..."The HITS just keep on COMING"..

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

California Supreme Court,...REVERSES ban on GAY Marraige.

"In a 4-3 opinion ..FROM THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Court"......................


WHOA......Whoa.....whoa,

My fellow Conservative "coolers" can NOT BLAME this on the liberal Democrats !!!

 

[delldude]

From Edgar Cayce...the sleeping prophet:

California and the Baja Peninsula will disappear during a series of intense earthquakes. San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara will be only a few of notable cities that will not exist afterwards. The Pacific Ocean will cover the western part of the US up to Arizona and Nebraska. Both will have ocean harbors towns.

 

[UAL_TECH]

California Supreme Court,...REVERSES ban on GAY Marraige.

"In a 4-3 opinion ..FROM THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Court"......................


WHOA......Whoa.....whoa,

My fellow Conservative "coolers" can NOT BLAME this on the liberal Democrats !!!

What is to blame?
R U Homophobic?

😛 UT

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

What is to blame?
R U Homophobic?

😛 UT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NICE TRY..."tech",

But your "effort" LACKS adhesive.
IT WON'T STICK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

😛 😛 😛

 

[Gilding the Lily]

California Supreme Court,...REVERSES ban on GAY Marraige.

"In a 4-3 opinion ..FROM THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Court"......................


WHOA......Whoa.....whoa,

My fellow Conservative "coolers" can NOT BLAME this on the liberal Democrats !!!

Regardless of your/my views on this issue, I think the dissent had it right:

"We should hesitate to use our authority to take one side in an ongoing political debate. The accommodation of disparate views is democracy’s essential challenge. Democracy is never more tested than when its citizens honestly disagree, based on deeply held beliefs. In such circumstances, the legislative process should be given leeway to work out the differences. It is inappropriate for the judiciary to interrupt that process and impose the views of its individual members, while the opinions of the people are still evolving."

 

[delldude]

What is to blame?
R U Homophobic?

😛 UT

I shudder to think what the 'sex fairy' would leave under ones pillow..... :blink:

 

[USAir757]

I, for one, think it is great news.

Although I do think that there still lies a problem in the terminoligy. We need two different terms to describe two different things:

1) Civil Union: a government recognized, legal union between two people of any sex where they will be entitled to equally enjoy the benefits of a legally joined couple. Any two people who wish to join into a civil union may do so, provided they are not already in a civil union with another individual, and they pay the court fee.
2) Marriage: a religious sacrament governed by the church or sect in which the marriage is carried out. No governmental control, recognization, oversight or benefits.

It is not our government's duty to define a religious agreement, and it is not the church's duty to define any legal agreement. If we can seperate the two, I believe everyone can walk away happy.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I shudder to think what the 'sex fairy' would leave under ones pillow..... :blink:

Possibilites are:

* Batteries
* First Aid Kit
* Penicillin

😛 UT

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I, for one, think it is great news.

Although I do think that there still lies a problem in the terminoligy. We need two different terms to describe two different things:

1) Civil Union: a government recognized, legal union between two people of any sex where they will be entitled to equally enjoy the benefits of a legally joined couple. Any two people who wish to join into a civil union may do so, provided they are not already in a civil union with another individual, and they pay the court fee.
2) Marriage: a religious sacrament governed by the church or sect in which the marriage is carried out. No governmental control, recognization, oversight or benefits.

It is not our government's duty to define a religious agreement, and it is not the church's duty to define any legal agreement. If we can seperate the two, I believe everyone can walk away happy.

USAir,

I have also agreed, for quite some time, that the gov't should have stayed out of a historically religious event. When the gov't started attaching benefits/rights to "marriage," they should have attached it to a contractual relationship or "union." Also, regulating such a union, should be -- and typically is -- the states' responsibility... not the feds.