She has the balls for it!

Bo, what is YOUR problem with it? Do you feel Ellen threatens YOUR marriage? herm

"i still miss ann heche."

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

polyandry beckons

Ellen the classiest lez? I don't know about that but if she keeps her trap shut I'll be happy to take her for a walk on the other side. I really mean that.

Bo, what is YOUR problem with it?

No Herm, I just dont like it. It does threaten the very foundation of marriage in this nation. It is just wrong. It's my opinion.

"It does threaten the very foundation of marriage in this nation."

Can you explain yourself or not.

"It does threaten the very foundation of marriage in this nation."

there are far more important issues that threaten our very existence... who one wants to spend their life with is a non-issue.

all the best

Funny Boaz You being a black Man should appreciate that California has progressed instead of regressed back 200 Years ago. See the Same argument You use against Gay Marriage was used on Black folk. The bigotted whites claimed it would threatened the very foundation to what marriage was supposed to be. You know one White Man and one White Woman, Times change and people change and open their hearts and minds up. Love knows no gender Boaz.

Larry Mohr

I watched our local tv news tonight and they showed a bunch of gay people standing on the steps of City Hall in -- where else -- San Francisco all hugging and kissing each other because they are now going to be able to get married.

One thing that struck me funny was that 90% of the ones they showed thrilled about being married were only female couples.

Straight or gay -- it's not the guys who are the ones who want to walk down the aisle -- it's always the women.

" I just dont like it. It does threaten the very foundation of marriage in this nation. It is just wrong. It's my opinion."

You know, this is more honest than most rightie bullshit. It's what I heard so often from mid-level supervisors and petty officers: "No reason for it, it's just policy." I accept the not liking it, I cannot argue with the wrongness, since I don't define wrongness - and it surely is only opinion. But this does not conceivably threaten the very foundation of MY marriage. herm

Funny Boaz You being a black Man should appreciate

Wow, Larry! How bigoted and stereotypical is that statement? Just because someone is black, they have to behave lockstep with the liberal party on issues of marriage? I suppose you think they should obey all Democrat party lines, huh?

I never figured you to be so bigoted, Larry.

Good for them CalifChris. Aren't You happy for them?? Ain't love grand??

Larry Mohr

Boy Goatman doesn't appreciate History then I take it. The Statements that Boaz as espoused is the same exact ones whites used against blacks. IT'S NOT BIGOTTED TO POINT THIS OUT.

Larry Mohr

Boy Goatman doesn't appreciate History then I take it.

I appreciate history. I do not appreciate that someone expects a black man to be expected to believe a certain way because he was a benefactor to the Civil Rights movement.

WOW just WOW. Se expecting that someone that benefited from the Civil Rights movement shouln't be expected to appreciate that another minority is being treated equally and fairly makes Me a bigot huh?? Thats some fucked up shit right there,

Larry Mohr

Good for them CalifChris. Aren't You happy for them?? Ain't love grand??

Larry Mohr

Well, here's a scenario for you Larry --

Let's give it 5 years of "married" bliss between Ellen and her new "wife" (or would it be her new "husband" -- I get confused) and then say they decide to get a divorce. And let's say that Ellen having been caught up now in the "romance" of gays now being able to marry and she agreed not to have a pre-nuptual agreement drawn up beforehand. Let's see how "grand" Ellen (the one who made all the millions) thinks "love" will be then in our 50/50 community property state of California.

If Ellen doesn't get a pre-nup she's an idiot. Her "significant other" will probably now give her the old line "If you really love me you wouldn't even be thinking of divorce" or "How can you put a monetary amount on our marriage that is going to last forever" or "blah blah blah."

So, Larry, should Ellen demand a pre-nup? Or just get married "only for love" and consider nothing else? I'm probably more of a realist than you are.

Hey since many STRAIGHT couples go through this same exact thing it should be left upto Ellen and Her spouse. Oh and since Heterosexual first Marriages 50% of them end in divorce I don't see what the big deal is with Gays and Lesbians getting divorced either. Heteosexuals sure don't have the corner market on successful marriages these days.

Larry Mohr

PS I hope like hell that doesn't make me Prejudice against ANY marriage. Perish the thought. ROLLS EYES

I appreciate history. I do not appreciate that someone expects a black man to be expected to believe a certain way because he was a benefactor to the Civil Rights movement.

-- Goatman

Goat is entirely correct, Larry. What about women? They too were given rights they didn't have in previous times -- discrimination in housing, in jobs, obtaining credit, etc. Should all women now vote and think in lockstep with every other group considered as a "minority" group?

You are asking Boaz, a black man, to give up any religious beliefs he may have concerning whether or not gays should marry simply because he benefitted from the Civil Rights Act? Suppose he is Catholic or from a religious group that does not recognize gay marriage. Should he give up his religion in order to go along with every new "minority" cause? I think that's rather arrogant for you to demand a man give up his religious beliefs solely because you feel the color of his skin puts in a group considered to be a minority and therefore he should go along with every other minority's cause. Don't you believe in individual freedom of thought, speech, and belief?

He is free to believe any way He pleases just as I am free to declare that a minority person should at the very least appreciate another minority gaining equal footing in this here United States. Freedoms do work both ways CalifChris.

Larry Mohr

Oh and CalifChris how can one that benefitted from the Civil Rights Act disparage another minority for obtaining equal protection and equal rights in another venue?? This being Gay Marriage. True they are FREE to believe any way shape or form whatever they believe no one is trying to take that away from anyone.

Larry Mohr

Oh and another thing. How can You justify injecting someones religious beliefs into a State function?? Seems to me it is against the Church and State seperation.

Larry Mohr

Welp looks like that's done.

Larry Mohr

Ellen marrying Portia just is not right. Portia is way to hot for her. Heck, that DiRossi woman is hotter than fish oil. I like to boast and exaggerate about my conquests as much as the next guy, but I aint never tapped anything half as hot as Portia. Her hooking up with Ellen just is not right. Life's not fair.

Since I am already being persecuted for My words I might as do this right. I betcha Anita Bryant is having a Kaniption fit right about now. BWHAHAHAHAHAH wouldn't THAT be sweet.

Larry Mohr

Oh and another thing. How can You justify injecting someones religious beliefs into a State function?? Seems to me it is against the Church and State seperation.


Even as an agnostic/atheist, I have to acknowledge that the laws of the united states of america are based on some religious belief.

that doesn't mean that those who make and enforce the laws of the town, state and nation haven't picked and chosen which "commandments" they wish to enforce, but it is there non-the-less.

ask yourself a serious question.

why is it considered wrong for one person to kill another?

"(W)hy is it considered wrong for one person to kill another?"

Maybe we need a thread devoted to this. The haters seem to suggest that if it's wrong for one person to kill another, it must be wrong for one person to wed another. Okay, I'm the straight man here. What IS the difference? Should we base all American law on Leviticus? herm

Actually money (usually lack of it) and other financial problems are a bigger threat to the institution of marriage... based on reasons for divorce. I think the failed economic policies of the Bush administration will a bigger impact on marriages of the near future than anything Ellen will do. Not to mention the high divorce rate among military spouse due to extended troop deployment.

Just because someone is black, they have to behave lockstep with the liberal party on issues of marriage?

No. But it used to be a majority opinion in this country that interracial marriage was wrong and must be prevented to protect society. The same rhetoric being used against gay marriage was employed by moralistic busybodies who wanted to use the government to tell other adults how to marry.

I wonder how long it will last?

No. But it used to be a majority opinion in this country that interracial marriage was wrong and must be prevented to protect society. The same rhetoric being used against gay marriage was employed by moralistic busybodies who wanted to use the government to tell other adults how to marry.

I've never really weighed in on this subject, but I guess it's time.

I've always said I was for gay rights as far as inheritance, equal opportunity, etc. I however draw the line at gay marriage becuase that implies the right of adoption. Call me old fashioned, but if a child is raised by a spiritually united couple, I think that couple should be male and female. Same sex parents are too confusing an issue for a newly forming mind to have to grapple.

The difference between blacks' civil rights and gay marriage, rcade, is that the phrase in our DoI that states, "All men are created equal". That means blacks and whites have the same inherent rights and privileges in society. The founding fathers never specifically addressed marriage.

I know, I see it coming -- it will be argued that the concept of all men being equal means equal in the eyes of civil unions. Equal in all, but keep kids out of it.

Goatman-
And if the choice is between being shuffled around from foster home to foster home, being reared by the state, or being adopted by a loving gay couple?

BTW, same sex parents are confusing to you, and to a "newly forming mind" because of people like you.

"...Straight or gay -- it's not the guys who are the ones who want to walk down the aisle -- it's always the women....Posted by CalifChris"

CalifMoron: You are an ASS. I was there four years ago in SF marrying my MALE partner, with our MALE best Friends - who had been together for 20 years and also got married that day. There were hundreds of Male Couples getting married in those weeks. I WAS THERE. You weren't.

And we will be getting re-married again in 27 days. So what you are saying is nothing but a bunch of steaming shit! You live up to your new name: CalifMoron.

What the hell happened to you? You used to be pretty darn cool. Someone must've jacked your stash.

"Even as an agnostic/atheist, I have to acknowledge that the laws of the united states of america are based on some religious belief...Posted by Axiom"

There is a difference between being an Enlightened Atheist/Agnostic or a Moron! The United states is in NO WAY founded on, or Run by religious values.

Google the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed by John Adams in Tripoli! You might learn something Axiom. Before I actually add you to my Moron List Official, I'll give you a chance to Recant.

"that doesn't mean that those who make and enforce the laws..haven't picked and chosen which "commandments" they wish to enforce, but it is there non-the-less..."

Okay. I was wrong. You ARE a moron:

COMMANDMENTS: Number One: "Thou Shalt Not Have Any God But I"

AMERICA: Freedom Of Religion (Meaning you get to pick your god, or not).


COMMANDMENTS: "Do Not Make false Images or Engraven idols"

AMERICA: Let's sell Crucifixes and Statues of Jesus!

COMMANDMENTS: Thou Shalt Obeserve the Sabbath Day as Holy!

AMERICA: "Shit I have to go to work" (saturday? Sunday? - Which ever!)

COMMANDMENTS: Honor Thy Mother and father!

AMERICA: If you need Emancipation from your Parents, the court will provide as much!

COMMANDMENTS: You shall Not Kill/Murder

AMERICA: State Executions, highest murder rate of western civilization!

COMMANDMENTS: Thou Shalt Not steal!

AMERICA: George W. Bush. Haliburton.

COMMANDMENTS: Shall not covet Neighbor's Wife.

AMERICA: No Laws Against Adultery.

And so on.

IRONICALLY: There is NO COMMANDMENT against Homosexuality.

Funny that.

Now I didn' list them all, since a few are just repeats. but please list ONE of the TEN COMMANDMENTS that America uses as a point of Loaw or constitution.

Atheists/Agnostics will wait for your reply.

And if the choice is between being shuffled around from foster home to foster home, being reared by the state, or being adopted by a loving gay couple?


I knew this arguement was coming. I still reply, "Why are there only two choices?"

BTW, same sex parents are confusing to you, and to a "newly forming mind" because of people like you.

What a well reasoned, thought provoking retort. Just what I would expect from you, badweek

Same sex parents are too confusing an issue for a newly forming mind to have to grapple.
~Goat


I don't believe kids learn sexuality from there parents.

Love and affection and how it is appropriately shown, but not sex. At least in a household that cares about the kids and I don't think that discludes gay couples.

I don't believe kids learn sexuality from there parents.

Nor do I. But grasping the concept of homosexuality before being sexually mature one's self would be difficult I think.

Goatman-
You didn't answer my question about orphans.

Goatman:

You know in gerneral I respect you and your opinions. But it's time for you to take a step up the ladder:

BETELG has got it right. The FACTS from the historical evidence gathered in the past 40s years of 'Gay Parent Adoption' lead to conclusions that Gay parents are just as capable of rearing normalized children as straight couples AND in some cases surpass normalization in areas of tolerance teaching to their children. Their children also have a higher success rate of achieving in school.

We'll both agree (I hope) that for the most part the children who are thrown into foster homes and the system are NOT coming from Gay Couple Households. But from straights.

Does this mean that straights are unfit for parenting?

According to your reasoning, it would.

But that's not totally true: SOME STRAIGHT PARENTS are terrible parents and don't deserve to rear children. Not all GAY PARENTS are going to rear great kids either.

But for the majority of times and examples BOTH STRAIGHT PARENTS and GAY PARENTS make GREAT PARENTS and enlightened STATES know this. That is why Gay Adoption exists! Especially in California which is unbiased (unlike Florida) when it comes to interpreting the DATA from the historical casework.

Please, no NAMBLA-IZNG. In this case, I am worthy of a thought provoking response should you care to elicit one.

Goatman-
re: "But grasping the concept of homosexuality before being sexually mature one's self would be difficult I think."

Yes, "you think". The problem is yours, don't lay it off on children.

But grasping the concept of homosexuality before being sexually mature one's self would be difficult I think.


All I can remember of being a young teen thinking and talking about sex was that it Never involved any thought about what our parents did, or did not do. In fact I seem to recall it was assumed they didn't..

"Nor do I... But grasping the concept of homosexuality before being sexually mature one's self would be difficult I think. Posted by goatman


Okay, I knew when I was about 4 that I liked boys. I never stopped. Never had the urge to be with a woman. My parents (Straight) NEVER had anything 'gay' in our household - didn't know any gay people. and certainly in 1965 there was nothing on televison, or films that I could watch (as a 4 year-old) that could 'indoctrinate' me into Gay-hood.

so how do you account for that? As the majority of parents have been straight over the years...and they keep having gay children, the concept of having gay parents to mess up their sexuality is simple - wrong!

We gays grasp it, Goatman...We get it BEFORE someone tells us there are GAYS.

Zap-
re:" ... it Never involved any thought about what our parents did, or did not do."

Oh, God..that would've ruined the whole thing, LOL.

"the judges are activists and made up the right out of whole cloth--"

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-05-17 02:36 PM

I agree MURPHY.

However, I am a bit surprised that there isn't more outrage at what has happened here. If I remember correctly, the people of California voted against gay marriage. What's the use of voting anymore when activist judges can subvert the will of the people? The action of this court is abominable.

R4Ever-
The judges did what Judges in California (and every state) are supposed to do - they ruled on the constitutionality of the legislation, which they did appropriately. The citizens of CA are quite free to change their constitution, but this bullshit of screaming "activist judges" only when you get a ruling you don't like is simply tiresome, not to mention starkly hypocritical.

I am worthy of a thought provoking response should you care to elicit one.

Indeed you are as you produced one yourself.

I too respect your opinion and think that you as a gay man should have all the rights of inheritance, insurance on mate's policy, etc. You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person with whom I would have no qualms about sitting down and having a beer with. Your sexual orientation does not bother me a bit and if we had that beer I would not be worried that you would hit on me.

The child thing though. I don't know how to put it into words. I guess it is best described as (please don't get offended, these words are the best I can do) the "creepy factor". I don't care what you do, but I have to admit I cringed on a retort you made the other day talking about riding the meat burrito. Yes, yes, I know you have as much a right to talk about that as the others (myself included) talk about their sexual escapades. But it's still creepy.

But back on the subject, it is the "creepy factor" that comes to mind when I think of a young child seeing his same sex parents retire to the same bedroom every night. I've no doubt at all that a gay couple can be as loving as a straight couple. I'm sure many would be much more loving. If there were only two choices as betelg put out, the gay couple would be preferable. But if there were three choices and all else being equal, I still think the heterosexual couple would be the best choice for the child.

REPUBLIC_MORON-4EVER:

A) the people's vote on Prop 22 wasn't about public policy, it was about eliminating the rights of a class or group of people who are guarenteed the same DUE PROCESS and EQUALL RIGHT AND ACCESS to the institutions of Government. And therfore Prop 22 was ILLEGAL.

Sorry you don't like it. You can go cry on a pony.

b)People have traditionally voted to restrict the rights of others throughout American history and it has been voided by COURTS. That's why blacks have a vote. That's why women have a vote. That's why Chinese can marry mexicans. That's why gays can now marry.

Sorry you don't like it. You can go cry on Barbara Bush's Lap.

c) Activist Judges made it up out of Whole Cloth? Sorry, they were elected by Reagan and six of seven were Republicans. They have only BECOME activist Judges because YOU say so. Reagan would call them STRICT-CONSTITUTIONALISTS. They followed the California Constitution, not some lame-ass family code that was voted and approved by a tainted majority votership using personal animus against an unpopular group to vote.

Sorry you don't like it. You can go cry on your marriage license!

And do you really think the Republican-led Conservative Federal Supreme Court judges are going to act against the "Equal Right and Due Process" clauses in the US CONSTITUTION any differently than these judges?

You would be kidding yourself. But you ARE a republican and that is all you CAN do - Fool Yourself.

Sorry you don't like it. You can go cry on your Bible!

You didn't answer my question about orphans.

I answered it with another question: Why are there only those two choices?

In fact I seem to recall it was assumed they didn't..

LOL, zap. I know my parents are still virgins. *grin*

If I remember correctly, the people of California voted against gay marriage. What's the use of voting anymore when activist judges can subvert the will of the people? The action of this court is abominable.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2008-05-17 04:25 PM

Part of the rule of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a case in point.

Very cool, Goatman.

I used that 'MeatBurrito' example as a shocker to right-wingers that day who were using it as a shock attack as to why i shouldn't have the right to be married (because gay-sex is icky) So, in retrospect perhaps you'll find that my description was more the Power of the Written Word in respondant fashion rather than an attempt to give you a reason to be creeped-out.

Now on to that. Did you know that Hetero-Sex Creeps me out? Totally! Creeps a lot of us gay people out. I can't stand the thought of Cunnin----gus. Vaginal? Uggggggg. Talk about creepy.

The creep-out factor is NOT enough for me to want to limit straight people's ability to adopt and care for thrown-away children. It's not. In time you may or may not get over your 'creepy feeling.' And if you don't, that's fine. But one can't make policy on how creeped out one 'feels'.

We both know what's right for the kids IS a loving two-parent (and sometimes one parent) home. Real world Experience is showing us all that that concept is not limitted to a straight household.

so how do you account for that?

You were born gay, dumpling. I've no doubt of that. I'm not one of those whe things a gay person can change. I know I've never even come close to suggesting that.


As the majority of parents have been straight over the years...and they keep having gay children, the concept of having gay parents to mess up their sexuality is simple - wrong!

I did not mean to suggest that gay parents would mess up the sexuality of their kids. I simply maintain that it would be a difficult concept for them to grasp if they are in the 90% majority and are straight themselves. I don't think they would be "infected" with gayness. Nothing like that.

"...did not mean to suggest...I simply maintain that it would be a difficult concept for them to grasp if they are in the 90% majority and are straight themselves. I don't think they would be "infected" with gayness. Nothing like that."

Did you know that the majority (nearly 90%) of the kids leaving Gay parented households are Straight? It breaks down almost exactly as it does along social lines in the general population.

Like straights, caring Gay Parents are more than happy to adopt ANY child. But for the most part they adopt straight children who grow up to be... Straight.

The research shows for the most part that the only real 'effect' lasting in these adult 'gabies' is that they are more tolerant of gay people and bi-sexuals/transgenders when they leave home.

Now that's something to fly a rainbow flag for!

"What's the use of voting anymore when activist judges can subvert the will of the people?"

Didn't seem to bother y'all when it was Bush v Gore did it???
I think "get over it" would be my advice.

Oh - to the heart of your comment on the child's Concept of Grasping gay parents:

It's why, whether we like it or not, there have been books and material offered to parents and schools that deal with Gay Families - which exist.

The problem is that some feel they need to prevent that from 'infecting' their children with the concept that gays can be loving role models too.

And therein lies a majority of the white-noise surrounding the issue.

So come on Goatman and CalifChris what was it about My posts that were bigotted??

Larry Mohr

Part of the rule of the court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is a case in point.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-05-17 04:43 PM

I call BS here. Where is the oppressive power? If anything, it is being exerted by the judges to force the people of California to recognize gay marriage. In this case, it is tyranny of the minority.

Oh and FYI they are working on a way for 2 Lesbians to have the ability to create a human being without the very need for a Man. So how do You like them apples.

Larry Mohr

If anything, it is being exerted by the judges to force the people of California to recognize gay marriage.


LOL, "recognize gay marriage"?

Funny hats, rings of gold, Oh Legal rights.

Yea, them legal rights are a blatant insult to our rights to discriminate.

So there was a Tyranny of the Minority in Bush vs. Goree in 2000?

Because a lot of people didn't like that ruling either.

Republican4ever truly showning his Moron Gene to be working at excellent speeds!

"...FYI they are working on a way for 2 Lesbians to have the ability to create a human being without the very need for a Man."

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-05-17 05:14 PM

Two words come to mind. "Mission Impossible"

Male sperm cannot be overlooked. It is a vital component to human reproduction.

I call BS here. Where is the oppressive power? If anything, it is being exerted by the judges to force the people of California to recognize gay marriage. In this case, it is tyranny of the minority.

Just have to shake my head at individuals like this and their need and feelings that they need to control others.

Who cares if gays marry? Why is there even a concern? Selfconscious insecure people at their best I suppose.

"...Where is the oppressive power?...Posted by Republican4ever"

Look in the mirror, dickwad!

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.
--Edmund Burke

I just love R4E's ignorance. They will make a rudamentary "Sperm" out of stem cells from one of the Women's Spinal Cord and will implant it into the others ovum. Now what say You now R4E?? LMAO

Larry Mohr

to AXIOM:

A) Your laws that you cite are laws - NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS which is what Created and holds the United States. What you have cited is what some states have done and which have dissapeared over time. These people who govern their states are NOT the founding fathers. And have nothing to do with the constitution

The US is not founded on the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments do not Govern and Have not Governed the United States - EVER.

So, WROOOOOOOONG! BONK!

B) Citation from Constitution: At the time of the development of the US CONSTITUTION, the concept of 'Nature's God, and Natural Law' was a DIEST principle. God to the Diest was a process. These men used the language to SEPARATE the US CONSTITUTION for the Laws of England and it's Anthropomorphic Bible God and it's extension - the Anglican Church. but as you THINK that the US. is founded on the TEN COMMANDMENTS, it's not a surprise that you think the Jesus God is who Jefferson and Franklin et al were talking about. Where'd you learn that? In Church? Yeah? Figures!

These men were Masons and guys like Thomas Paine, Franklin and most importantly Jefferson wrote and Laughed at the pathetic christian religion.

So WROOOOONG! BONK.

But thanks for playing.

"So there was a Tyranny of the Minority in Bush vs. Goree in 2000?

Because a lot of people didn't like that ruling either.

Republican4ever truly showning his Moron Gene to be working at excellent speeds!"

Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2008-05-17 05:27 PM

I was expecting this retort. Had Gore won his home state, Florida would have been a non-factor. Even so, the Gore team was guilty of trying to change the definition of a vote after the election was over. It would be like the losing baseball team trying to count hits as runs.

R4Ever-
No matter how you spin it, the decision by the Supreme Court overruled the state, stopped the vote re-count and declared Bush the winner. But you celebrated that ruling because it was one with the outcome you wanted.

Any shrieking from you about "activist judges" is hypocritical crap.

It would be like the losing baseball team trying to count hits as runs.
~REPUBLICAN4EVER



Great analogy, God knows EVERY voter I know wants his Hits to be counted but certainly not the runs.

Regardless of the scoring they suit up for every election.

"Now what say You now R4E?? LMAO"

Larry Mohr

I say, good luck with that one. I can only hope that whatever life form that might be created is human.

I am making a giant effort to care,

who cares it's none of my business. leave them alone already. gays getting married has no direct or indirect harm to you or anyone else but themselves. lets be honest here divorce rate is at %60 for a reason.

I am making a giant effort to care. Meanwhile, I enjoy the semi-clever posters busily trying to out cute one another.

"...stopped the vote re-count..."

Posted by BetelG at 2008-05-17 05:46 PM

And rightly so. The Gore team was actively trying to redefine what constituted a vote after the election was over. Plus, Gore's selection of recounting only "Democrat heavy" counties wasn't fair at all. A statewide recount was done, and guess what? Gore still lost.

RePub4Ever:

So it WAS the Tyranny of the Minority, right? regardless of who stopped the vote, or who actually won or did not?

It was the Tyranny of a Minority of Judges.

Yes or No? Please answer.

"Yes or No? Please answer."

Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2008-05-17 06:01 PM

The correct answer is no. And here's why. Unlike the California case, the US Supreme Court judges were not activists.

US Supreme Court judges were not activists.
~REPUBLICAN4EVER


Warren Burger appreciates your opinion...

"...The correct answer is no... Unlike the California case, the US Supreme Court judges were not activists....Posted by Republican4ever"

Of Course they weren't! Because they ruled in a case who's outcome you favored! You'd call that Partisan Hackery!

The judges in the Bush Vs. Gore case were appointed by Republican Presidents and 5 of 9 (more?) were Republican.

The Judges in the California Case were appointed by Republican Govenors (including the FATHER of Modern republicans, Ronald Reagan - who's appointee wrote the ruling) and 6 of 7 are Republicans.

SO WHAT EXACTLY MAKES THEM ACTIVIST?

Oh yeah. They ruled in favor of a Case you DID'NT favor.

Beside being a gianormous moron, you are completely hypocritical

Should we put you on the re-wedding party list?

Thank God she's not with Rosie O'Donnell (not Ellen, the other girl). That would make me puke.... again.

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi,

Almost the perfect Lipstick Lesbians, Almost....

Any time those non thinkers on the Right hear a decision from any Court they disagree with it all about Liberal Judges who are being activist, well MORONS six out of the seven Judges that made up this decision were appointed by Conservative Republicians. Spin that you dumb fucks, just live with the fact that some time the Law may be different that your backward thinking....Another thing how is it that Ellen getting Married effects you??? If it is get a FUCKING LIFE!!!!

Thank God she's not with Rosie O'Donnell (not Ellen, the other girl). That would make me puke.... again.

Anyone, any gender and Rosie . . . . .

Anyone, any gender and Rosie . . . . .


Any Species...

Do your hands shake all the time? Veins on temple throbbing? Spittle coming out of the corners of your mouth? Left knee always jerking? You might have Celisaritis.

Try our new product, Celisidrine. Guaranteed to get you out from under the political umbrella that omninously casts its umbra on you. It also steers your little finger away from the caps lock key when it voluntarily flies in that direction. It will allow you to breathe through your nose in a normal fashion. Doctors will no longer have to wheel in the special sphygomometer whose lower limit is 450 over 310.

Call now. Operators are waiting

FF Goatman, even though I totally agree with celis!

Side Effects of Celisidrine include but are not limitted to: extreme fits of Passion, Kindness, tendancy to be ahead of the times. If you find yourself warmly embracing the matrimonial union of others, please remember to bring a nice gift.

In the advent of your death, please call your doctor immediately.

And in case of a retort containing more than 400 punctuation marks, contact your doctor immediately.

If you find yourself warmly embracing the matrimonial union of others, please remember to bring a nice gift.

LOL. So where are you registered, Dumpling?

"Bo, what is YOUR problem with it? Do you feel Ellen threatens YOUR marriage? herm"

" I just dont like it. It does threaten the very foundation of marriage in this nation. It is just wrong. It's my opinion."

What's your opinion on infidelity Boaz? How does THAT not threaten the very foundation of marriages in this nation? How is THAT not wrong? Or..is it just that it's ok for some people to threaten the institute of marriage and not others? And you get to decide who's "sin" is worse than your own?
I think people need to mind their own damn business and stop being so judgemental, criticizing others.

Especially when those who do that cricizing live in the most fragile of glass houses!

Lisa with a Snap!

LOL Zap!

I just get so tired of hearing how gay marriages threaten the founation marriage is built on, and then those same people think nothing of cheating spouses and refuse to acknowledge how THAT erodes that same foundation.

Hypocritical.

people think nothing of cheating spouses

Not my concern and not important, hypocritical or not gay marriage isn't a threat to anything or anyone.

Will someone tell me what is so great about being married. Are you so insecure that you have to get the approval of government for all your actions?

Lisa I must say I have to agree with you.
.45Cal

Especially when those who do that cricizing live in the most fragile of glass houses!

Posted by Lisa at 2008-05-17 07:37 PM | Reply

Lisa
All I can say about this is Hmmmmmmmmmm.
.45Cal

Especially when those who do that cricizing live in the most fragile of glass houses!

Posted by Lisa at 2008-05-17 07:37 PM | Reply

Lisa
All I can say about this is Hmmmmmmmmmm.
.45Cal

If you find yourself warmly embracing the matrimonial union of others, please remember to bring a nice gift.

Do you and your significant other plan to be married long enough to take a chance on someone sending you monogramed towels as a wedding gift? Hard to split monogramed towels up 50-50 after a divorce when the "wife" would usually go back to using the initial of his/her "maiden" name.

Of course, one can never go wrong with a wedding gift of a picture frame to display a wedding photo of the happy couple. Then one could always play it safe with giving the usual toaster or a Mr. Coffee machine. How about a gift certificate?

Will someone tell me what is so great about being married. Are you so insecure that you have to get the approval of government for all your actions?
~Snippy


I will for the moment put aside the wealth of insults that come to mind and leave you with this.

Snippy I feel sorry for ya, you have never been in head over heels love or you would understand. I truly hope someday you understand.

Your laws that you cite are laws - NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS which is what Created and holds the United States. What you have cited is what some states have done and which have dissapeared over time. These people who govern their states are NOT the founding fathers. And have nothing to do with the constitution


What do you think I'm talking about when I say local, state and national levels of government? Are you so thick that it didn't sink in when I typed it the first time? Or, more likely, you just skimmed over it looking for anything that would offend your sensibilities.

I'm not talking about the constitution. I think the constitution is pretty straight-forward when it lays things out.


At the time of the development of the US CONSTITUTION, the concept of 'Nature's God, and Natural Law' was a DIEST principle. God to the Diest was a process. These men used the language to SEPARATE the US CONSTITUTION for the Laws of England and it's Anthropomorphic Bible God and it's extension - the Anglican Church. but as you THINK that the US. is founded on the TEN COMMANDMENTS, it's not a surprise that you think the Jesus God is who Jefferson and Franklin et al were talking about. Where'd you learn that? In Church? Yeah? Figures!


You should learn your history. That is a quote from the Declaration of Independence. I bet you can guess who wrote that, can't you?

Here's a hint, he's in this sentence quoted from you.


These men were Masons and guys like Thomas Paine, Franklin and most importantly Jefferson wrote and Laughed at the pathetic christian religion.


Either way, your point is moot because I am not talking about the founding fathers at all and their vision for the United States. I think if we could ask them, we'd all find that we are way off the mark. You brought them up. I simply pointed out that you were in error. Typical lefty. So caught up in wanting to prove someone wrong, that you miss the real argument staring you in the face.

What is amazing to me is that gay parents (for the most part) have adopted, which means that they have gone through the most rigorous vetting that you can imagine, child protective services, DSS, home studies, you damn name it, they are vetted and they are passed as being "suitable" parents and for the most part they are usually exemplary. YET two hetrosexual idiots with the IQs of potted plants are allowed to get married (or not) screw, and produce a child and raise it with absolutely no vetting whatsoever. What the hell is up with THAT scenario? Personally I would rather have two gay dedicated and devoted parents raise a child, than the 4th grade at best educated hetrosexuals, living in a run down single-wide trailer who are allowed to breed with impunity and who then turn out the same level of intelligence offspring.

Spud didn't want to get into any hot water over copyright infringement.

LOL

Let's give it 5 years of "married" bliss between Ellen and her new "wife" (or would it be her new "husband" -- I get confused) and then say they decide to get a divorce.

Then that would put her ahead of, what? 90% of Hollywood?

Ellen and her new "wife" (or would it be her new "husband" -- I get confused)

She would refer to herself as wife or partner, I would guess.

If Ellen doesn't get a pre-nup she's an idiot.

Agreed. She's one of the richest women on television. Straight people love her. What's Portia been in lately?
He he.

I call BS here. Where is the oppressive power? If anything, it is being exerted by the judges to force the people of California to recognize gay marriage. In this case, it is tyranny of the minority.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2008-05-17 05:13 PM

Quite simple, people were denying them the right to marriage. The 14th amendment states the equal protection clause.

Let me ask you this, if the will of the people was that blacks couldn't marry whites, would you be OK with that, or would that be an example of the tyranny of the majority?

I just love watching women fuck each other.

I just love watching women fuck each other.

Joe,

I'm surprised you didn't go for the threesome...

The difference between blacks' civil rights and gay marriage, rcade, is that the phrase in our DoI that states, "All men are created equal". That means blacks and whites have the same inherent rights and privileges in society. The founding fathers never specifically addressed marriage.

The Declaration of Independence asserts that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights. Surely the right to marry is part of the pursuit of happiness.

"Surely the right to marry is part of the pursuit of happiness."

Posted by rcade at 2008-05-18 08:31 AM

I prefer Kinky's take: Something like, "Gays have the right to be just as miserable as everybody else."

Surely the right to marry is part of the pursuit of happiness.


Ahh, yea, Why of course it is . . .