We're Getting Married!

[Statistikhengst]

Wrong.......

The "right" to pack fudge isn't in the Constitution. .....

the right to behead people is not in the Constitution, and yet, barbaric muslims try to do it. Sometimes, they suceed. Yes, indeed, Religion of peace. Spit. .....

 

[Pop23]

Regardless of my belief in your lifestyle, I am happy you found someone you feel deeply enough to share your life with

Here's hoping it's long and happy

Pop23

Your wording was honest and fair and kind. Big thumbs up to you, bro.

I find it difficult to wish bad on anyone. Love the lifestyle or not, everyone deserved someone they feel they can share a lifetime with. I will battle about politics, not about happiness.

Thanks for the kind words, we disagree more often than not, but on this I think we are in total agreement.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Regardless of my belief in your lifestyle, I am happy you found someone you feel deeply enough to share your life with

Here's hoping it's long and happy

Pop23

Your wording was honest and fair and kind. Big thumbs up to you, bro.

I find it difficult to wish bad on anyone. Love the lifestyle or not, everyone deserved someone they feel they can share a lifetime with. I will battle about politics, not about happiness.

Thanks for the kind words, we disagree more often than not, but on this I think we are in total agreement.

We agree about beautiful women.

 

[g5000]

Not honeymooning in Tehran by any chance?

View attachment 34694

You wish.

 

[Howey]

So Howie, did you set the date and place? The keys would be a nice setting

If we could afford the Keys we would have gone to NY long ago.

 

[blackhawk]

Eh whatever.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here is your wedding present. .....

hahahahahaha...

 

[bripat9643]

Florida will soon enter the 21st Century!

A U.S. appeals court panel ruled Wednesday that a judicial stay in Florida's federal gay-marriage case will expire Jan. 5, ensuring that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in the state the following day.

"This is a clear victory for us because it finds the harm is being done to the people, not the state," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which is representing same-sex couples from throughout Florida and gay-rights group SAVE, who sued to have out-of-state same-sex marriages recognized in the Sunshine State.

U.S. Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee ruled Aug. 21 that Florida's gay marriage ban, passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional. He stayed his decision while Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi appealed his decision, but said the stay would expire on Jan. 5.

 

[Howey]

WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS ?

just think, if you had longer dick you could **** yourself....., in fact.....

...... howey

Ask the mod who moved it dumbass.

@ westwall

 

[Howey]

STILL !!

there is no need for it to be in the politics forum.

Feel free to report it troll.

 

[Listening]

“U.S. Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee ruled Aug. 21 that Florida's gay marriage ban, passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional.”

Citizens' civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, the states have no authority to violate one's civil rights.

Who cares....it isn't a universally accepted right and is therefore not considered "constitutional".

Can't help that.

This is exactly why a good handful of the Found Fathers were wary of ever including a Bill of Rights in the first place. They knew future generations would foolishly interpret that only the rights specifically enumerated were rights to the exclusion of all others. It seems their fears were justified.

Like making stuff up ?

I am simply stating a fact.

If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.

Just because some judge says it......does not make it so.

The fact that some would like it to be that way is what the Founders were wary of.

Have a day.

I am sorry? What exactly am I making up again? Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were very wary of supporting a Bill of Rights for the exact same reasons I mentioned above.

The 9th Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The fact you don't believe court battles are not going on that concern constitutionally protected rights is quite shockingly ignorant on your part.

Somehow you seem to be wanting to say that marriage is a "civil right" (not that such things really exist). But just going with the idea that they are somehow assumed to exist....marriage isn't one of them.

Using the 9th in your argument does what for you ? Answer: Nothing. There is no list of rights retained by the people. That is the whole basis for the current discussion or argument (as the case may be). It is not a universally accepted, constitutionaly protected right.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. Court battles take place over whether or not something (such as porn) constitutes free speech.

Marriage is not in the same category.

You should be careful about accusing others of being ignorant when it is quit apparent you are pretty much in the dark yourself.

 

[mdk]

“U.S. Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee ruled Aug. 21 that Florida's gay marriage ban, passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional.”

Citizens' civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, the states have no authority to violate one's civil rights.

Who cares....it isn't a universally accepted right and is therefore not considered "constitutional".

Can't help that.

This is exactly why a good handful of the Found Fathers were wary of ever including a Bill of Rights in the first place. They knew future generations would foolishly interpret that only the rights specifically enumerated were rights to the exclusion of all others. It seems their fears were justified.

Like making stuff up ?

I am simply stating a fact.

If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.

Just because some judge says it......does not make it so.

The fact that some would like it to be that way is what the Founders were wary of.

Have a day.

I am sorry? What exactly am I making up again? Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were very wary of supporting a Bill of Rights for the exact same reasons I mentioned above.

The 9th Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The fact you don't believe court battles are not going on that concern constitutionally protected rights is quite shockingly ignorant on your part.

Somehow you seem to be wanting to say that marriage is a "civil right" (not that such things really exist). But just going with the idea that they are somehow assumed to exist....marriage isn't one of them.

Using the 9th in your argument does what for you ? Answer: Nothing. There is no list of rights retained by the people. That is the whole basis for the current discussion or argument (as the case may be). It is not a universally accepted, constitutionaly protected right.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. Court battles take place over whether or not something (such as porn) constitutes free speech.

Marriage is not in the same category.

You should be careful about accusing others of being ignorant when it is quit apparent you are pretty much in the dark yourself.

I never accused you of being ignorant. Funny enough though your own posts do that all by themselves.

Can you can claim all you wish that marriage isn't a right but countless legal scholars and precedents set by the courts disagree. They are on my side concerning this issue save a few courts. All you have his hand wringing and teeth gnashing. I wonder which holds more legal sway? lol

 

[Howey]

“U.S. Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee ruled Aug. 21 that Florida's gay marriage ban, passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional.”

Citizens' civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, the states have no authority to violate one's civil rights.

Who cares....it isn't a universally accepted right and is therefore not considered "constitutional".

Can't help that.

This is exactly why a good handful of the Found Fathers were wary of ever including a Bill of Rights in the first place. They knew future generations would foolishly interpret that only the rights specifically enumerated were rights to the exclusion of all others. It seems their fears were justified.

Like making stuff up ?

I am simply stating a fact.

If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.

Just because some judge says it......does not make it so.

The fact that some would like it to be that way is what the Founders were wary of.

Have a day.

I am sorry? What exactly am I making up again? Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were very wary of supporting a Bill of Rights for the exact same reasons I mentioned above.

The 9th Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The fact you don't believe court battles are not going on that concern constitutionally protected rights is quite shockingly ignorant on your part.

Somehow you seem to be wanting to say that marriage is a "civil right" (not that such things really exist). But just going with the idea that they are somehow assumed to exist....marriage isn't one of them.

Using the 9th in your argument does what for you ? Answer: Nothing. There is no list of rights retained by the people. That is the whole basis for the current discussion or argument (as the case may be). It is not a universally accepted, constitutionaly protected right.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. Court battles take place over whether or not something (such as porn) constitutes free speech.

Marriage is not in the same category.

You should be careful about accusing others of being ignorant when it is quit apparent you are pretty much in the dark yourself.

That's "quite", not "quit", ignoramus.

 

[Redfish]

Bill and Jim and Mary and Sue and Louise want to get married. they feel discriminated against because they share a mutual love. Why does this country discriminate against them but not against Joe and Tom or Jane and Donna?

You fools have opened the door to all forms of marriage. Gay marriage sets a legal precedent for all forms and combinations of marriage based on feeling discriminated against.

Its coming, get ready. I am sure the divorce lawyers are licking their chops to handle a multiple person divorce.

 

[Howey]

Bill and Jim and Mary and Sue and Louise want to get married. they feel discriminated against because they share a mutual love. Why does this country discriminate against them but not against Joe and Tom or Jane and Donna?

You fools have opened the door to all forms of marriage. Gay marriage sets a legal precedent for all forms and combinations of marriage based on feeling discriminated against.

Its coming, get ready. I am sure the divorce lawyers are licking their chops to handle a multiple person divorce.

Great news!

You'll be able to marry your palm!

 

[Derideo_Te]

All the best and I hope the two of you have a long and happy married life together.

 

[Listening]

Who cares....it isn't a universally accepted right and is therefore not considered "constitutional".

Can't help that.

This is exactly why a good handful of the Found Fathers were wary of ever including a Bill of Rights in the first place. They knew future generations would foolishly interpret that only the rights specifically enumerated were rights to the exclusion of all others. It seems their fears were justified.

Like making stuff up ?

I am simply stating a fact.

If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.

Just because some judge says it......does not make it so.

The fact that some would like it to be that way is what the Founders were wary of.

Have a day.

I am sorry? What exactly am I making up again? Quite a few of the Founding Fathers were very wary of supporting a Bill of Rights for the exact same reasons I mentioned above.

The 9th Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The fact you don't believe court battles are not going on that concern constitutionally protected rights is quite shockingly ignorant on your part.

Somehow you seem to be wanting to say that marriage is a "civil right" (not that such things really exist). But just going with the idea that they are somehow assumed to exist....marriage isn't one of them.

Using the 9th in your argument does what for you ? Answer: Nothing. There is no list of rights retained by the people. That is the whole basis for the current discussion or argument (as the case may be). It is not a universally accepted, constitutionaly protected right.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right. Court battles take place over whether or not something (such as porn) constitutes free speech.

Marriage is not in the same category.

You should be careful about accusing others of being ignorant when it is quit apparent you are pretty much in the dark yourself.

I never accused you of being ignorant. Funny enough though your own posts do that all by themselves.

Can you can claim all you wish that marriage isn't a right but countless legal scholars and precedents set by the courts disagree. They are on my side concerning this issue save a few courts. All you have his hand wringing and teeth gnashing. I wonder which holds more legal sway? lol

You didn't say "shockingly ignorant on your part" ? It's right there for everyone to see.

As for the rest. I don't need to claim anything beyond what I have already said. Marriage is not in the same category as other constitutionally protected rights.

Can't help that.

 

[birddog]

Congratulations to all the queers, but I still believe it should only be a "legal union," not a marriage.

 

[Political Junky]

 

[Conservative65]

Florida will soon enter the 21st Century!

A U.S. appeals court panel ruled Wednesday that a judicial stay in Florida's federal gay-marriage case will expire Jan. 5, ensuring that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in the state the following day.

"This is a clear victory for us because it finds the harm is being done to the people, not the state," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which is representing same-sex couples from throughout Florida and gay-rights group SAVE, who sued to have out-of-state same-sex marriages recognized in the Sunshine State.

U.S. Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee ruled Aug. 21 that Florida's gay marriage ban, passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional. He stayed his decision while Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi appealed his decision, but said the stay would expire on Jan. 5.

It will be just another State where dick suckers and carpet munchers will be told, despite it not being true, that their marriage is as normal as mine.