RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 3:46:13 PM)
Which is exactly why so many politicians won't commit; I would much rather see a person say what they believe and stick by their words instead of waffling. Obama says he is for Prop 8; but won't commit to being "for" same sex marriages. I would say the same thing about a conservative as well, the party isn't as important as what the person believes - and is willing to defend their position. I have more respect for a person who takes a stand on an issue, then one just out vying for votes. I don't see how a person's personal belief isn't important. In Ohio, Judges in the general election are not allowed to designate their party affiliation, there is supposed to be a referendum on the ballot to do away with this law. What is ironic, in the primary they have to declare, in the general they are not allowed to declare. Like this makes sense how?

juliaoceania -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 3:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Has nothing to do with straddling a fence. His personal opinion vs his public one. The man is entitled to a personal opinion on issues, as long as he doesnt try and push them onto others. His personal opinion was made quite public by his campaign manager this morning. I can't recall his name. You mean his press secretary?

juliaoceania -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 3:51:15 PM)
quote: The votes of seven million Californians were negated today. It will come down to Justice Kennedy. After that it will come down to an Amendment. This is but a skirmish that had to be lost somewhere sometime. So if we had a vote to return to slavery, and the Supreme Court over ruled it, would that be negating our vote?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 3:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: The votes of seven million Californians were negated today. It will come down to Justice Kennedy. After that it will come down to an Amendment. This is but a skirmish that had to be lost somewhere sometime. So if we had a vote to return to slavery, and the Supreme Court over ruled it, would that be negating our vote? Exactly. There are a few people in this thread (and it's not at all surprising to see who those people are) who clearly have no concept of how our system of government works. Why do they hate our country so much?

juliaoceania -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 3:54:58 PM)
quote: Why do they hate our country so much? They hate us because we are beautiful...

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 3:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Why do they hate our country so much? They hate us because we are beautiful... And smart, too! Well, that's just you. They hate me because I'm on your side.

Jeffff -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 4:04:21 PM)
I have come to the conclusion that trucking is fucking with us. He never fired anyone for voting for Obama. He doesn't believe at least half the shit he posts. No one could be that thick. Kudos to him!

truckinslave -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 4:13:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff I have come to the conclusion that trucking is fucking with us. He never fired anyone for voting for Obama. He doesn't believe at least half the shit he posts. No one could be that thick. Kudos to him! Darn!!! You figured me out. But, I'm going to keep up the charade for a while, ok?

truckinslave -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 4:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: The votes of seven million Californians were negated today. It will come down to Justice Kennedy. After that it will come down to an Amendment. This is but a skirmish that had to be lost somewhere sometime. So if we had a vote to return to slavery, and the Supreme Court over ruled it, would that be negating our vote? If the court settled a voting dispute in favor of a Republican, would that be negating Dim votes, even if every subsequent recount validated the courts decision?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 4:29:17 PM)
What in the heck does that have to do with anything? This isn't a thread about voting irregularities.

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:04:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Why do they hate our country so much? They hate us because we are beautiful... This is probably a true statement where you are concerned...but I am quite sure "they" hate me for other reasons [:D]

thishereboi -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:04:55 PM)
quote: Ironic isn't it that it was California's minority voters that enacted Prop 8 in the first place... I thought you said it was the conservatives fault?

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: Ironic isn't it that it was California's minority voters that enacted Prop 8 in the first place... I thought you said it was the conservatives fault? Show me where I said it was conservative votes,and conservatives alone,which gave prop 8 it's majority. Conservatives,to be sure,drove the bus.....but minority voters ironically decided the iissue.

thishereboi -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:09:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: Ironic isn't it that it was California's minority voters that enacted Prop 8 in the first place... I thought you said it was the conservatives fault? Show me where I said it was conservative votes,and conservatives alone,which gave prop 8 it's majority. Conservatives,to be sure,drove the bus.....but minority voters ironically decided the iissue. Well I am conservative and I don't remember driving the bus, but if you say it's true, it must be[8\|]

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:11:30 PM)
There you go boi...take everything literal.....and fashion a response around it.How cute [:)]

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:21:50 PM)
I wish subrob would respond to my post...

thishereboi -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:24:54 PM)
Do you mean this one? quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Just where does it say homosexuals cannot get married again? A gay man has the exact same right to marry a lesbian female, as heterosexual couple does, they even get the same benefits, and tax breaks as heterosexuals do...Go figure. Nowhere that I'm aware of does it say you must actually love the person you're marrying in a civil marriage service. The 14th amendment is all about equal rights under the law, and as I see it, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and what they want is to be treated special, which is inequality. Actually, if you're gonna take this down to simply being a civil contract, denying a female to have that civil contract with another female BECAUSE she is female, is gender discrimination. Same for denying males to have THAT contact with another male BECAUSE he is male. How is expecting to given the equal right to form a civil contract without gender bias a "special" right? boi Maybe he just missed it? Yea, ok, maybe not[8D]

BoiJen -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:27:14 PM)
I was just hoping to have an actual debate on this in terms of the legal language. Oh well... Off to "celebrate!" the other boi lol

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:29:34 PM)
An "actual debate"....with subrob?Obviously you have started the celebration already !

subrob1967 -> RE: Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (8/5/2010 5:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen Actually, if you're gonna take this down to simply being a civil contract, denying a female to have that civil contract with another female BECAUSE she is female, is gender discrimination. Same for denying males to have THAT contact with another male BECAUSE he is male. How is expecting to given the equal right to form a civil contract without gender bias a "special" right? boi I'm sorry, I just don't see any discrimination here, you have the exact same right to marriage as I do, no more, no less. Just because YOU would like to marry another female, and can't doesn't change the fact that YOU can marry a male, just the same as I can marry any female, therefore, we have the exact same rights. Again, show me where the Constitution tells us a lesbian cannot marry a guy, because I'm just not seeing it. How can it be discrimination if a lesbian has the exact same rights as a heterosexual? And another thing, the Constitution does not guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875