Gay marriages now legal in California?
Nomen Nescio
3Putt from CoastalSouth Carolina
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:9a84537afca113d7...@dizum.com...
> About time!
>
DaveB
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>About time!
>
When you getting married?
Daveb
Jack Hollis
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>About time!
An unintended consequence will effect the November election because
now an amendment to the Calif. constitution banning gay marriage will
be much more important. It could put California in play.
DaveB
wrote:
Interesting since this has been voted on once and the court overturns
it.
Another example of screw the people, why bother to vote.
Daveb
raj
"DaveB" <deb...@nt.org> wrote in message
news:482cd8be...@news.dslextreme.com...
I agree, where does 'Democracy' and 'Voting' come into all of this? I'm so
confused. Is there another land mass and another Mayflower to book passage
on?
Bob
William A. T. Clark
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Gosh, welcome back, Jack! Until you found it necessary to charge in with
you political editorial, people here had been talking about golf.
Good thing you put a stop to that.
William Clark
Frank Ketchum
> it.
>
> Another example of screw the people, why bother to vote.
>
Well....... a certain flavor of president tends to appoint activist judges
who in turn tend to decide cases based on personal policy preferences rather
than law.
glfnaz
"William A. T. Clark" <clark...@matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clarknospam-3E6B...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
When have *you* ever talked golf?
Howard Brazee
altogether. Leave it as a church sacrament.
Sure they should enforce the implied or real business partnership that
comes with marriage. But Palimony and Child Support don't even
require marriage.
Why should my social security benefits have to go to my current spouse
- at the expense of the spouse who supported me for 40 years before I
left her for someone younger? Or why do I need to marry to have a
secondary beneficiary? Maybe I've been supporting my retarded
brother, my infirmed mother or the kid down the street - shouldn't I
be able to select my beneficiary?
The government doesn't need to run everything.
the Moderator
"William A. T. Clark" <clark...@matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clarknospam-3E6B...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> you political editorial, people here had been talking about golf.
>
> Good thing you put a stop to that.
>
> William Clark
All we have to do is get Jack to stop posting and we won't have to hear from
Bill Clark either.
"R&B"
Has it ever occurred to those who complain about "activist judges" that
their JOB is to render verdicts not only on cases, but to rule as to whether
laws are Constitutional?
Would you prefer living in a country where there is no Constitution?
Oh, wait a minute. You already do thanks to the current fascist
administration.
It is ironic, though, that the people who complain about judges "legislating
from the bench" are usually the same ones who want to see other laws they
don't agree with overturned by the Supreme Court. So I guess it's okay for
judges to legislate from the bench as long as the outcome agrees with your
political point of view.
Randy
"R&B"
news:kb6Xj.155$co7...@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Don't know. But I would encourage you to get on and sail away. Sooner
rather than later.
Randy
annika1980
>
> Interesting since this has been voted on once and the court overturns
> it.
>
> Another example of screw the people, why bother to vote.
> Daveb
I always thought that people elected legislators who made on the laws.
The various Supreme Courts then rule on whether or not those laws are
Constitutional. But I've been out of school a while so maybe it's
different now.
As for the whole gay marriage thing, I like Jesse Jackson's take on
it.
Jesse was preaching at a Southern Baptist church and asked the
congregation, "How many people here are gay and married? Please raise
your hand."
Not one hand went up.
He continued, "Well, how many people here are gay?"
Still no takers.
Then Jesse said, "Ok, how many people have family members or friends
who are gay?" Two people in the back reluctantly stood up.
The good Reverend said, "OK, then why is gay marriage such an
important issue?"
That's my take .... who cares? It doesn't affect me.
Bobby Knight
<annik...@aol.com> wrote:
>As for the whole gay marriage thing, I like Jesse Jackson's take on
>it.
>Jesse was preaching at a Southern Baptist church and asked the
>congregation, "How many people here are gay and married? Please raise
>your hand."
>
>Not one hand went up.
>
>He continued, "Well, how many people here are gay?"
>Still no takers.
>
>Then Jesse said, "Ok, how many people have family members or friends
>who are gay?" Two people in the back reluctantly stood up.
>
>The good Reverend said, "OK, then why is gay marriage such an
>important issue?"
>
>That's my take .... who cares? It doesn't affect me.
Yeah, but you're not a nosy busybody who thinks that the world should
believe like you. What the hell does it hurt for gays to be married?
In answer to that, please don't invoke religion...because that's no
one else's business....period.
Jack Hollis
>> Another example of screw the people, why bother to vote.
>> Daveb
>
>I agree, where does 'Democracy' and 'Voting' come into all of this? I'm so
>confused. Is there another land mass and another Mayflower to book passage
>on?
>
>Bob
The decision, which overrides a voter initiative which bans gay
marriage, basically says that the initiative violates the state
constitution. While I think it's a stretch to say that the equal
protection clause includes the rights of gays to be married, the
principle of courts overruling voters is sound.
For example, it would be possible to pass all sorts of amendments by
majority vote which would violate the principles that this country was
founded on. I'll bet you could pass a law forbidding Muslims from
holding political office in a lot of states. Should such a law be
allowed to stand?
Ultimately, the issue is not regarding the courts right to override
voter initiatives, but should the equal protection clause include the
rights of gays to be married.
Now California will have to amend its constitution to specifically
state that marriage is defined as a bond between a woman and a man and
the issue will be put to rest.
As I said before this issue could effect the Presidential election.
Polls in April indicated that Obama had a 7 point lead against Mc Cain
in California. A 3.5% shift in voting would make it a dead even race.
The gay marriage amendment will effect voter turnout and some people
will vote specifically to vote against gay marriage. If enough of
them also decide to vote for Mc Cain, he could win the state.
The gay marriage question was a factor in Kerry losing Ohio in 2004.
Could history repeat itself?
William A. T. Clark
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
Perhaps not, but you still will hear from William Clark.
annika1980
>
> >That's my take .... who cares? It doesn't affect me.
>
> Yeah, but you're not a nosy busybody who thinks that the world should
> believe like you. What the hell does it hurt for gays to be married?
> In answer to that, please don't invoke religion...because that's no
You often hear people talk about destroying the sanctity of marriage.
Usually, the people that say this are like Bob Barr, who was married
three times, two of them to mistresses he was screwing while he was
previously married.
I believe that over half of marriages betwen men and women fail these
days.
I'll bet the numbers for gay marriages/unions are way better.
Michael Anselmo
Taylor ( a well known thespian) has been married to eight different
homosapiens.
dene
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ba70895a-06a0-44d9...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 1:48 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >That's my take .... who cares? It doesn't affect me.
>
> Yeah, but you're not a nosy busybody who thinks that the world should
> believe like you. What the hell does it hurt for gays to be married?
> In answer to that, please don't invoke religion...because that's no
> one else's business....period.-
Political discussion, Knit??
-Greg
bogiegolf
Next, you aren't through lying about the kill file are you?
Predictable.
What a loser...and you even admitted it to Ben. Are you really proud of
being know as the TURD of rsg?
bogiegolf
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>That's my take .... who cares? It doesn't affect me.
>
>Yeah, but you're not a nosy busybody who thinks that the world should
>believe like you. What the hell does it hurt for gays to be married?
>In answer to that, please don't invoke religion...because that's no
>one else's business....period.
The inclusion of gays in marriage doesn't change anything for
heterosexuals, so I don't see what the problem is. Of course, this is
a political issue because, for whatever reason, most people don't
approve of gay marriage. So the Democrats have to take it on the chin
for this one.
There's a case to be made that without the amendment banning gay
marriage in Ohio, Kerry would have won the state and been President.
Howard Brazee
<annik...@aol.com> wrote:
>The good Reverend said, "OK, then why is gay marriage such an
>important issue?"
Righteous people fight wars and commit other evils because other
people aren't willing to change to be like them.
bungalo...@yahoo.com
> I agree, where does 'Democracy' and 'Voting' come into all of this? I'm so
> confused. Is there another land mass and another Mayflower to book passage
> on?
interesting comment, what if there was a land mass west of the US,
with a more advanced technology then ours, and they tried to impose
their culture on us
Aodhan
It won't effect it at all. It might Affect it.
Your political punditry might be slightly more efficacious if you could
learn to use words in their proper context.
John
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
assim...@borg.org
On 16-May-2008, annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
> You often hear people talk about destroying the sanctity of marriage.
> Usually, the people that say this are like Bob Barr, who was married
> three times, two of them to mistresses he was screwing while he was
> previously married.
True Dat! The proverbial horse has left the barn.
> I believe that over half of marriages betwen men and women fail these
> days.
As of 2005 stats (US census bureau) only 21% of men and 23% of women had
ever been divorced. Recidivists like me and my 4 time divorcee S-I-L tend
to skew the numbers.
> I'll bet the numbers for gay marriages/unions are way better.
I doubt it
--
bill-o
Play the ball as it lies.
Play the course as you find it.
And if you can’t do either, do what is fair.
John B.
I like Kinky Freidman's take on the issue. When he was running for
governor of Texas, a reporter asked him if he thought gay marriage
should be legal. He said, yes, gay people ought to be allowed to get
married so they can be as miserable as the rest of us.