YAY I can marry now! Prop 8 unconstitutional
 

http://www.californiabeat.org/2010/0...constitutional

HAHA Homophobes .. :):thumbsup:pimp

congrats faggots... :thumbsup


.

congrats! now you can save a bit on taxes like a normal family :)

I thought they said on the news last night that even if it was thrown out, it would be years before gay marriage was actually (in reality) allowed again. ?

Big WIN for the TeaBaggers for upholding the United State's constitution.

LOL don't forget us dykes...

Congrats :thumbsup

Now go get married before they change their minds :winkwink:

Are the titles husband and wife not politically correct now?

Congratz, and welcome to the world of the ball and chain, divorce court, and losing fiddy percent

That still doesn't make it genetic.

Judge rules INJUNCTION against prop 8 and does NOT put a stay on decision!
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker rules.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

HUGE and totally awesome!

So much for the power of the Vote, they can find one sympathetic judge and get anything passed

Like that unconstitutional Prop 8?

You wanted liberal judges, right?

Like the one that put Charley Mansion up for parole every few years, nope

And I can't disagree with that, along with the majority vote twice!

Pretty sure they just do that to remind him that he's never seeing the outside ever again.

Great now more people can enjoy the thrill of marriage ............ divorce, courts and ex's, alimony.

.

wow good for him.. strong words for the supreme court to consider

Pretty sure it was liberals thinking that he could be reabilitated

Judge Walker is a liberal?

Man, somebody really should have told George HW Bush that before he nominated him to the bench in 1989.... :winkwink:

If there is anyone that ever thought CM could be rehabilitated, I'd love to see some documentation on it.

That judge is a Bush appointee and is extremely conservative. He decided to uphold the constitution.

I don't know anything about this judge, but I have a problem with having something overturned by one person that got a majority vote,twice, it allows for corruption of power.

I am glad that the questions surrounding Walker's own sexuality never had a play in things. Could proponents of Prop. 8 make an issue of his sexuality and possible bias? What about when arguing before the Supreme Court?

I guess the flip would be possible bias had it been a straight judge. Anyway, the Mormon Church, the real backers of Prop. 8, are known to hit below the belt.

I had a feeling all along that Walker would rule the way he did and I am so glad he did! That trial was a joke and the defendants were outright lying and calling bogus witnesses.

The corruption was allowing a vote on civil rights in the first place.

My inbox just blew up with newsletters on this and it really made my day :)

PS The only way being married gives someone a tax break is if their spouse makes way less than they do. Otherwise married people are generally in a higher bracket. This is about human rights, not money.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attach...2&d=1258470173 WAAH WAHH

Yeah, well you know what else has been fucked up for a long time and still is? Gay "domestic partners" (unmarried) are allowed health insurance benefits from their "other", but an unmarried straight couple is NOT.

Nothing against gays at all, and this stupid Prop 8 should have been overturned a long time ago.... but how come the unmarried straight people still get fucked?

I so deeply agree with you on this. I've had pals who were casually dating someone get full corporate health insurance benefits and keep them even after they totally broke up, because there isn't any system like divorce to make a breakup official. I mean, good for my pals, but that is so obviously just one more reason to have equal marriage rights for everyone.

I really think future generations are going to look at this brouhaha like ours looks at the old miscegenation laws of a generation or two ago.

I've asked you this rhetorical question before, I'll ask you again: if the voters of any given state voted to outlaw guns in their state, entirely, and a federal court later overturned the law on the basis that it violated the 2nd Amendment, would you have a problem with the court's decision?

Personally, I would not have a problem with the court overruling the voters in that hypothetical, because the court would be quite right, based not only on a reasonable interpretation of the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, but upon the prevailing federal case law that governs this area of jurisprudence.

It works the same way with the 14th Amendment. If you read this judge's opinion, you'll find that he did not just pull this out of his ass; it is founded upon a very well reasoned reading of the 14th Amendment, and a HEAP of case law, including Loving v. Virginia, a case that a lot Constitutional scholars have long pointed to as the eventual undoing of the prohibition of same sex marriage.

Having said all that... this isn't over. From here, the case will move on to the 9th Circuit for review, and regardless of which side wins, the losing side will then petition the Supreme Court for certorari.

This should not be objectionable to you in the least, my good man... it is simply how our system of Constitutional law works.

IMO, it is a fine system.... right up there with the best the world has to offer.

"House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor."

no.. i prefer lesbians... so congrats lesbians... :thumbsup

lesbians is a softer word and reflects the softness of two chicks fucking each other..

the word dyke reminds me of two fat butch chicks rolling around on each other like two pigs in the mud... not very appealing... :2 cents:




.

poop weiners tonight!

this will be very good for tourism :thumbsup:thumbsup

when is the wedding Holly :GFYBand:GFYBand

While agree with the right for gays to marry I find the irony of the ruling pretty funny.

Progressives scream for more democracy. The people of Cali vote, the progressives dont like the out come, they scream for republic protection.

:1orglaugh

Calling him sympathetic is too light. He's openly gay. And this isn't a problem because his ruling is going to be postponed until the Supreme Court rules on it and as usual, it will be banned again and the homos will bitch.

I agree. We should have a public vote on whether or not straight people can marry each other too.

Extremely conservative? He's openly gay, how the hell can he be extremely conservative? Or are you full of shit as usual?

Good, time for people to stop worrying about gay people getting married...

and start worrying about shit that actual matters like the government fucking us in the asshole :thumbsup

I dont think the government should have the right to tell you who you can marry. If there were smaller government this would not even be an issue :2 cents:

No, if there weren't paranoid religious fanatics quoting the bible every two seconds and predicting (fear mongering) the downfall of humanity through homos, this wouldn't be an issue.

Who in turn use big government to spout their propaganda, so again, if there was smaller government this would not be a problem.

Honestly don't know why the gays didn't just invent a religion of their own years ago. If you have a "religion", you can do whatever you want. Look at the Mormons, Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.... they can even come and irritate you right at your front door... on Sunday... during the Superbowl.... while you're eating.... and it's perfectly legal, and you can't even kill them. They have political pull, are tax exempt, can marry or fuck anyone (or anything) they want....

The gays really dropped the ball on that one. One simple gay "church" would've stopped Prop 8 in it's tracks: "Religious freedom" and all.

so what you are saying is that pretty soon the govt is going to want to marry us?



.

I thought that was tried? Maybe Im wrong.