Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head (Post 17389301)

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.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17389059)

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

Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 17388762)

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.

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 17388839)

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.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17388840)

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

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head (Post 17389054)

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

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head (Post 17389201)

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.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390613)

That's the beauty of moronic liberals. When someone doesn't agree with them, they're either racist, bigots, or religious fanatics. The insecurity and amount of rationalization that goes into these pseudo thoughts is hilarious.

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head (Post 17390618)

Just like how when someone doesn't agree with the right wingnuts, they're socialists, marxists, commies, or anti-american terrorists. The schizophrenic paranoia and herd mentality that drives those knuckle-dragging thoughts is equally hilarious.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17388562)

Are the titles husband and wife not politically correct now?

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390662)

Don't blame that on marriage, blame it on the morons who think they are ready and know the person well enough.

Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 17390668)

But you don't think the divorce rate makes a mockery of marriage in general? Don't those morons who rush to marry make marriage look like a shitty excuse for long-term commitment? No, right? Because people who actually legitimately use marriage for the purposes it was originally intended for shouldn't care about what other people do. Like gays and lesbians marrying.

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17390665)

Vendzilla, what's more important to you? A modern majority vote, or upholding the constitution? Should the judge have ruled differently and went with the voters instead of the constitution?

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 17389340)

turns out lots of extremely conservative people are gay :)

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390684)

IT depends on how you interpret the constitution. In any case, if you're citing the constitution as your main argument for same sex marriages, realize it would never have happened under the founding fathers.

Originally Posted by arschloch (Post 17390719)

this is great. now gays can suffer through marriage just like straight people!

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

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.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17390795)

What's the problem if Gays want to get married?



So if some bible toting State decided to imprison all non Christians that would be fine?

Or a Southern State voting slavery back in?

Originally Posted by Quentin (Post 17388839)

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.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17388738)

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.

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17390699)

You give the founding fathers too much credit. They weren't psychic. If the world was still the way they made it and allowed, women wouldn't be able to vote and slavery would be legal. Blacks would be worth less than whites, etc... Civil rights in some of our lifetime changed all that. We should put this right too.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390684)

IT depends on how you interpret the constitution. In any case, if you're citing the constitution as your main argument for same sex marriages, realize it would never have happened under the founding fathers.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390613)

That's the beauty of moronic liberals. When someone doesn't agree with them, they're either racist, bigots, or religious fanatics. The insecurity and amount of rationalization that goes into these pseudo thoughts is hilarious.

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 17391617)

there is no denying that prop 8 passed due to people's religious beliefs, especially mormons.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17388738)

I don't know anything about this judge, .

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 17388523)

congrats faggots... :thumbsup


.

Originally Posted by Agent 488 (Post 17390689)

demon just finished his shift at wendy's and had a bad day. watch out.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17391629)

There's absolutely no proof of that. It's an argument liberals definitely love to use because they need to blame religion while focusing on relativism.

And I'm not wrong regarding the constitution. What you said was right in theory, but it would have never been allowed by the founding fathers, which was the point.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390681)

You're using today's divorce rate for the entire concept of marriage. 50 years ago the divorce rate was much lower. In Judaism, it's around 2%. So marriage isn't the problem. I would love more stringent rules on marriage for everybody. What I don't agree with is same sex marriages. Nevermind the fact that there's nothing natural about homosexuality, but marriage has always and will always be defined as an agreement between a man and a woman. That won't change anytime soon, you'll see the Supreme Court's decision.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17390681)

That won't change anytime soon, you'll see the Supreme Court's decision.

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head (Post 17391769)

Ummm, it changed yesterday brainiac. Supreme Court will uphold because you don't vote on rights. That's why they're called 'rights'. Try read the 14th amendment sometime genius.

Originally Posted by cykoe6 (Post 17391791)

Obviously it is not as cut and dried as that. Many observers believe the ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court. There are lots of gray areas when it comes to "rights" and this is certainly one of them. Even when it involved a clearly defined right like the right to bear arms there was much debate over the meaning of the right and uncertainty about the way the court would decide. This case is not nearly as clear cut as that one and there is plenty of uncertainty about the final outcome. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17390665)

Vendzilla, what's more important to you? A modern majority vote, or upholding the constitution? Should the judge have ruled differently and went with the voters instead of the constitution?

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17390795)

What's the problem if Gays want to get married?



So if some bible toting State decided to imprison all non Christians that would be fine?

Or a Southern State voting slavery back in?

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17390896)

Or a city (Chicago) outlawing guns?

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 17391655)

... but he must be a liberal ... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17391838)

Think that it gives one person too much power when they can over turn a vote from the majority that has happened two times

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 17389186)

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:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17391838)

Think that it gives one person too much power when they can over turn a vote from the majority that has happened two times



Apples and Oranges, this is rewriting the meaning of what marriage is

Originally Posted by gumdrop (Post 17391875)

Sorry to burst your bubble but "marriage" has had many incarnations throughout history, culture and civilization.

It continues to be "rewritten" as man evolves.

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash (Post 17391874)

I agree. Its so ironic that the majority of people that call for "smaller government" also push for more imposing government regulations. We live in a land of contradiction.

Personally, I think the word marriage should be taken out of the arguement completely and everyone wanting to bond themselves to another individual should be documented as a "civil union"- hetero and same sex couples alike. So for instance you don't apply for a marriage license, you apply for a civil union license, etc. It's up to the couple if they want to call it marriage or not. Religion should be taken completely out of the equasion.