Judge Declares Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

[Bill O'Olberman]

Only Male and Female are Capable of Reflecting our Natural Design... EVER.

Some Heterosexual Couples are told they can't, but then do... Even having Mutiple Children.

The Standard is being Equiped to ProCreate, NOT Proving you can because Homosexuals can't get Society to Applaud their Chosen Deviation.

Homosexuals can NOT ProCreate... 100% of the Time... Ever.

The Natural Standard does NOT Need to be Adjusted in Law to Reflect what is NOT.

Homosexual Coupling is NOT Equal to Heterosexual Coupling.

It shouldn't be Outlawed or Punished, but Marriage doesn't Need to be Expanded Dishonestly to them, and Specifically to the Exclusion of other Devations.

Polygamists have More Right to Marriage than Homosexuals do, yet they are Denied.

Because we are NOT Animals...

At least MOST of us are Not.



peace...

A homosexual couples right to a government recognized marriage with the same benefits is equal to that of heterosexuals. Not being able to procrete and being able to procreate are not valid legal arguments. The fact is that homosexuals due process and equal protection rights are being infringed upon.

As far as polygamists go, marriage becomes a complete legal clusterfuck when you let multiple people marry. How many wives can one man have? How many husbands can a woman have? Can a man with multiple wives marry a woman with multiple husbands? etc etc. If someone dies, how is property, benefits, etc divided up between their spouses?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I say deregulate marriage and then make sodomy illegal. Sure you straights who enjoy the anal would have to be careful, but well CiricleJerk and his ilk would be out of luck.

Disagree. I think a persons liberty and privacy protections extend to their sexual activities (as long as both parties consent). I dont understand how those who supposedly support "limit government" could ever support such an intrusive government policy. Plus, that would mean no more legal blowjobs.

Read the Conversation, Hammerhead...

If Homosexuals can't Force themselves into Marriage, then Heterosexuals should have Restrictions put on them...

That's Basically what was being used as a Counter.

Yeah, that Constitution is a bitch.

Homosexuals don't Need "Marriage" for any other Reason than to Find a Validation that does NOT Exist on it's own.

Civil Unions are all that is Needed.



peace...

Homosexuals need a government recognized marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do.

Drawing from past precedent, though the circumstances were different, it has been deemed that "seperate but equal" government institutions are not substantively equal. Therefore, civil unions are not really an acceptable solution.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry bout that,


1. Another *libtard judge* screwing up America.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

The judge has struck a blow for state's rights! Hardly a "libtard" position.

Funny that you should see it as STRIKING states right and not PROTECTING individual rights! Which has priority? If we conservatives were to actually stick to our ideals then we would find that we should be APPLAUDING this ruling as it upholds the dearest thing to a conservative - individual rights!


It's all about perspective...

 

[mal]

Homosexuals need a government recognized marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do.

They do not...

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and only Heterosexuals are Capable of that Reflection.



peace...

 

[caela]

Homosexuals need a government recognized marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do.

They do not...

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and only Heterosexuals are Capable of that Reflection.



peace...

Marriage isn't a reflection of anything. It is a legal institution contract between two people giving each certain legal rights and protections . It sets up an easy line of inheritance and the division of property, grants the right to make medical decisions if your partner is incapable etc. It is also a religious ceremony that celebrates the legal contract.

Homosexuals should not be denied the right to enter into a legally binding contract with their chosen partner.

Churches of course can continue to choose not to bless those contracts just as they already choose to/or not to with homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

 

[mal]

Homosexuals need a government recognized marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do.

They do not...

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and only Heterosexuals are Capable of that Reflection.



peace...

Marriage isn't a reflection of anything. It is a legal institution contract between two people giving each certain legal rights and protections . It sets up an easy line of inheritance and the division of property, grants the right to make medical decisions if your partner is incapable etc. It is also a religious ceremony that celebrates the legal contract.

Homosexuals should not be denied the right to enter into a legally binding contract with their chosen partner.

Churches of course can continue to choose not to bless those contracts just as they already choose to/or not to with homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

Using your Logic, Siblings shouldn't be Denied either...



peace...

 

[editec]

They do not...

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and only Heterosexuals are Capable of that Reflection.



peace...

Marriage isn't a reflection of anything. It is a legal institution contract between two people giving each certain legal rights and protections . It sets up an easy line of inheritance and the division of property, grants the right to make medical decisions if your partner is incapable etc. It is also a religious ceremony that celebrates the legal contract.

Homosexuals should not be denied the right to enter into a legally binding contract with their chosen partner.

Churches of course can continue to choose not to bless those contracts just as they already choose to/or not to with homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

Using your Logic, Siblings shouldn't be Denied either...



peace...

Using her logic siblings should have the right to domestic partnerships.

That is true. Domestic partnerships have nothing to do with siblings procreating, though, does it?

Contractual Domestic partnerships (which some gay militants insist must be called marriage-- I don't) simply address the legal issus of inheritance and the division of property, and granting the right for domestic partners to make medical decisions if their partner is incapable, etc.

And so any two people should have the right to enter into those domestic contracts.

The WORD marriage is the source of this debate.

Personally I think the gay community is wrong to demand that word. But then too I think it silly for our society to call ANY domestic contract MARRIAGE.

But as to denying gays the right to enter into marriage-like domestic partnerships?

Denying them the EXACT same rights to domestic partnerships is just so obviously a violation of their civil rights.

This stupid debate mostly boils down to squabbling over the WORD.

 

[Yukon.]

Would Harry Dresan and his boyfriend Cornholio be denied ?

 

[mal]

Marriage isn't a reflection of anything. It is a legal institution contract between two people giving each certain legal rights and protections . It sets up an easy line of inheritance and the division of property, grants the right to make medical decisions if your partner is incapable etc. It is also a religious ceremony that celebrates the legal contract.

Homosexuals should not be denied the right to enter into a legally binding contract with their chosen partner.

Churches of course can continue to choose not to bless those contracts just as they already choose to/or not to with homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

Using your Logic, Siblings shouldn't be Denied either...



peace...

Using her logic siblings should have the right to domestic partnerships.

That is true. Domestic partnerships have nothing to do with siblings procreating, though, does it?

Contractual Domestic partnerships (which some gay militants insist must be called marriage-- I don't) simply address the legal issus of inheritance and the division of property, and granting the right for domestic partners to make medical decisions if their partner is incapable, etc.

And so any two people should have the right to enter into those domestic contracts.

The WORD marriage is the source of this debate.

Personally I think the gay community is wrong to demand that word. But then too I think it silly for our society to call ANY domestic contract MARRIAGE.

But as to denying gays the right to enter into marriage-like domestic partnerships?

Denying them the EXACT same rights to domestic partnerships is just so obviously a violation of their civil rights.

This stupid debate mostly boils down to squabbling over the WORD.

Words have Meanings...

And Marriage, like "Rights", has True Meaning.

I Support Civil Unions.



peace...

 

[Yukon.]

You people in the "land of the brave and home of the free" used to deny interracial marriage, now you attempt to deny homosexual marriage. You lost on the first and you will lose on the second.

Discrimination is NOT ACCEPTABLE in a free and democratic society like the USA is supposed to be?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Would Harry Dresan and his boyfriend Cornholio be denied ?

who is Harry DRESAN you stupid fuck?.....so you quit being a Priest because the Monsignor made you suck his dick instead of someone else?......didnt anyone tell you ....you gotta pay your dues dumbass.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You people in the "land of the brave and home of the free" used to deny interracial marriage, now you attempt to deny homosexual marriage. You lost on the first and you will lose on the second.

Discrimination is NOT ACCEPTABLE in a free and democratic society like the USA is supposed to be?

neither is Pedophilia....so why are you still for it?.....

 

[mal]

You people in the "land of the brave and home of the free" used to deny interracial marriage, now you attempt to deny homosexual marriage. You lost on the first and you will lose on the second.

Discrimination is NOT ACCEPTABLE in a free and democratic society like the USA is supposed to be?

A Black Woman and a White Man can Illustrate Natural Marriage of the Flesh...

It was Inherently Wrong to Restrict Marriage Based on Race...

Color of Skin did not and does NOT Hinder ProCreation.

And FUCK YOU for Assuming ANYTHING about those who are Against Expanding Marriage to Chosen Sexual Deviations.

Stop Insulting People of Color.



peace...

 

[DiveCon]

Would Harry Dresan and his boyfriend Cornholio be denied ?

who is Harry DRESAN you stupid fuck?.....so you quit being a Priest because the Monsignor made you suck his dick instead of someone else?......didnt anyone tell you ....you gotta pay your dues dumbass.....

dont let it bother you, Harry, he's just doing his usual projection

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuals need a government recognized marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do.

They do not...

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and only Heterosexuals are Capable of that Reflection.



peace...

Marriage isn't a reflection of anything. It is a legal institution contract between two people giving each certain legal rights and protections . It sets up an easy line of inheritance and the division of property, grants the right to make medical decisions if your partner is incapable etc. It is also a religious ceremony that celebrates the legal contract.

Homosexuals should not be denied the right to enter into a legally binding contract with their chosen partner.

Churches of course can continue to choose not to bless those contracts just as they already choose to/or not to with homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

True dat.

 

[mal]

They do not...

Marriage is a Reflection of what Creates us and only Heterosexuals are Capable of that Reflection.



peace...

Marriage isn't a reflection of anything. It is a legal institution contract between two people giving each certain legal rights and protections . It sets up an easy line of inheritance and the division of property, grants the right to make medical decisions if your partner is incapable etc. It is also a religious ceremony that celebrates the legal contract.

Homosexuals should not be denied the right to enter into a legally binding contract with their chosen partner.

Churches of course can continue to choose not to bless those contracts just as they already choose to/or not to with homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

True dat.

If only what you Felt was...

Not only is NOT Legally what it is... It's NOT Naturally either...

But hey, Blacks were once Considered Property and NOT Humans because of the Court, so maybe you will be Sucessful in having the Court doing something Unconstitutional again and Mandate that something is Equal to something it Naturally is NOT.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

I may not be awake yet...but did someone just say that freeing the slaves was unconstitutional?

 

[caela]

I may not be awake yet...but did someone just say that freeing the slaves was unconstitutional?

No. It was convoluted but it was meant to say that Gay Marriage would be Unconstitutional...I think.

Either way it's shit.

 

[FA_Q2]

I may not be awake yet...but did someone just say that freeing the slaves was unconstitutional?

Apparently you are not awake. He said the opposite, that the courts had claimed slavery WAS constitutional. Under that I can only assume that he is referring to the fact that the court does not always make the correct decision. BTW... I do not believe that the court ever ruled in that manner anyway. The court DID rule that separate but equal was constitutional at first and that is, in essence, the same point. Sometimes the court is pushed to make an incorrect ruling based on political and social pressures.

 

[bodecea]

I may not be awake yet...but did someone just say that freeing the slaves was unconstitutional?

Apparently you are not awake. He said the opposite, that the courts had claimed slavery WAS constitutional. Under that I can only assume that he is referring to the fact that the court does not always make the correct decision. BTW... I do not believe that the court ever ruled in that manner anyway. The court DID rule that separate but equal was constitutional at first and that is, in essence, the same point. Sometimes the court is pushed to make an incorrect ruling based on political and social pressures.

Who said the opposite?


BTW...the courts said that blacks were not citizens....(are you saying Chief Justice Taney was "pushed" based on political and social pressures?)