Re: Supreme Court says gays can now get married
charley
> California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
>
> (CNN) -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on
> same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or
> gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or
> withhold legal rights."
>
> In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly
> to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's
> sexual orientation."
>
> "We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance
> of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,
> the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee
> this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or
> heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
> couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
>
> The ruling takes affect in 30 days. Watch what the ruling means »
>
> Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco
> and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of
> unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted
> unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
>
> The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation
> for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican
> appointees.
>
> San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly
> grateful" for the decision and for the court's "eloquence" in its
> delivery.
>
> "After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he said.
>
> Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the
> National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of
> pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."
>
> "California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the
> nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he
> said.
>
> Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that
> committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties,
> obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital
> affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who
> want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and
> be responsible for each other."
>
> Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.
>
> "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of
> judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective
> interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said
> Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group
> Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
>
> "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is,
> and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in
> the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father.
> To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social
> experimentation is deplorable."
>
> The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should
> be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be
> made to generate a federal marriage amendment.
>
> "The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and
> returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.
>
> A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only
> between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of
> state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough
> signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot
> appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do
> not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he
> said.
>
> In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that
> although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court
> was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he
> wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
>
> In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to
> wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's
> office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and
> 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.
>
> "We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we
> want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.
>
> San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just
> for the city "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court
> did is simply affirm their lives."
>
> CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that "huge cheers" went up in San
> Francisco when the ruling was announced.
>
> In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but
> state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples
> to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.
>
> "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its
> ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as
> I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the
> constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
>
> Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples
> need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt
> Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the
> state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.
>
> Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only
> residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island or New Mexico may marry in
> the state, unless the marriage partners say they intend to relocate to
> Massachusetts after the marriage.
>
> New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil
> unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More
> than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do
> some other countries. Check the law in different states »
>
> "It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so
> goes the rest of the nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people
> should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts
> a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is
> doing wonderfully."
>
> The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases,
> was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in
> March lasted more than three hours.
>
> "There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to
> same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal
> protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general
> legislative policy and preference," the ruling said.
>
> "Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the
> constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine
> that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage
> to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that
> the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the
> designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex
> couples."
>
> Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a
> Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.
>
> "This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he
> said.
>
> The ruling may make the same-sex marriage issue more important in
> November elections.
>
> Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports
> "traditional" marriage but opposes a constitutional amendment banning
> same-sex marriage, saying individual states should decide the issue.
> He also backs some legal benefits for same-sex couples.
>
> Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary
> Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. They
> also oppose a constitutional ban.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
them they'll get no tears from me.
katorz...@hotmail.com
> now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> them they'll get no tears from me.
bitter!
Bill Baker
message
news:<d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
> now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> them they'll get no tears from me.
Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
was created when the judges made their decision.
You can't? Color me surprised.
--
An idea, which has terrified millions, claims that some of us will go to a
place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not
scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I
cannot conceive that Mind, usually called "God," as totally mad. I mean,
guys, compare that "God" with the worst monsters you can think of -- Adolph
Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than
finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy
novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of
Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless
infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a
deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely
mathematical universe around us. If such a monster-God did exist, the sane
attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion.
Don't give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will
recover his wits some day. - Robert Anton Wilson, "Cheerful Reflections on
Death and Dying," Gnoware, February 1999
No One
> On May 15, 11:03 pm, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
> > California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
> >
>
> now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> them they'll get no tears from me.
ROTFLMAO - you do know that 6 of the 7 justices on the California
Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors, and that the
decision was written by a guy first appointed to a municipal court by
Ronald Reagan and eventually appointed to the California Supreme Court
by Pete Wllson -
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/EDV410N7AO.DTL>:
However, it would be hard to come up with a more perfect
figure to defuse the issue and redefine the debate - as a
plain matter of civil rights - than the 68-year-old Justice
George. First appointed to the municipal bench by Gov. Ronald
Reagan in 1972, and promoted to the Supreme Court by Gov. Pete
Wilson in 1991, the unpretentious George is highly respected
for his even temperament, hard work and judicial restraint. No
one could credibly dismiss this ruling as the work of an
"activist" judge - try as they might.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N325.DTL>
lists how each of the seven justices voted and who appointed them.
Of the ones who voted for it, 3 where appointed by Republicans (Pete
Wilson and George Deukmejian), and one by a Democrat (Gray Davis).
The ones oppssed where appointed by Republicans (Deukmejian, Wilson,
and Schwarzenegger). Schwarzenegger's appointee stated that
"Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their
unions marriages" but did not think the ban should be invalidated by
the court.
HarryNadds
Oh, just lighten up. At least you don't have to hide your gayness from
your redneck parents anymore.
HarryNadds
> charley <varric...@aol.com> writes:
> > On May 15, 11:03 pm, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
> > > California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
>
> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> ROTFLMAO - you do know that 6 of the 7 justices on the California
> Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors, and that the
> decision was written by a guy first appointed to a municipal court by
> Ronald Reagan and eventually appointed to the California Supreme Court
> by Pete Wllson -
>
> However, it would be hard to come up with a more perfect
> figure to defuse the issue and redefine the debate - as a
> plain matter of civil rights - than the 68-year-old Justice
> George. First appointed to the municipal bench by Gov. Ronald
> Reagan in 1972, and promoted to the Supreme Court by Gov. Pete
> Wilson in 1991, the unpretentious George is highly respected
> for his even temperament, hard work and judicial restraint. No
> one could credibly dismiss this ruling as the work of an
> "activist" judge - try as they might.
>
> lists how each of the seven justices voted and who appointed them.
> Of the ones who voted for it, 3 where appointed by Republicans (Pete
> Wilson and George Deukmejian), and one by a Democrat (Gray Davis).
> The ones oppssed where appointed by Republicans (Deukmejian, Wilson,
> and Schwarzenegger). Schwarzenegger's appointee stated that
> "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their
> unions marriages" but did not think the ban should be invalidated by
> the court.
It's in the water. You can go to California a conservative and within
3 years your left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
anonymous
Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
tar~bal
"idoido" <i...@do.you> wrote in message
news:g5up24hvjm53c46evflkgb6o9f5jvmla93@news...
Next up for the California Supremes, legalizing pedophilia.
anonymous
Judges don't make laws. They interpret laws for citizens of society and
judges strike down bad laws.
KK
> Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group
> Concerned Women for America
Gotta love California.
KK
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
>
> now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> them they'll get no tears from me.
Yeah, now a gay is going to come marry you against your will. Hope he's a
catcher!
tar~bal
"KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.16....@furburger.net...
Aren't they the ones that criticize men for being against abortion? LOL
HarryNadds
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
"normal". Do we need a "gay pride week"? What if the guy in the
trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
chicken? If not, why not? What if the kook in the trailer two doors
down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why? If
your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
problem with that? If yes why? Would it be any of your business? Why
not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
If I remember correctly the people of California voted AGAINST same
sex marriage,but as usual the queers took their greivance to a liberal
court and got the will of the people overturned. That oughta' really
endear the gays to the people of California. One MOAB on the San
Andreas fault would take care of all the problems the fruits and nuts
create.
HarryNadds
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know of a few kooks that post to usenet that are prolly praying for
the day that happens. Hello sid9, you there? robw?
HarryNadds
>
> - Show quoted text -
RRRIIIIIGGHHHHHT !! Bird dogs fly south for the winter too (wink-wink).
KK
I don't know. I just think it's funny that a guy is the spokesperson for
"Concerned Women of America".
KK
> I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
> convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> "normal". Do we need a "gay pride week"?
As long as there are people like you, I think they do need one.
> What if the guy in the
> trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> chicken? If not, why not?
If a court decides his chicken is fit to enter into a contract.
> What if the kook in the trailer two doors
> down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why? If
> your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> problem with that? If yes why? Would it be any of your business?
Nobody's talking about legalizing polygamy or adultery or child-fucking.
But as long as you're asking if it's any of my business - is it? What do
*you* stand to lose if a guy marries his chicken? Or if a guy has sixteen
wives?
> Why
> not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
Laws aren't the vehicle for moral judgment. Laws are for protecting
peoples' rights.
> If I remember correctly the people of California voted AGAINST same
> sex marriage,
So tyranny of the majority is okay, as long as they agree with you? What
if the people voted for slavery? Or to outlaw interracial marriage?
> but as usual the queers took their greivance to a liberal
> court
Most of the court was appointed by republicans, it appears.
KK
> I know of a few kooks that post to usenet
Maybe they can show you how to trim your posts so that you don't use 183
lines to add two sentences to a thread.
tar~bal
I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to lower the age of consent to
13. Lots of other countries are doing it. Maybe the majority of the US
wouldn't like that, but tough shit. A lot of 13 year olds are having sex
anyway, you people behind in the times and living in the stone age. Who
cares if a majority of the people in the country don't like the fact that 50
year olds are porking 13 year olds. They're gonna have to get with the
times.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
tar~bal
"HarryNadds" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35d223d8-909e-4fe0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Next up for the California Supremes, legalizing pedophilia.- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know of a few kooks that post to usenet that are prolly praying for
the day that happens. Hello sid9, you there? robw?
-----
Make no mistake about it, that's what is coming next. There are thousands
of people across the country that believe that it should come to pass.
We're living in more sophisticated times now. Kids are smarter, hey, the
average 13 year old knows more than the average 16 year old did twenty years
ago. With that sophistication should be a revision to the age of consent,
right?
Who cares if anyone objects to it? 13 year olds are having sex anyway.
Shouldn't they be free to express themselves WITH THEIR OWN BODY? I mean,
liberals are intent on bringing sex education into the classrooms, clearly
they expect the kids to use the tools that they are taught in school.
What the hell, if they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to breed,
right?
tar~bal
Spokesperson would be one thing, his title is 'policy director'. WTF?
Emerson Wainwright
"Activist judge": a judge who makes a decision you don't like.
KK
>
> I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to lower the age of consent to
> 13.
Well, go convince a court that it's a good idea. It's a question of
whether a 13-year-old has the mental and emotional capacity to consent to
sex.
There's no legal parallel with same-sex marriage, where both participants
are adults.
KK
> They made no law. It was worse than that. They took away the rights of
> the people to govern themselves.
So did the Union in the Civil War, right?
KK
> Kids are smarter, hey, the
> average 13 year old knows more than the average 16 year old did twenty years
> ago.
I call bullshit on that one. From where I sit, the average 22-year-old
college graduate knows less than the nine-year-olds I was in fourth grade
with in 1979.
KK
>
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.05.16....@furburger.net...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:51:10 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.05.16....@furburger.net...
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 03:03:52 +0000, idoido wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group
>>>>> Concerned Women for America
>>>>
>>>> Gotta love California.
>>>
>>> Aren't they the ones that criticize men for being against abortion? LOL
>>
>> I don't know. I just think it's funny that a guy is the spokesperson for
>> "Concerned Women of America".
>
> Spokesperson would be one thing, his title is 'policy director'. WTF?
I just said 'spokesperson' (with a lowercase s) because he's the one who
gave the quote to the paper. But you're right - his having a
director-level position is even more funny.
Patriot Games
>California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
Until November, then the joke is on the fags.
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
>marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
>you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
you care what a man and a 10-year old girl are doing.?
Emerson Wainwright
> "KK" <_...@furburger.net> wrote in message
Red herring. We are not discussing age of consent or even sexual
activity. We are discussing the right to marriage for adults.
Emerson Wainwright
> I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
> convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> "normal".
Would it be OK to convince your children that blow jobs are normal? I
mean, YOU'VE had 'em, right?
> Do we need a "gay pride week"? What if the guy in the
> trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> chicken? If not, why not?
Chickens cannot consent.
> What if the kook in the trailer two doors
> down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why?
Ah. You've made use of the most common red herring in this
argument.
It's a separate issue.
> If
> your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> problem with that? If yes why? Would it be any of your business? Why
> not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
> If I remember correctly the people of California voted AGAINST same
> sex marriage,but as usual the queers took their greivance to a liberal
> court
Six of the seven judges on that court were appointed by Republicans.
KK
Are you serious? Do you really not see the difference?
Emerson Wainwright
Pedophilia is not illegal. Acting on the attraction, however, is.
Reason: children cannot provide informed consent.
That's not the case with two consenting adults, however.
Bringing things like pedophilia, polygamy and inter-species
relationships into the argument is just doomsaying, and makes you look
like a fool. In logic, this is a slippery slope fallacy, and any
conclusion you are trying to achieve is logically invalid because of
it.
Is this REALLY all you've got? If so, the advice would be to quit
wasting your keystrokes and maybe find a hobby.
HarryNadds
So if the law was passed because the majority of the people in
California did'nt want same sex marriage legalized is that "tyranny"??
Only to a moonbat kook.
> > but as usual the queers took their greivance to a liberal
> > court
>
> Most of the court was appointed by republicans, it appears.
So what does mean?? It's California FFS !! The state sucks the
intelligience out of every human being that lives there longer than 3
months. Nice try though.
HarryNadds
Maybe you can kiss my ass. Short enough?
HarryNadds
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 9:52 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
> > convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> > "normal".
>
> Would it be OK to convince your children that blow jobs are normal? I
> mean, YOU'VE had 'em, right?
>
No need to. Clinton did that thank verrry much.
> > Do we need a "gay pride week"? What if the guy in the
> > trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> > chicken? If not, why not?
>
> Chickens cannot consent.
How do you know? Did you ever ask one?
>
> > What if the kook in the trailer two doors
> > down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why?
>
> Ah. You've made use of the most common red herring in this
> argument.
>
> It's a separate issue.
>
> > If
> > your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> > problem with that? If yes why? Would it be any of your business? Why
> > not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
> > If I remember correctly the people of California voted AGAINST same
> > sex marriage,but as usual the queers took their greivance to a liberal
> > court
>
> Six of the seven judges on that court were appointed by Republicans.
So?? What's your point? They're California kooks too. Nice try.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:pan.2008.05.16....@furburger.net...
Patsy's part of the 'couldn't pass an eighth grade Civics exam' crowd.
They're blowing a collective gasket because they don't have a clue about why
or how the California court did what it did. Pat him on the head, and give
him a cookie and a Midol.
Emerson Wainwright
> On 2008-05-16 01:53:13 -0400, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> said:
>
> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
> > message
> > <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> >> them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
> > was created when the judges made their decision.
>
> the people to govern themselves.
You think there should be no judges to interpret laws and the
constitution? When a decision is handed down that you don't agree
with, that is taking away the people's right to govern themselves
(while when you agree with a decision, it's just fine)?
Anyway, this is short-sighted and incorrect.
The court did not pass a law. The court decided that laws preventing
same-sex couples from marrying were unconstitutional. They decided
that the constitution did not deny members of the same sex from
marrying each other and that laws preventing full marriage rights --
including the right to use the word "marriage" -- were unfair to a
class of people, and that there was no reason for this unfairness and
that the unfairness must be corrected.
Social conservatives already knew that the constitution does not
explicitly deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples, so this
decision should come as no surprise to them (even though six of the
seven judges were appointed by Republicans).
Emerson Wainwright
> "HarryNadds" <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
We're talking about marriage here. Not sex. Not age of consent laws.
If you are fascinated with young people having sex, you should check
out some other newsgroup.
No One
> On May 16, 1:27 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N32...>
> > lists how each of the seven justices voted and who appointed them.
> > Of the ones who voted for it, 3 where appointed by Republicans (Pete
> > Wilson and George Deukmejian), and one by a Democrat (Gray Davis).
> > The ones oppssed where appointed by Republicans (Deukmejian, Wilson,
> > and Schwarzenegger). Schwarzenegger's appointee stated that
> > "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their
> > unions marriages" but did not think the ban should be invalidated by
> > the court.
>
> It's in the water. You can go to California a conservative and within
> 3 years your left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
... which explains Orange County? :-)
Emerson Wainwright
I have to agree.
Emerson Wainwright
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:27:37 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
> >marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
> >you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
>
> Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
> marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
> you care what a man and a 10-year old girl are doing.?
The 10-year-old girl cannot consent.
No One
> On 2008-05-16 01:53:13 -0400, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> said:
>
> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varr...@aol.com> wrote in
> > Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the
> > law that was created when the judges made their decision.
>
>
> They made no law. It was worse than that. They took away the rights of
> the people to govern themselves. They have, on a state level,
> destroyed the Republic. Of course, since they are a lower court there
> will be another vote come before the people and the wrong done will be
> made right. You can bet your next trailer payment on that.
... words of a bigot who never read the decision, and who apparently
thinks the California Supreme Court is a "lower court" regarding state
law. The full decision is available at
<http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/S147999.pdf>
(over 170 pages long, I might add).
Patriot Games
Yes. The difference is that "Anonymous Ass Pirate" was trying to
EQUATE "what two homosexual neighbours are doing" WITH fag marriage.
Of course, there is no such rational similarity.
Emerson Wainwright
"Tyranny of the majority". See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Such a law negatively affects a class of citizens, and does so with no
logical reason.
The previous poster gave two other examples: freedom of slaves, and
legalization of interracial marriage. In many jurisdictions,
majorities would have prohibited these, and by doing so they would
have prevented U.S. citizens from enjoying the same civil rights as
everyone else.
> So what does mean?? It's California FFS !!
California produced Ronald Reagan, the most conservative POTUS ever.
KK
>>
>> > If I remember correctly the people of California voted AGAINST same
>> > sex marriage,
>>
>> So tyranny of the majority is okay, as long as they agree with you? What
>> if the people voted for slavery? Or to outlaw interracial marriage?
>>
>
> So if the law was passed because the majority of the people in
> California did'nt want same sex marriage legalized is that "tyranny"??
> Only to a moonbat kook.
I didn't say it *was* tyranny. But, one definition of 'tyranny' is 'use
of absolute power', which is the use I intended.
Your basis for objection is that "the people of california voted AGAINST
it" - and my question to you was if the will of the majority justifies
anything and everything they're willing to vote for.
You haven't answered.
KK
Work on it.
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 16, 10:10 am, Emerson Wainwright
>
> <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 16, 9:52 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
> > > convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> > > "normal".
>
> > Would it be OK to convince your children that blow jobs are normal? I
> > mean, YOU'VE had 'em, right?
>
> No need to. Clinton did that thank verrry much.
Cool. It's important to discuss blow jobs with the kids. And I'm
glad you consider blow jobs to be normal. Because that's what most
gay men do.
So I see we're on the same page.
> > > Do we need a "gay pride week"? What if the guy in the
> > > trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> > > chicken? If not, why not?
>
> > Chickens cannot consent.
>
> How do you know? Did you ever ask one?
Asking a chicken is one thing. Getting an interpretable response is
yet another.
Do you know something about human-chicken relationships that you're
not telling us???
> > Six of the seven judges on that court were appointed by Republicans.
>
> So?? What's your point? They're California kooks too. Nice try.-
Reagan.
Emerson Wainwright
Makes sure he washes it first. Probably been a while.
KK
You equated an opposition to consensual homosexual conduct with pedophilia.
KK
> California produced Ronald Reagan, the most conservative POTUS ever.
Measured how?
Emerson Wainwright
Oh who the hell knows. They bring up polygamy, incest, chicken-
fucking and Hitler. I bring up Reagan (and they haven't argued back).
Bill Baker
message news:<2008051610282116807-leroyblue@pillonnet>...
> On 2008-05-16 01:53:13 -0400, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org>
> said:
>
>> On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varr...@aol.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
news:<d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>>
>>> now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
>>> places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
>>> them they'll get no tears from me.
>>
>> Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
>> was created when the judges made their decision.
>
>
> They made no law. It was worse than that. They took away the rights of
> the people to govern themselves. They have, on a state level, destroyed
> the Republic. Of course, since they are a lower court there will be
> another vote come before the people and the wrong done will be made
> right. You can bet your next trailer payment on that.
I think I can safely bet that California will be the second state to
recognize same-sex marriage and the voters will not agree to an amendment
to the state constitution.
--
Bushism 10-24:
"There is book smart and the kind of smart that helps do calculus. But
smart is also instinct and judgment and common sense. Smart comes in all
kinds of different ways."
--CNN; September 19, 2000
znuybv
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
> message
> <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
> was created when the judges made their decision.
>
>
> --
It took 60 pages of legal mumbo jumbo to justify the verdict that same
sex couples have the human right to marry. By contrast it took only
one page, actually one paragraph, for the USSC decision (vs Virginia)
that couples of opposite sex regardless of race or color have the
human right to marry.
Proving that when you are in the right; you don't need volumes of
legalistic bull shit.
Bill Baker
message news:<r68r24huf47ef7a83...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 03:03:52 +0000, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
>>California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
>
> Until November, then the joke is on the fags.
In liberal California? In a year when more young people than ever are
turning out to vote? When the vast majority of them are voting Democratic?
Two words: Fat chance.
--
When all has been considered, it seems to me to be the irresistible
intuition that infinite punishment for finite sin would be unjust, and
therefore wrong. We feel that even weak and erring Man would shrink from
such an act. And we cannot conceive of God as acting on a lower standard of
right and wrong.
- Lewis Carroll (author of Alice in Wonderland), "Eternal Punishment,"
Diversions and Digressions of Lewis Carroll
Bill Baker
news:<0df18b5f-6d8d-4906...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>...
Proving nothing, as a matter of fact.
--
I'm a universalist because I believe that God and time are the best
teachers, and there's plenty of time in eternity for everyone to learn
their lessons, including Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and the makers of Jolt
Cola.
- Edward T. Babinski
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 15, 10:53 pm, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:> On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
> > message
> > <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> > > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
> > was created when the judges made their decision.
>
> > You can't? Color me surprised.
>
> > --
>
> It took 60 pages of legal mumbo jumbo to justify the verdict that same
> sex couples have the human right to marry.
Have you found errors in that mumbo jumbo?
> By contrast it took only
> one page, actually one paragraph, for the USSC decision (vs Virginia)
> that couples of opposite sex regardless of race or color have the
> human right to marry.
Good for them.
> Proving that when you are in the right; you don't need volumes of
> legalistic bull shit.
It proves absolutely nothing except possibly that you don't care much
for reading.
charley
> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
bitter yes especially when they go against the will of the people and
fuck the constitution.....yes bitter is a good word.
KK
> I think I can safely bet that California will be the second state to
> recognize same-sex marriage and the voters will not agree to an amendment
> to the state constitution.
I haven't been able to find what should be (I thought) an easy search:
what's the process for amending the CA constitution? How many votes, and
is it popular only or does it also have to pass the state legislature?
charley
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
> message
> <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> was created when the judges made their decision.
>
> You can't? Color me surprised.
>
> --
> place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not
> scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I
> cannot conceive that Mind, usually called "God," as totally mad. I mean,
> guys, compare that "God" with the worst monsters you can think of -- Adolph
> Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than
> finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy
> novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of
> Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless
> infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a
> deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely
> mathematical universe around us. If such a monster-God did exist, the sane
> attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion.
> Don't give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will
> recover his wits some day. - Robert Anton Wilson, "Cheerful Reflections on
> Death and Dying," Gnoware, February 1999
the California Supreme Court admitted that same sex couples were
afforded “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and
privileges” as marriage. Since same-sex were not being denied basic
legal rights, the issue boils down to social acceptance. To address
this issue ''The court instead invented a 'right of same-sex couples
to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity,
respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially
recognized family relationships.'''In other words, this was a SOCIAL
not a LEGAL issue. Where does the court get the authority to mandate
social acceptance? Why do they believe their edit will accomplish it?
charley
> charley wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:03 pm, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
> > > California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
>
> > > same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or
> > > gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or
> > > withhold legal rights."
>
> > > In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly
> > > to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's
> > > sexual orientation."
>
> > > "We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance
> > > of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,
> > > the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee
> > > this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or
> > > heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
> > > couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
>
> > > The ruling takes affect in 30 days. Watch what the ruling means »
>
> > > Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco
> > > and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of
> > > unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted
> > > unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
>
> > > The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation
> > > for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican
> > > appointees.
>
> > > San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly
> > > grateful" for the decision and for the court's "eloquence" in its
> > > delivery.
>
> > > "After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he said.
>
> > > Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the
> > > National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of
> > > pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."
>
> > > "California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the
> > > nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he
> > > said.
>
> > > Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
> > > Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that
> > > committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties,
> > > obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital
> > > affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who
> > > want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and
> > > be responsible for each other."
>
> > > Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.
>
> > > "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of
> > > judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective
> > > interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said
> > > Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group
> > > Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
>
> > > "So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is,
> > > and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in
> > > the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father.
> > > To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social
> > > experimentation is deplorable."
>
> > > The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should
> > > be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be
> > > made to generate a federal marriage amendment.
>
> > > "The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and
> > > returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.
>
> > > A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only
> > > between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of
> > > state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough
> > > signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot
> > > appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do
> > > not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he
> > > said.
>
> > > In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that
> > > although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court
> > > was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he
> > > wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
>
> > > In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to
> > > wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's
> > > office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and
> > > 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.
>
> > > "We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we
> > > want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.
>
> > > San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just
> > > for the city "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court
> > > did is simply affirm their lives."
>
> > > CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that "huge cheers" went up in San
> > > Francisco when the ruling was announced.
>
> > > In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but
> > > state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples
> > > to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.
>
> > > "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its
> > > ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as
> > > I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the
> > > constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
>
> > > Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples
> > > need not be state residents there to wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt
> > > Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring non-resident marriages in the
> > > state if the marriage would be prohibited in the partners' home state.
>
> > > Subsequent court and agency decisions have determined that only
> > > residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island or New Mexico may marry in
> > > the state, unless the marriage partners say they intend to relocate to
> > > Massachusetts after the marriage.
>
> > > New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil
> > > unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More
> > > than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do
> > > some other countries. Check the law in different states »
>
> > > "It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so
> > > goes the rest of the nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people
> > > should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts
> > > a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is
> > > doing wonderfully."
>
> > > The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases,
> > > was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in
> > > March lasted more than three hours.
>
> > > "There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to
> > > same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal
> > > protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general
> > > legislative policy and preference," the ruling said.
>
> > > "Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the
> > > constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine
> > > that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage
> > > to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that
> > > the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the
> > > designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex
> > > couples."
>
> > > Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a
> > > Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.
>
> > > "This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he
> > > said.
>
> > > The ruling may make the same-sex marriage issue more important in
> > > November elections.
>
> > > Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports
> > > "traditional" marriage but opposes a constitutional amendment banning
> > > same-sex marriage, saying individual states should decide the issue.
> > > He also backs some legal benefits for same-sex couples.
>
> > > Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary
> > > Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. They
> > > also oppose a constitutional ban.
>
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
>
> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
> you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
maybe in your country but in ours we have laws and judges aren't
supposed to legislate NEIGHBOUR!
charley
the polygamists should hire a lawyer right away. The CA supreme court
said that same sex marriage in no way interferes with the rights of
those in a traditional opposite sex marriage, and thus the ruling that
the same sex marriage is just as legitimate. Well then, why is the
marriage of one person to many others any less acceptable? Polygamy in
no way interferes with the rights of traditional marriage, so why not?
It's a slippery slope without even going into the rights of the folks
that love their pets.
charley
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:31:40 -0700, charley wrote:
> >>http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
>
> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> catcher!
let the people vote on it which is what we do in America. Not allow
judges to tell us how to live and what is moral. The people voted on
this legislation in California and said no to gay marriage. the only
way the liberals can win is through the courts and you know what,
judges are asking and begging for trouble. in a few years as society
continues on its downward spiral the judges will be the first these
nutjobs come after.....wait and see.
charley
>
>
>
> > charley wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:03 pm, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
>
> > > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why? If
> your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
> court and got the will of the ...
>
> read more »
that's the true aim of the gay agenda....make it acceptable behavior,
teach it in school and tell the kiddies its just another alternative
lifestyle. This is what this is all about....my guess is one of those
judges has a queer for a child....do the research I bet I am
right...no one will force me to accept something I find immoral and
unnatural....in this country we're allowed to have our own opinions
just like the queers do...so if anyone doesn't like my opinion they
can shove up their stretched out asshole.
charley
> On May 16, 7:28 am, "tar~bal" <b...@wheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "idoido" <i...@do.you> wrote in message
>
> >news:g5up24hvjm53c46evflkgb6o9f5jvmla93@news...
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> the day that happens. Hello sid9, you there? robw?
that sid is a black fag not a back flag or black flag.
charley
> On 2008-05-16 01:53:13 -0400, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> said:
>
> > message
> > <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> >> places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> >> them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > was created when the judges made their decision.
>
> the people to govern themselves. They have, on a state level, destroyed
> the Republic. Of course, since they are a lower court there will be
> another vote come before the people and the wrong done will be made
> right. You can bet your next trailer payment on that.
>
>
>
> Men have no right to put the well-being of the present generation
> wholly out of the question. Perhaps the only moral trust with any
> certainty in our hands is the care of our own time. -Edmund Burke (1729
> - 1797)
Get use to it because republicans fucked things up so bad the liberal
dems will change so much of this country to benefit the minorities
that the white middle class is on its last legs....why do you think
dems want all these illegal aliens to come here....its because
eventually they become citizens and who will they vote for? the
dems....Thank God I won't be around to see the demise of this great
nation but my chidren will and it will be their problem to
handle....you want liberal dems running things then i say go for
it....they'll fuck up the white middle class so much it will be funny
when they start to realize they'll be the minority. Go to any city
and see who is running it and how much crime and chaos is going on.
Crime figures don't lie.
charley
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 11:31 pm, charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:03 pm, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
>
> > places....they make whatever laws they please....
>
Baloney! The people of the State should decide , not the courts. And
the people decided last year on a ballot measure that a marriage is to
be between one man and one woman. And they did so to the tune of a 60%
deciding vote. That's how it's supposed to work, emerson
charley
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 10:24 am, "tar~bal" <b...@wheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "KK" <_...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:pan.2008.05.16....@furburger.net...
>
> > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:52:33 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:
>
> > >> I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
> > >> convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> > >> "normal". Do we need a "gay pride week"?
>
>
> > >> trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> > >> chicken? If not, why not?
>
>
> > >> down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why? If
> > >> your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> > >> problem with that? If yes why? Would it be any of your business?
>
> > > But as long as you're asking if it's any of my business - is it? What do
> > > *you* stand to lose if a guy marries his chicken? Or if a guy has sixteen
> > > wives?
>
> > >> not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
>
> > > peoples' rights.
>
>
> > > So tyranny of the majority is okay, as long as they agree with you? What
> > > if the people voted for slavery? Or to outlaw interracial marriage?
>
> > >> court
>
>
> > I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to lower the age of consent to
> > 13.
>
> Red herring. We are not discussing age of consent or even sexual
> activity. We are discussing the right to marriage for adults.
What's next? Do the majority of the rest of the states have to pass
laws that say "married" gays from other states, like California,
cannot exercise their marital rights (adoption, insurance benefits,
property rights, etc.) within their borders?
charley
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 8:28 am, "tar~bal" <b...@wheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "idoido" <i...@do.you> wrote in message
>
> >news:g5up24hvjm53c46evflkgb6o9f5jvmla93@news...
>
>
>
> Reason: children cannot provide informed consent.
>
> That's not the case with two consenting adults, however.
>
> Bringing things like pedophilia, polygamy and inter-species
> relationships into the argument is just doomsaying, and makes you look
> like a fool. In logic, this is a slippery slope fallacy, and any
> conclusion you are trying to achieve is logically invalid because of
> it.
>
> Is this REALLY all you've got? If so, the advice would be to quit
> wasting your keystrokes and maybe find a hobby.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162008/news/regionalnews/gay_cop_in_perv_arrest_111080.htm
katorz...@hotmail.com
> > bitter!
>
> Oh, just lighten up. At least you don't have to hide your gayness from
> your redneck parents anymore.
you are projecting!
i haven't hid sh*t from my parents since 1978.
my parents are educated,christian liberals who never abused their
"straight"/"white" privilege in their lives!
my parents are classy, compassionate, well read and they really are
couple of darn saints!
they are and have always been in favor of equal cilvil rights/
opportunities for all.
charley
> On May 16, 10:10 am, Emerson Wainwright
>
> <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 16, 9:52 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't care.As long as they don't try to rub my nose in it or try to
> > > convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> > > "normal".
>
> > mean, YOU'VE had 'em, right?
>
> No need to. Clinton did that thank verrry much.
>
> > > trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> > > chicken? If not, why not?
>
>
> How do you know? Did you ever ask one?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why?
>
> > argument.
>
> > It's a separate issue.
>
> > > If
> > > your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> > > not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
> > > court
>
> > Six of the seven judges on that court were appointed by Republicans.
>
> So?? What's your point? They're California kooks too. Nice try.
you cant argue with a fag.
katorz...@hotmail.com
> It's in the water. You can go to California a conservative and within
> 3 years your left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
bitter!
you're reaching!
Bill Baker
news:<c0fb4887-b621-4667...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
> On May 16, 1:53 am, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
<news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>>
>> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
>> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
>> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>>
>> Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
>> was created when the judges made their decision.
>>
>> You can't? Color me surprised.
>
> the California Supreme Court admitted that same sex couples were
> afforded “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and
> privileges” as marriage. Since same-sex were not being denied basic
> legal rights, the issue boils down to social acceptance. To address
> this issue ''The court instead invented a 'right of same-sex couples
> to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity,
> respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially
> recognized family relationships.'''In other words, this was a SOCIAL
> not a LEGAL issue. Where does the court get the authority to mandate
> social acceptance? Why do they believe their edit will accomplish it?
So I was right and you can't show what law the judges made. Now show me how
the judges are mandating "social acceptance."
You can't? Once again, color me surprised.
--
Bushism 8-30:
"I think it's very important for world leaders to understand that when a new
administration comes in, the new administration will be running the foreign
policy."
--Interview with USA Today; January 12, 2001
Bill Baker
news:<2347f487-0de4-40dc...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>...
If they did, it would be against the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. And to get around that, we'll have to pass another amendment
repealing the 14th. Say hello to long lines at the DMV every time you want
to drive through a state because you'll need a driver's license for every
state you want to drive through.
--
Bushism 3-28:
"I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I
mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We
are--in no way, shape, or form should a human being play God."
--On ABC's 20/20; January 14, 2005
Bill Baker
news:<fb854f93-30dd-4eab...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
That's exactly the mindset of the Ku Klux Klan.
--
Bushism 10-13:
"Governor, thank you very much. I am here to make an announcement that this
Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan
Airport."
--Arlington, Virginia; October 2, 2001
Bill Baker
news:<99076b80-891f-4232...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
>> Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
>> marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
>> you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
>
> maybe in your country
So in your country you're not allowed to attract women?
> but in ours we have laws and judges aren't supposed to legislate
> NEIGHBOUR!
Great. Just show us what law the judges created and your argument will be
air-tight.
--
Bushism 9-11:
"Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you go out and help
us turn out the vote, after we've convinced the good Americans to vote, and
while they're at it, pull that old George W. lever, if I'm the one; when I
put my hand on the Bible when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when
they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not--to
uphold the laws of the land."
--Toledo, Ohio; October 27, 2000
Bill Baker
news:<2a7b0bec-ecb0-463c...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
> On May 16, 9:13 am, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:31:40 -0700, charley wrote:
>> >>http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
>>
>> > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
>> > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
>> > them they'll get no tears from me.
>>
>> Yeah, now a gay is going to come marry you against your will. Hope he's
>> a catcher!
>
> let the people vote on it which is what we do in America.
How about we let the people vote on whether or not you can get married?
--
Bushism 1-3:
"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."
--St. Louis, Missouri; October 18, 2000
No One
The process depends on whether the constitution is amended by the
legislature or by an initiative. For an initiative, it only takes
a majority vote.
Regarding Bill Baker's prediction, it is not in the bag - people opposing
the new initiative (which will probably be on the November ballot) are
very hopeful that this initiative will fail, but realize that they have
a lot of work to do to defeat it.
KK
> In other words, this was a SOCIAL
> not a LEGAL issue
If the distinction is SOCIAL then the law can't be applied differently to
people based on a SOCIAL construct.
No One
> On Friday 16 May 2008 10:57 am Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in
> message news:<r68r24huf47ef7a83...@4ax.com>...
>
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 03:03:52 +0000, idoido <i...@do.you> wrote:
> >>California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
> >
> > Until November, then the joke is on the fags.
>
> In liberal California? In a year when more young people than ever are
> turning out to vote? When the vast majority of them are voting Democratic?
>
> Two words: Fat chance.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch - its a sure way to lose.
To run a credible campaign against the initiative takes a fair chunk
of change and being overly optimistic makes it harder to raise money
to defeat it.
California is not as liberal as you think either - just visit the
Central Valley, aka California's Bible Belt. Some areas of the state
are liberal, but not all - it is kind of polarized. We just happen
to have a Democratic majority at present.
No One
> On May 15, 10:53 pm, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
> > message
> > <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
> >
> > > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > > them they'll get no tears from me.
> >
> > Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
> > was created when the judges made their decision.
> >
> > You can't? Color me surprised.
> >
> > -- It took 60 pages of legal mumbo jumbo to justify the verdict
> that same sex couples have the human right to marry. By contrast it
> took only one page, actually one paragraph, for the USSC decision
> (vs Virginia) that couples of opposite sex regardless of race or
> color have the human right to marry. Proving that when you are in
> the right; you don't need volumes of legalistic bull shit.
The opinion was actually over 170 pages of legal "mumbo jumbo" and
included a detailed discussion of precedents, trade offs, the
intent of the voters when Prop 22 was passed, etc. Also, the
California constitution is far more complex than the U.S. Constitution,
so it is hardly surprising that California Supreme Court ruling would
be rather long.
JFlexer
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
--
-J
*** Keeper of Bette Midler and Betty Buckley ***
HarryNadds
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:00 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:27:37 GMT, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
> > >marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
> > >you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
>
> > Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
> > marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
>
> The 10-year-old girl cannot consent.
I would'nt care unless the 10 year old girl was mine then I'd be up on
charges of manslaughter.
JFlexer
news:873aoin...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> HarryNadds <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On May 16, 1:27 am, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N32...>
>> > lists how each of the seven justices voted and who appointed them.
>> > Of the ones who voted for it, 3 where appointed by Republicans (Pete
>> > Wilson and George Deukmejian), and one by a Democrat (Gray Davis).
>> > The ones oppssed where appointed by Republicans (Deukmejian, Wilson,
>> > and Schwarzenegger). Schwarzenegger's appointee stated that
>> > "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their
>> > unions marriages" but did not think the ban should be invalidated by
>> > the court.
>>
>> It's in the water. You can go to California a conservative and within
>> 3 years your left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
>
and the San Joaquin Valley? and much of Sacramento?
People don't realize how close the split between conservative and liberals
are in this state - and how comingled they are.... (Law-&-Order Liberals,
Socially-Minded Conservatives, etc)
HarryNadds
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:19 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 9:15 am, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:52:33 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:
> > > > convince my children that you fucking your boyfriend in the ass is
> > > > "normal". Do we need a "gay pride week"?
>
>
> > > > trailer next to you really loves his pet chicken? Can he marry said
> > > > chicken? If not, why not?
>
>
> > > > down from you wants 16 wives? Would that be a problem?? If yes why? If
> > > > your old pop-eyed daddy wants to marry your sister would you have a
> > > > problem with that? If yes why? Would it be any of your business?
>
> > > But as long as you're asking if it's any of my business - is it? What do
> > > *you* stand to lose if a guy marries his chicken? Or if a guy has sixteen
> > > wives?
>
> > > > not just go ahead and outlaw ALL morality and be done with it?
>
> > > peoples' rights.
>
>
> > > So tyranny of the majority is okay, as long as they agree with you? What
> > > if the people voted for slavery? Or to outlaw interracial marriage?
>
> > California did'nt want same sex marriage legalized is that "tyranny"??
>
> "Tyranny of the majority". See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
>
> Such a law negatively affects a class of citizens, and does so with no
> logical reason.
>
> The previous poster gave two other examples: freedom of slaves, and
> legalization of interracial marriage. In many jurisdictions,
> majorities would have prohibited these, and by doing so they would
> have prevented U.S. citizens from enjoying the same civil rights as
> everyone else.
>
> > So what does mean?? It's California FFS !!
>
> California produced Ronald Reagan, the most conservative POTUS ever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Every now and then a human is born without the defective" I wanna be a
California fruitcake" gene. Looks like Ronny did'nt have it thank
goodness or we would've had another Jimmuh Cottuh for President.
znuybv
You make my point. Same sex marriage is very complex. Much more
complex that the natural opposite sex marriage. It needs a lot of
rationalization to justify.
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 16, 1:53 am, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:31 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in
> > message
> > <news:d1ac5e80-6cb3-42e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
>
> > > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > Show me what law the judges made. Post the exact wording of the law that
> > was created when the judges made their decision.
>
> > You can't? Color me surprised.
>
> > --
> > place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not
> > scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I
> > cannot conceive that Mind, usually called "God," as totally mad. I mean,
> > guys, compare that "God" with the worst monsters you can think of -- Adolph
> > Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than
> > finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy
> > novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of
> > Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless
> > infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a
> > deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely
> > mathematical universe around us. If such a monster-God did exist, the sane
> > attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion.
> > Don't give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will
> > recover his wits some day. - Robert Anton Wilson, "Cheerful Reflections on
> > Death and Dying," Gnoware, February 1999
>
> the California Supreme Court admitted that same sex couples were
> afforded “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and
> privileges” as marriage. Since same-sex were not being denied basic
> legal rights, the issue boils down to social acceptance. To address
> this issue ''The court instead invented a 'right of same-sex couples
> to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity,
> respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially
> not a LEGAL issue.
The issue is a legal one. One group of people was being allowed
marriage, while another group was not allowed marriage.
> Where does the court get the authority to mandate
> social acceptance?
It doesn't, and of course it can't. It has the authority, however, to
make certain that citizens are treated equally, and what the court
found is that same-sex couples were being treated as second-class
citizens.
Emerson Wainwright
> > > > California ban on same-sex marriage struck down
>
> > > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
> > you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
>
> supposed to legislate NEIGHBOUR!
You're only claiming that they have legislated because you don't like
their decision. Applying fairness to all is not an act that is
reserved to the legislature.
KK
>> Yeah, now a gay is going to come marry you against your will. Hope he's a
>> catcher!
>
> let the people vote on it which is what we do in America.
Wrong.
We are *not* a pure democracy, we are a constitutional republic. That
means that a majority can't vote away someone else's rights.
That includes equal protection under the law, and not treating one group
of people differently than another based on a societal construct.
> Not allow
> judges to tell us how to live and what is moral.
How is allowing two gay guys to marry "telling us how to live"? It's the
opposite: *limiting* marriage to heteros *is* "telling us how to live".
> The people voted on
> this legislation in California and said no to gay marriage.
You've ignored the question about if it would be okay for the people in CA
to vote for a ban on interracial marriages.
KK
> .in this country we're allowed to have our own opinions
> just like the queers do...so if anyone doesn't like my opinion they
> can shove up their stretched out asshole.
Maybe talk to the other guy about editing down your posts - that way more
people will read your eloquent words.
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 16, 8:28 am, "tar~bal" <b...@wheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "idoido" <i...@do.you> wrote in message
>
> >news:g5up24hvjm53c46evflkgb6o9f5jvmla93@news...
>
>
Doomsaying: slippery slope fallacy. Your argument is fallacious and
logically invalid because you chose to throw this out here.
KK
> If they did, it would be against the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
> Constitution. And to get around that, we'll have to pass another amendment
> repealing the 14th.
Why don't states have to honor each others' concealed carry permits then?
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 16, 9:13 am, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:31:40 -0700, charley wrote:
>
> > > now i understand why judges are being terrorized in some
> > > places....they make whatever laws they please....so when harm comes to
> > > them they'll get no tears from me.
>
> > catcher!
>
> judges to tell us how to live and what is moral.
The judges did not tell YOU how to live, and they did not make a moral
judgment. Their decision is based on fairness for the citizens of
California.
> The people voted on
> this legislation in California and said no to gay marriage.
The state's constitution trumps legislated laws.
> the only
> way the liberals can win is through the courts
This court was made up of appointments by Republicans.
> and you know what,
> judges are asking and begging for trouble. in a few years as society
> continues on its downward spiral the judges will be the first these
> nutjobs come after.....wait and see.
You're on the losing team. The world is changing. America is simply
following suit and keeping up with the times. Eventually, same-sex
marriage will be legal nationwide, and in a couple of generations
people are going to wonder what the hell the big deal was.
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 16, 11:01 am, Emerson Wainwright
>
>
>
>
>
> <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 16, 10:24 am, "tar~bal" <b...@wheeze.net> wrote:
>
> > > "KK" <_...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:pan.2008.05.16....@furburger.net...
>
> > > >> court
>
>
> > > I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to lower the age of consent to
> > > 13.
>
> > Red herring. We are not discussing age of consent or even sexual
> > activity. We are discussing the right to marriage for adults.
>
> What's next? Do the majority of the rest of the states have to pass
> laws that say "married" gays from other states, like California,
> cannot exercise their marital rights (adoption, insurance benefits,
> property rights, etc.) within their borders?
What the hell are you talking about? Some states have affirmed that
people married in other states or countries have valid marriages per
state law. Some are refusing to grant this acceptance. Eventually,
gay marriage will be legal nationwide and the point will be moot. It
simply doesn't matter what a "majority of states" does in the long
run.
Emerson Wainwright
> On May 16, 11:16 am, Emerson Wainwright
>
> > Pedophilia is not illegal. Acting on the attraction, however, is.
>
> > Reason: children cannot provide informed consent.
>
> > That's not the case with two consenting adults, however.
>
> > Bringing things like pedophilia, polygamy and inter-species
> > relationships into the argument is just doomsaying, and makes you look
> > like a fool. In logic, this is a slippery slope fallacy, and any
> > conclusion you are trying to achieve is logically invalid because of
> > it.
>
> > Is this REALLY all you've got? If so, the advice would be to quit
> > wasting your keystrokes and maybe find a hobby.
>
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162008/news/regionalnews/gay_cop_in_per...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have cited the one newspaper in New York City that intelligent
people do not read.
Emerson Wainwright
> you cant argue with a fag.
And you actually wonder why "fags" want equality? You're a piece of
work, Madame. Seriously.
Emerson Wainwright
> On Friday 16 May 2008 12:53 pm charley <varric...@aol.com> wrote in message
> <news:99076b80-891f-4232...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>...
>
> >> Well, if you are a man of sufficient quality to attract a women for
> >> marriage and participate in creating and raising offspring, why would
> >> you care what two homosexual neighbours are doing.?
>
> > maybe in your country
>
> So in your country you're not allowed to attract women?
I suspect it's not the country he's in that prevents him from
attracting women.
HarryNadds
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:19:51 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:
>
> >> > If I remember correctly the people of California voted AGAINST same
> >> > sex marriage,
>
> >> So tyranny of the majority is okay, as long as they agree with you? What
> >> if the people voted for slavery? Or to outlaw interracial marriage?
>
> > California did'nt want same sex marriage legalized is that "tyranny"??
>
> I didn't say it *was* tyranny. But, one definition of 'tyranny' is 'use
> of absolute power', which is the use I intended.
>
> Your basis for objection is that "the people of california voted AGAINST
> it" - and my question to you was if the will of the majority justifies
> anything and everything they're willing to vote for.
>
> You haven't answered.
If someting is put before the american people to be voted on and
certain groups don't like the results of that vote they should'nt be
able to run to the nearest judge and have that law overturned.That's
the same thing LULAC and LaRaza do. The voters don't want millions of
illegal mexxkins overrunniing their cities so they pass laws that take
away the incentives for them to come there. The groups that support
illegal immigration take the cities to court after shopping for a
sympathetic judge and he overturns the law. Do you think that's fair
to the taxpayers?
Emerson Wainwright
What a man you are.
But it's interesting that you wouldn't care if an innocent 10-year-old
girl were molested by an adult (unless that girl were yours). Says a
lot about you. Nothing good.