FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[artist4perry]

Group hug? Oh fuck that! The beauty of MR is the uncensored content.


I think the people who are pissed about the reversal here are fucked in the head and just close minded motherfuckers. This is as simple as it gets, no offence brain dead republican/conservatives. Gays are equal as are their rights. Live with it, or get the fuck outta here. I am so sick of this shit. Get a fuckin clue people. Gays are American too, just as American as you.

I was kidding on the group hug Deano............God only knows where you have been!LOL! I think this argument has run it's course, and in the end, it does not matter to me what anyone votes on here. That is personal. But I do think mistreatment of anyone for stupid reasons is wrong. Except Deano.........everyone can torture Deano. He looks so cute when he is all passed out and everything.................just like a naughty puppy with your torn slipper in his mouth, you gotta love that mug! LOL!

[BobbyinTN]

Have a look at this chart. It's pretty funny, and telling.

http://ilovecharts.tumblr.com/post/9127 ... dishliquid

[BobbyinTN]

And this man has the best explanation and best questions for those of you against equal marriage.

Pay attention to him, even if you don't like him.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3902569?fr=yvmtf

[BobbyinTN]

Sorry, the judge is a conservative. He was gonna be appointed by Ronald Reagan but Reagan thought he was too conservative. That should be a republicans wet dream.

I don't give a rip if he's conservative or not.

By your logic, the entire Supreme Court would have to recues themselves each time a partisan case came before them.
We have judges for a reason and that reason was perfectly displayed when Judge Vaughn Walker decided that treated anyone unfairly under the law was discriminatory and unconstitutional, that he happens to be a homosexual has nothing to do with what is just and right.

I'd be suspicious if I found out any judge might have had reason to be biased against one side or the other in any kind of case. Sorry but you're wrong on this one.

No, I'm not wrong.
The man judged the case fairly.
Think of it like this, should the republican judges on the SCOTUS have recused themselves when it came time to rule in the Bush v. Gore presidency?

You really don't know what you're talking about. Judges aren't supposed to be "fair". They're supposed to be Constitutional. Judges aren't republican or democrat....they're either originalists or activists. This clown is an activist. That's why he wanted cameras in the courtroom. To show the world this wonderful "action" he just took......outside of the Constitution.

ROTFLMFAO!! "originalists" or "activists"! Really, then why did republicans bitch and moan when Sotomayor was appointed or more recently Kagan? Why do Presidents even bother to appoint Supreme Court Justices. Face it guys, the only time you get pissed off and call a judge an "activist" is when they rule the opposite of what you think they should rule. Judges are there to make sure every is treated equally and fairly and that judge was sticking to the Constitution. If you don't realize that, reread it.

Keep laughing you fool! Now read this and try to remember it next time you have this debate so you don't sound like a complete nimrod! Repeat after me....THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT APPOINT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES....HE NOMINATES THEM!
Here's some more education for you to chew on. When voters in Mass. voted gay marriage into law. Where were all the right wingers, their lawyers to file suit to block the law from taking effect? They didn't, It was put on a ballot, it passed and it was left alone.
The people of California do not want it. Why can't you afford them the same luxury? It's not the gay agenda that people oppose...It's the TYRANNY that is being inflicted on us!

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

[BobbyinTN]

Group hug? Oh fuck that! The beauty of MR is the uncensored content.


I think the people who are pissed about the reversal here are fucked in the head and just close minded motherfuckers. This is as simple as it gets, no offence brain dead republican/conservatives. Gays are equal as are their rights. Live with it, or get the fuck outta here. I am so sick of this shit. Get a fuckin clue people. Gays are American too, just as American as you.

Deano, I think there's a song in there somewhere. LOL I agree with and I thank you for understanding what it's really all about.

[Saint John]

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

Constitutionally, yes. And it's not tyranny. The people of California are free to move to Massachusetts or anywhere else where it is supported. But we have to honor that vote or we'll slip into anarchy.

[BobbyinTN]

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

Constitutionally, yes. And it's not tyranny. The people of California are free to move to Massachusetts or anywhere else where it is supported. But we have to honor that vote or we'll slip into anarchy.

No man, we don't. If we "honored" that vote, why not honor the votes of those people who believed Blacks should remain slaves and should never marry each other or a person of another race?

It's a slippery slope, but letting people vote on other people is simply not right. I can't understand how you would think it is. It's truly is Un-Constitutional.

(now do I have to put a disclaimer every time I give an opinion to let people know I'm not mad, not saying it in anger and simply standing up for what I believe is right, or is everyone happy now? LOL)

[StevePerryHair]

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

Constitutionally, yes. And it's not tyranny. The people of California are free to move to Massachusetts or anywhere else where it is supported. But we have to honor that vote or we'll slip into anarchy.

No man, we don't. If we "honored" that vote, why not honor the votes of those people who believed Blacks should remain slaves and should never marry each other or a person of another race?

It's a slippery slope, but letting people vote on other people is simply not right. I can't understand how you would think it is. It's truly is Un-Constitutional.

(now do I have to put a disclaimer every time I give an opinion to let people know I'm not mad, not saying it in anger and simply standing up for what I believe is right, or is everyone happy now? LOL)

yes, bobby, much better

[BobbyinTN]

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

Constitutionally, yes. And it's not tyranny. The people of California are free to move to Massachusetts or anywhere else where it is supported. But we have to honor that vote or we'll slip into anarchy.

No man, we don't. If we "honored" that vote, why not honor the votes of those people who believed Blacks should remain slaves and should never marry each other or a person of another race?

It's a slippery slope, but letting people vote on other people is simply not right. I can't understand how you would think it is. It's truly is Un-Constitutional.

(now do I have to put a disclaimer every time I give an opinion to let people know I'm not mad, not saying it in anger and simply standing up for what I believe is right, or is everyone happy now? LOL)

yes, bobby, much better

Thank ya!

[Saint John]

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

Constitutionally, yes. And it's not tyranny. The people of California are free to move to Massachusetts or anywhere else where it is supported. But we have to honor that vote or we'll slip into anarchy.

No man, we don't. If we "honored" that vote, why not honor the votes of those people who believed Blacks should remain slaves and should never marry each other or a person of another race?

It's a slippery slope, but letting people vote on other people is simply not right. I can't understand how you would think it is. It's truly is Un-Constitutional.

(now do I have to put a disclaimer every time I give an opinion to let people know I'm not mad, not saying it in anger and simply standing up for what I believe is right, or is everyone happy now? LOL)

Ok, let me play devil's advocate then (go figure, right? ). Let's say that all 50 states allow gay marriage and this infuriates some/most heterosexual couples, as gay couples seem to be now. And, because of that, they decide to change the name to "natural marriage" or "historically common marriage" (or something else) to differentiate from "marriage" since it now encompasses gay marriage, too. You're out in the cold again and we have to start all over. When is this shit gonna end, man? I say take the "civil union" compromise, everyone wins and we all move on.

[BobbyinTN]

So the tyranny of the majority and the bigots is better than doing what’s right and equal for all Americans?

Constitutionally, yes. And it's not tyranny. The people of California are free to move to Massachusetts or anywhere else where it is supported. But we have to honor that vote or we'll slip into anarchy.

No man, we don't. If we "honored" that vote, why not honor the votes of those people who believed Blacks should remain slaves and should never marry each other or a person of another race?

It's a slippery slope, but letting people vote on other people is simply not right. I can't understand how you would think it is. It's truly is Un-Constitutional.

(now do I have to put a disclaimer every time I give an opinion to let people know I'm not mad, not saying it in anger and simply standing up for what I believe is right, or is everyone happy now? LOL)

Ok, let me play devil's advocate then (go figure, right? ). Let's say that all 50 states allow gay marriage and this infuriates some/most heterosexual couples, as gay couples seem to be now. And, because of that, they decide to change the name to "natural marriage" or "historically common marriage" (or something else) to differentiate from "marriage" since it now encompasses gay marriage, too. You're out in the cold again and we have to start all over. When is this shit gonna end, man? I say take the "civil union" compromise, everyone wins and we all move on.

I’m sorry, but agreeing to be “second class” is just not acceptable.

I wish you’d watch the Keith Olberman piece. He brings up the “definition” thing and how many times the definition of marriage has been changed.

And again, it’s only called “marriage” legally. If those who oppose it don’t want to recognize it, that’s cool, but the law must in order for everyone to be treated equally.

It’s about love and being able to commit to someone and have the benefits of marriage.

It will not and cannot affect anyone other than the people in the marriage.

I honestly think those who oppose it are simply scared of the “idea” and once they see nothing will change for them, they’ll be fine. Then again, there’ll always be bigots and haters who won’t agree with it, just as there are still people who thinks Blacks and Whites shouldn’t marry and religions shouldn’t mix and that someone is less because they are different.

[Saint John]

I’m sorry, but agreeing to be “second class” is just not acceptable.

If you're afforded the exact sames rights, how is that unacceptable? And I think there should be a different (albeit non-disparaging) title because, like it or not, it is different. No one is denying that love exists. I think the whole "movement" is being sidetracked by what they deem "tyranny" or whatever else you want to call it, but if you're afforded the exact same rights under some different, but non-disparaging, title, I don't see the problem. Seems to me that this should be about the rights and the fact that, while people can (and probably will) continue to think of you what they want, it's what you think of yourself and what others that you care about and love think of you, that matters most. But when you protest and try to ram this down the throats of Joe voter (no jokes please), you do yourself no favors.

[Angel]

Why are you wasting so much time on semantics, Dan? If you are in favor of a union, called something other than marriage, that is essentially the same thing as marriage-why does it matter if it's called "marriage" or not?

[Saint John]

Why are you wasting so much time on semantics, Dan? If you are in favor of a union, called something other than marriage, that is essentially the same thing as marriage-why does it matter if it's called "marriage" or not?

Pretty fucking simple, really. I'm "related" to my cousin and I'm also related to my aunt, but I'm related to both of them in different ways and that's why one is called "cousin" and one is called "aunt." But I don't see them screaming and kicking for the terms to be changed to be one and the same. When things are different we term them as such, and gay marriage is different ... period. That's not being derogatory or bigoted, it's being factual. I think that the belief of the vast majority of this world is that "marriage" is the union between a man and woman for the purposes of committment, procreation and family, and that vast majority wants it to stay that way. And please save the bullshit exceptions.

And it's logically arguable that if nature or a higher power wanted the gay lifestyle perpetuated that there would have been one instance of 2 men and/or 2 women reproducing, but I know of none. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, if this is about "rights," we should allow the exact same rights with a different, but respectful, term, have a giant group hug and call it a day.

[Angel]

Pretty fucking simple, really. I'm "related" to my cousin and I'm also related to my aunt, but I'm related to both of them in different ways and that's why one is called "cousin" and one is called "aunt." But I don't see them screaming and kicking for the terms to be changed to be one and the same.

I can't even respond to this because it makes no sense at all.

gay marriage is different ... period. That's not being derogatory or bigoted, it's being factual. I think that the belief of the vast majority of this world is that "marriage" is the union between a man and woman for the purposes of committment, procreation and family, and that vast majority wants it to stay that way. And please save the bullshit exceptions.

I agree with you right up to the very last sentence. Why do you label any beliefs besides those that are exactly like your as "bullshit?" You really do need to learn tolerance.

And it's logically arguable that if nature or a higher power wanted the gay lifestyle perpetuated that there would have been one instance of 2 men and/or 2 women reproducing, but I know of none. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure but stopping gay marriage is not going to stop people from being gay.

Again, if this is about "rights," we should allow the exact same rights with a different, but respectful, term, have a giant group hug and call it a day.

Not until you apologize for calling me a "notveryprettyface."

[Saint John]

No.

[BobbyinTN]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL

Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.

A few years ago I was all for civil unions or calling it anything as long as all the rights were there that heterosexual marriage afforded. Then one of our friend's partner died and the other was left in the cold because of the "similarity" to heterosexual marriage. I already told that story. I found out that every state that forbids gay marriage doesn't not have to honor civil unions and if marriage comes with federal benefits a civil union could be written so that it didn't come with those same benefits, making gay marriage even more "different".

The "civil unions" would have to be honored by every state and every state wasn't agreed. That's why the battle for marriage and marriage only started, because other people figured it out too.

Honestly, I want to know how equal marriage is gonna effect you personally.

[BobbyinTN]

Why are you wasting so much time on semantics, Dan? If you are in favor of a union, called something other than marriage, that is essentially the same thing as marriage-why does it matter if it's called "marriage" or not?

Pretty fucking simple, really. I'm "related" to my cousin and I'm also related to my aunt, but I'm related to both of them in different ways and that's why one is called "cousin" and one is called "aunt." But I don't see them screaming and kicking for the terms to be changed to be one and the same. When things are different we term them as such, and gay marriage is different ... period. That's not being derogatory or bigoted, it's being factual. I think that the belief of the vast majority of this world is that "marriage" is the union between a man and woman for the purposes of committment, procreation and family, and that vast majority wants it to stay that way. And please save the bullshit exceptions.

And it's logically arguable that if nature or a higher power wanted the gay lifestyle perpetuated that there would have been one instance of 2 men and/or 2 women reproducing, but I know of none. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, if this is about "rights," we should allow the exact same rights with a different, but respectful, term, have a giant group hug and call it a day.

Come on man, not every couple can reproduce, but if they are heterosexual they can still marry.

It is heterosexuals that create homosexuals in the first place. That's nature, pure and simple.

[Behshad]

It is different. Just like it's different that when you have a boy you call him son and when you have a girl you call her daughter. It's not putting either down. It's just a different way of labeling thing whilst they're equally human and equally your kids.

[BobbyinTN]

It is different. Just like it's different that when you have a boy you call him son and when you have a girl you call her daughter. It's not putting either down. It's just a different way of labeling thing whilst they're equally human and equally your kids.

But neither of those kids will be treated differently under the law simply because one is a boy and the other a girl.

[Behshad]

It is different. Just like it's different that when you have a boy you call him son and when you have a girl you call her daughter. It's not putting either down. It's just a different way of labeling thing whilst they're equally human and equally your kids.

But neither of those kids will be treated differently under the law simply because one is a boy and the other a girl.

Exactly. And neither would you and your partner of it's recognized as marriage but called civil union. Halleluja , you've seen the light

[BobbyinTN]

It is different. Just like it's different that when you have a boy you call him son and when you have a girl you call her daughter. It's not putting either down. It's just a different way of labeling thing whilst they're equally human and equally your kids.

But neither of those kids will be treated differently under the law simply because one is a boy and the other a girl.

Exactly. And neither would you and your partner of it's recognized as marriage but called civil union. Halleluja , you've seen the light

Nope, you missed the point. They could both be married in a MARRIAGE and not be treated differently or have different definitions put upon them simply because they are male and female.

Can't you guys see these are the same arguments they used against blacks and whites marrying?

[Angel]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL

Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.

Yes, but do you argue about which one of you left the toilet seat up???

[BobbyinTN]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL

Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.

Yes, but do you argue about which one of you left the toilet seat up???

LMAO!! Well, there are more than a few benefits.

[Angel]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL

Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.

Yes, but do you argue about which one of you left the toilet seat up???

LMAO!! Well, there are more than a few benefits.

Well, I'm sorry but there is no way your "relationship" can be called a "marriage" if you don't argue about that-we'll have to come up with another name for it.

[BobbyinTN]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL

Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.

Yes, but do you argue about which one of you left the toilet seat up???

LMAO!! Well, there are more than a few benefits.

Well, I'm sorry but there is no way your "relationship" can be called a "marriage" if you don't argue about that-we'll have to come up with another name for it.

Maybe The-Seat-Is-Always-Up Union?

[Angel]

Well there we have it SIAUU-Dan and B should be happy.

How are you going to propose? "Baby, I love you and I never want the seat to be down in my life-will you SIAUU me??"

[StevePerryHair]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL
Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.
A few years ago I was all for civil unions or calling it anything as long as all the rights were there that heterosexual marriage afforded. Then one of our friend's partner died and the other was left in the cold because of the "similarity" to heterosexual marriage. I already told that story. I found out that every state that forbids gay marriage doesn't not have to honor civil unions and if marriage comes with federal benefits a civil union could be written so that it didn't come with those same benefits, making gay marriage even more "different".

wow!! You BOTH have chores?? I think you might have it better than me!! seriously though, I want to make sure I'm understanding. Basically, the reason there is a push for a constitutional change in the definition of marriage is because civil union would not be a constitutional change. It would be a law defined and in place. If it's a federal law, states can override it, and it is highly unlikely all states would agree to civil union with all the legal provisions you need equally. so inequalities would still exist. With constitutional change, it can't vary? Another thing that confuses me. We can legally will our things to anyone want as long as we don't have a spouse. So how are families able to go in and just take everything? Is it just that the partner in the situation doesn't want to have to sue the family when this occurs? Or do these extended family members have rights in some states that override wills?




.[/quote]

[BobbyinTN]

But why is it different? Because two men or two women are in it? A rose by any other name...LOL
Seriously though, I think that's were the confusion starts. My relationship with my "partner" is no different from you and your wife. We clean the house, we each have our "chores", we work, we have people over for acrobatic stunt wrestling and high wire acts, (what?) LOL, and we love and respect each other. We've been together for almost 18 years, so there's not much sex involved anymore, and we are a committed couple who want to make sure the other is taken care of if something happens to one of us.
A few years ago I was all for civil unions or calling it anything as long as all the rights were there that heterosexual marriage afforded. Then one of our friend's partner died and the other was left in the cold because of the "similarity" to heterosexual marriage. I already told that story. I found out that every state that forbids gay marriage doesn't not have to honor civil unions and if marriage comes with federal benefits a civil union could be written so that it didn't come with those same benefits, making gay marriage even more "different".

wow!! You BOTH have chores?? I think you might have it better than me!! seriously though, I want to make sure I'm understanding. Basically, the reason there is a push for a constitutional change in the definition of marriage is because civil union would not be a constitutional change. It would be a law defined and in place. If it's a federal law, states can override it, and it is highly unlikely all states would agree to civil union with all the legal provisions you need equally. so inequalities would still exist. With constitutional change, it can't vary? Another thing that confuses me. We can legally will our things to anyone want as long as we don't have a spouse. So how are families able to go in and just take everything? Is it just that the partner in the situation doesn't want to have to sue the family when this occurs? Or do these extended family members have rights in some states that override wills?




.

[/quote]


Anything that resembles heterosexual marriage does not have to be honored in states with anti-gay marriage laws. When the wills are between two people of the same sex, a family member's lawyer can argue against it because of those laws. And states can't override federal laws. The Jim Crow laws come to mind in unfair measure as does the right to mix races.

[BobbyinTN]

I think Ted Olsen answers most of your questions perfectly.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/ ... ace-olson/