• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
The Constitution does not empower any court to repeal ... the rights, privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female, and their progeny as defined by thousands of years of custom and usage ...
Click to expand...

So wives are still the property of their husbands in your eyes? Should children produced out of wedlock have fewer rights? Should divorce be illegal?

In any event, you are wrong. The Constitution does exactly that.
 
sarge said:
As presented by NPR, this decision does not advance the cause of equality before the law as much as it might seem. According to the report (yesterday afternoon during my commute), the logic for the decision is that because Gays previously had the right to marry in California, the referendum stripped them of a right. Had there been no right for Gays to marry, then the constitutional amendment would not have violated the US Constitution. It is for this reason that the court's decision will not immediately impact the most of the rest of the country. Cold and disappointing, but I understand the logic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the decision was a narrow one, possibly as a deliberate attempt to avoid Supreme Court review. There's another thread on this in Current Events and Social Issues, and a quote from the Los Angeles Times about this.
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual married couples will produce children "naturally" when pigs fly.
Click to expand...
My mom had a hysterectomy after I was born. She's less capable of bearing children if she marry's another man than I would be if I married a woman.

Kinda weird that this procreation requirement applies only to gay people and never to straight people, right?

[Edit to add]

I worked with a coworker for years, really great guy, mid-40s. He had a 5-year-old daughter. Naturally, I asked why he and his wife waited so long to have kids. He said they actually tried to have kids for 12 years, but could never conceive, so they spent quite a bit of money for in vitro fertilization, which ultimately lead to them having a daughter. They could not produce children "naturally" either, so they fall back on the same steps that gay couples use to have children.

Kinda weird that requirement to have children naturally only applies to gay people never to straight people, right?

Nevermind all of that, having children has NEVER been recognized as a prerequisite to marry, never has been, never will be. In other words, how gay people have children is a red herring with zero relevance to their right to marry.
 
Last edited:
Ellen tells us what her values are.

Ellen DeGeneres Responds to Anti-Gay "One Million Moms" Group Regarding JC Penney Controversy



I share her values.
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual married couples will produce children "naturally" when pigs fly.
Click to expand...

Pink-Floyd-Pig.jpg
 
Brown said:
Link to a thread discussing related (and in some ways similar) issues in Iowa. The historical significance of the events in Iowa is notable. There was a political backlash and three sitting Iowa Supreme Court Justices were voted off the bench in 2010... but the ruling in which they joined is still in force.
Click to expand...

You would know better than I, but was there any judge in the state who ruled in any other way? I know the Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision, but I don't know about any lower court rulings. As far as I know, every judge who actually heard the Iowa gay marriage case could have ruled in favor of it. If that is true, then good luck finding a replacement that will change anything.
 
pgwenthold said:
You would know better than I, but was there any judge in the state who ruled in any other way? I know the Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision, but I don't know about any lower court rulings. As far as I know, every judge who actually heard the Iowa gay marriage case could have ruled in favor of it. If that is true, then good luck finding a replacement that will change anything.
Click to expand...
In Iowa, the only one to rule on the matter directly was Judge Hanson. Judge Hanson was up for retention in 2010, and he was retained (with over 60 percent approval, if I remember right; lower than usual, but still he was retained by a comfortable margin). Three members of the Iowa Supreme Court were removed, however, in a shameful display of childish petulance. Another member of the Court, Justice Wiggins (the Iowa Court does not break down along "liberal" or "conservative" lines, but Justice Wiggins's history as a plaintiffs' trial lawyer might cause some to call him "liberal"), is up for retention in 2012. At least one other district judge (who was retained in 2010) wrote a ruling that helped enforce the Iowa Supreme Court's decision. There is, as far as I know, no official dissent among the Iowa judiciary to the decision.
 
Robert Prey said:
The Constitution does not empower any court to repeal the Laws of Nature nor the rights, privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female, and their progeny as defined by thousands of years of custom and usage and the Laws of Nature as well.
Click to expand...

It does if it is the American Constitution you are talking about.

It is American Constitution and Civil Rights: 7

American Bigots: 0
 
Brown said:
I smell me another successful prediction:
Click to expand...

:D

Unabogie said:
It totally agree Robert! Look at what homosexuals did to Newt's first two marriages! They perverted them beyond belief!

And don't even get me started on what they did to Donald Trump's hair!
Click to expand...

And that Kardashian gal's marriage.

Robert Prey said:
Homosexual "marriage" is not a "right" but a perversion.
Click to expand...

And while you're battling the perversions and abominations, be sure to lead up the movements for anti-shellfish, anti-mixed fiber clothing, anti-shaving, anti-multiple crops in the same field, etc.

Robert Prey said:
The idea of same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron and a perversion of the word "marriage."
Click to expand...

You're right. Let's keep marriage Biblical!

4BWCh.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom