Prop 8 over turned in CA

[Hackman]

Simply because I do not like the institution of marriage. I am agnostic and my wife is a recovering Catholic. Had civil union and marriage been the same we would have gladly gone the route of civil union. They were not. Legal unions work the same in theist and non-theist house holds.

Interesting how you chose this issue to latch on to instead of the fact that you were wrong about how a case get to the supreme court, you were wrong about unions and marriages being the same, you were wrong about unions being accepted in all states as well as a host of other issues. No, instead you are concerned why I was looking into a civil union with my wife instead of a marriage. I guess since facts seem to elude you, a trivial issue such as this is something more tangible to you.

Since you are unwilling or incapable of looking things up before you post here are a few links on the differences between marriage and civil unions.

NOW

About.com

About.com (second site)

Fact check

The Atlantic

I thought this was pretty interesting (funny as hell too).

Your just a wealth of information on every subject, like a good liberal always is. I don't have time to be parked in front of my computer in my Berkinstocks and hemp knickers throwing a keyboard fit all day like yourself. I have much more to do than argue for days on chat board with a self absorbed omnipotent libtard. But it is entertaining to watch you twist in the wind how the liberals, gays, "minority groups" have been so wronged.....such misery.

You don't like the institution of marriage? Wow that's good one. Why is that? Because it might contain some religion? I don't read lesbianlife.com or gaylife.com, no interest at all. I was wrong about how cases get to the Surpreme Court? I was speaking about the U.S. Surpreme Court in DC, not California. I must have forgot your a law professor also. Civil Unions are mostly the same, they both give benefits to individuals those who are in the contract. One is recognized by the bible and all states, and the other is not, must be that pesky man and women thing again. I guess you can pick it apart as the gay movement has done, and not accept the fact that the majority are against gay marriage, even the leftist's hero Nobama. That really has got to black mark on the progressive movement.

I don't keep track of which state accepts civil unions, your the twit that was whining about only seven states being on board. I never claimed it was accepted nation wide, show me where it did. Regardless, the gay movement is at fault for rejecting it.

You gotta stop putting words in people's mouth, another libtard trait.

 

[SparrowHawk]

First off, I don't know what a "Libtard" is?? Is it similar to a "ConTurd" in that one only posts the talking points of their particular political affiliation? Or is just name calling as a smoke screen when an POV or argument has no validity? Just checking as I'm not understanding.

Historically & Traditionally the word Marriage applied to a religious covenent between a man and a woman. During this time the Church held sway as to who did and did not get a divorce. A tradition and law that continues to this very day in many countries and in many minds here in the USA. This "Business model" if you will, has served society very well for centuries.

What was overshadowed by Religion years back was that Marriage always contained two components, One spiritual and one legal. If you remove the spiritual aspects what you are left with is a legal binding contract between two people. At this point it becomes basic tort law. Divorce from a legal standpoint is nothing more than breaking a simple contract, which while emotionally it can be a little "messy" it's still basic contract law.

Marriage is a religious covenant which is why social conservatives get there knickers in an absolute twist over "Gay Marriage". Frankly their argument from that perspective has a great deal of merit as I know of no organized religion that condones Homosexual behavior as part of their doctrine.

So now we fast forward to the COTUS. I've read it and NO WHERE do I see a prohibition against same sex marriages. In fact I don't even see marriage defined there. So if you buy into the words of Thomas Jefferson that "The Government that governs best, governs least" it would indicate that we should not even be debating this at the federal level as the role of the federal Government is to ensure the safety of its citizens and nothing more.

As usual Ron Paul nails it.

 

[Ms Tree]

Your just a wealth of information on every subject, like a good liberal always is. I don't have time to be parked in front of my computer in my Berkinstocks and hemp knickers throwing a keyboard fit all day like yourself. I have much more to do than argue for days on chat board with a self absorbed omnipotent libtard. But it is entertaining to watch you twist in the wind how the liberals, gays, "minority groups" have been so wronged.....such misery.

I try and educate my self on topics that affect this country so that I may make an informed decision and argue the issues intelligently. Obviously that is not something you have any concern about. You can hurl insults all day long, it will not change the ignorance of your arguments.

You don't like the institution of marriage? Wow that's good one. Why is that? Because it might contain some religion? I don't read lesbianlife.com or gaylife.com, no interest at all. I was wrong about how cases get to the Surpreme Court? I was speaking about the U.S. Surpreme Court in DC, not California. I must have forgot your a law professor also. Civil Unions are mostly the same, they both give benefits to individuals those who are in the contract. One is recognized by the bible and all states, and the other is not, must be that pesky man and women thing again. I guess you can pick it apart as the gay movement has done, and not accept the fact that the majority are against gay marriage, even the leftist's hero Nobama. That really has got to black mark on the progressive movement.

Well, at least you got that part right. It is obvious you read very little. If you want to learn about a topic, go to the source. Are you really that ignorant? The path to the SCOTUS is the same as that to the CA supreme court. It has to go through the appellate process. Once a case hit the state supreme court, they have to appeal the case in the federal appellate courts to the SCOTUS.

If you would actually take the time to read something on the issue you might learn something. Instead you just go off what you think you know or off talking points from who knows where and end up looking like a fool.

Had you read any of the links that I posted you would have found that civil unions and marriage have very little in common (which is why I cot married and not a civil union). It is being picked apart and it will be reversed. It is just a matter of time. There is nothing in the COTUS to support a ban on gay marriage. The majority of people in this country were against the Native Americans, Blacks, women and now gays. Gays will gain equal protection just as the other minorities have. You can either accept it or get run over by the bus that's headed your way.

I seriously doubt Obama is against gay marriage. A POTUS cannot come out in favor of it and hope to be elected. To many bigots in this country for that to happen.

I don't keep track of which state accepts civil unions, your the twit that was whining about only seven states being on board. I never claimed it was accepted nation wide, show me where it did. Regardless, the gay movement is at fault for rejecting it.

As I said gays have equal treatment....civil unions. But that's not good enough.

Claiming that they have equal treatment means that unions are the same as marriage and since marriage is accepted in all 50 states, that would necessitate that civil unions are as well. As proven, unions are not the same as marriage and unions are not accepted in all 50 states. Separate is not equal. Civil unions have been accepted in states that have allowed it (all 7 of them). It is not up to the gays to accept or reject anything as it is the states that pass the laws. Good grief. Try a little research will you. Since the benifits are not the same (not equal) why would they accept it as an alternative?

You gotta stop putting words in people's mouth, another libtard trait.

I have never put any words in your mouth. You have made a fool of your self all by your self.

 

[SparrowHawk]

This says it all

 

[delldude]

I never wanted this to get out but that's the source of all of my knowledge both real and physical.

 

[xUT]

This says it all

Yea, good source... Ron Paul from Brooklyn...

 

[leprechaun]

I think Hackman is actually Larry Craig. How's that "wide stance" working out for ya?

 

[Ms Tree]

Tenn law

As rewritten by a Senate floor amendment, the bill declares that "any instruction or materials made available or provided at or to a public elementary or middle school shall be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science."

I wonder if that means that any relationship that does not produce children is bad. I guess they are just talking about the gay ones. Heterosexual relationships that do not produce children are just fine.

Hopefully there will be a court challenge and it will be reversed. The bias and ignorance of the religious right seems to know no bounds.

In other news. Tenn. and their ignorance may have a hard time not teaching stuff that in short time will probably be perfectly legal in all 50 states.

Majority favor gay marriage

Ohhhhh Hackman. Better batten down the hatches. The gays are coming to get you

Fifty-three percent of Americans support making gay marriage legal, a Gallup poll showed on Friday, a marked reversal from just a year ago when an equal majority opposed same-sex matrimony.

The latest Gallup findings are in line with two earlier national polls this spring that show support for legally recognized gay marriage has, in recent months, gained a newfound majority among Americans.

In a sign of a generation gap, Gallup found 70 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 support gay marriage, compared to only 39 percent among those 55 and older.

The kids are the ones who will have the say especially as the older generation start dieing off. The kids are not afraid of gays.

 

[SparrowHawk]

A solution has arrived.

 

[Ms Tree]

I always liked Takei. Very funny video about a serious issue.

 

[Hackman]

First off, I don't know what a "Libtard" is?? Is it similar to a "ConTurd" in that one only posts the talking points of their particular political affiliation? Or is just name calling as a smoke screen when an POV or argument has no validity? Just checking as I'm not understanding.

Historically & Traditionally the word Marriage applied to a religious covenent between a man and a woman. During this time the Church held sway as to who did and did not get a divorce. A tradition and law that continues to this very day in many countries and in many minds here in the USA. This "Business model" if you will, has served society very well for centuries.

What was overshadowed by Religion years back was that Marriage always contained two components, One spiritual and one legal. If you remove the spiritual aspects what you are left with is a legal binding contract between two people. At this point it becomes basic tort law. Divorce from a legal standpoint is nothing more than breaking a simple contract, which while emotionally it can be a little "messy" it's still basic contract law.

Marriage is a religious covenant which is why social conservatives get there knickers in an absolute twist over "Gay Marriage". Frankly their argument from that perspective has a great deal of merit as I know of no organized religion that condones Homosexual behavior as part of their doctrine.

So now we fast forward to the COTUS. I've read it and NO WHERE do I see a prohibition against same sex marriages. In fact I don't even see marriage defined there. So if you buy into the words of Thomas Jefferson that "The Government that governs best, governs least" it would indicate that we should not even be debating this at the federal level as the role of the federal Government is to ensure the safety of its citizens and nothing more.

As usual Ron Paul nails it.

Here is an example of several nasty gay libtards, which means liberal retardation, or you agree with us, or we will throw a hissy fit. Assaulting an old lady....what a shame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIMtEePJKRo

I think my point has validity, and so does the majority of the voting public.

Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected president, mainly because of his weak stance in terrorists, my opinion of course. As I stated, if it's Nobama or Ron, then he gets my vote, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Hackman]

Sparrowhawk, here is another glaring example of a loud mouth libtard running her ignorant pie hole, in case you don't understand yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtkgoGY4Cm4

 

[Ms Tree]

So if I find a loud mouth right wing nut job can I state as you have that he/she speaks for all conservatives?

By the way since it seems you have not received the bulletin, 3.polls have now shown that a majority those polled favor marriage for gays.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I don't have an issue with INDIVIDUALS exercising their GOD GIVEN Freedom & Liberty in a way that I may not agree with. Popular views don't need to be defended, UNPOPULAR one's do!

Did you know that it's still illegal in 26 states to engage in oral sex, same sex or otherwise. Ponder that next time you're frolicking between the sheets with your partner.

The ONLY place in the bedroom government belongs is taxing condoms and other items such as sex toys and the like. The roll of government is to interfere as little as possible. Again Thomas Jefferson said it best.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

So now let's take that and adapt it to gays.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say They are GAY, or not GAY. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

It's pretty safe to say that one of the Founding Fathers was not a Libtard of a ConTurd, rather he was an American Patriot. Applying the wisdom of this man would go along way towards solving a great many of our ills today. Read and learn my friend.

 

[Hackman]

Tenn law



I wonder if that means that any relationship that does not produce children is bad. I guess they are just talking about the gay ones. Heterosexual relationships that do not produce children are just fine.

Hopefully there will be a court challenge and it will be reversed. The bias and ignorance of the religious right seems to know no bounds.

In other news. Tenn. and their ignorance may have a hard time not teaching stuff that in short time will probably be perfectly legal in all 50 states.

Majority favor gay marriage

Ohhhhh Hackman. Better batten down the hatches. The gays are coming to get you



The kids are the ones who will have the say especially as the older generation start dieing off. The kids are not afraid of gays.

Gays are coming for me aye? I guess I better find my crotchless pink boxers and some "Oh my lube" 🙄
Who's afraid of gays? Not me, I don't care if they want to "asphalt" each other. It's just that I'm not gonna see it, don't want to know about it, and I'm not gonna pay higher medical premiums if they get HIV. My friends and family don't want to see or hear about it either, and the majority feels the same way, like it or not. Hoping people will "die off" that have this opinion is wishful thinking, because the kids are taught the difference between right and wrong, good luck with that. Recently my friends 10 year old son was admonished for saying "that's so gay", and his excuse was "everyone says that mom". I guess he's is not seeing the gay lifestyle as something to admire. If the voters of this country change this mindset, then so be it, but posting meaningless polls, screaming at old ladies, and hoping for lawsuits to change opinions isn't going to get the job done. Hasn't worked yet.

In the big reality this subject is not even on the radar of the major issues facing us from around the world, and here in our own country. We have a President that threw Israel under the bus this week, and if they go down, we are in serious trouble here in the United States. The insane muslim radicals want to kill everyone of us, and I think gays might be at the top of the list according to Iran's crazy leaders. If only the muslim terrorists would stop trying to take over the world and killing everyone in it, your liberal rants about gay injustice might get some traction. But right now it's the least of our worries.

Please continue to twist off about it all you want, sit in front of your computer all day in your underwear, and scream about the voters of Tennessee and the "ignorant" lawmakers you hate until your blood vessels pop. Won't amount to a pile of fresh dog poop. :huh:

Gotta go....


BTW, I think Tenn has it right, the deviant gay lifestyle should not be taught in a public classroom at taxpayer expense. Good luck with the lawsuit. 😉