rights of any group of individuals are struck down. This can't be a surprise to people.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I will allow wikipedia to own you on this....As I am tired of your lack of reading comprehension
...."Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage."[10][11] The code makes no mention of what gender may marry which.!
Click to expand...


??????uuuuhhhh you are not qualified to asses ones ability to comprehend the written word. Let me take out the parts that seem to only confuse you. "Any unmarried male ...and any unmarried female ...are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage." AND being the operative word. Not OR as you seem to comprehend.
 
Damocles said:
Prop 8 reminds me of the constitutional Amendment in CO passed long, long ago that was overturned by the courts stating that you cannot have special "rights" based on sexual preferences/orientation.

.
Click to expand...

Except prop 8 doesnt even make reference to sexual preference, let alone discriminate upon that basis.
 
dixon76710 said:
Except prop 8 doesnt even make reference to sexual preference, let alone discriminate upon that basis.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro!

:good4u:

Hence the "reminds me" not "is exactly like"... However, you will find that the courts will use the "reasonable" standard, which pretty much negates the argument you just laid out here.

While it does not mention the group, it was specifically tailored, written, and promoted by groups that wish to limit this particular thing from being offered to them.

I'm not saying I agree, just that the courts will strike it down. The only thing it did was take away the "marriage" of gays that had already been granted. It's not hard to figure out how the courts will see it.
 
Damocles said:
Cool story, bro!

:good4u:

Hence the "reminds me" not "is exactly like"... However, you will find that the courts will use the "reasonable" standard, which pretty much negates the argument you just laid out here.
Click to expand...

"reasonable" standard??? You just made that up off the top of your head, didnt you? Thought it sounded good. Thought it would seem reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top