Stewart,
you forgot to tell him to “Get a grip”……lol

If it were only that easy.

From what I read, he hasn’t committed any crime. Now if he actually DID this, he might but I’m not even sure there. So turning him in wouldn’t work very well even if you do think he is an evil man.

Besides, it was obviously a joke.

Technically, it is conspiracy to commit murder…the last time I checked…. it is a felony. Not just for him, but also for those that agreed to it…..technically speaking of course.

Would you please stop making so much sense and excepting people for who they are!

Not the gay families I’ve seen. The daughters are all into sex at about 11-12 years old and do it if there is a slight suggestion that they are lesbian too. The boys grow up with a chip on their shoulders and generally end up in jail for fighting – if they don’t become gay at an early age themselves.

I wouldn’t call that a better family life at all.

I would think it has more to do with the quality of the people rather than their sexual preferences. Just like with heteros.

You may be right. But why do you assume gays are better quality?

So your argument joe is that because he doesnt spell check that his point is invalid?
Thanks for keeping to the topic at hand joe and your deep insight!

Well Joe blow, you understood him,so shut the — up.

What do you have when you have nuts on your wall? Walnuts!
What do you have when you have nuts on your chest? Chestnuts!
What do you have wheh you have nuts on your chin? Mouth fulla…!!!

Were you meaning “Joe blow” as a noun or a verb?!?

Just for you two morons,
The comment was about the name “pa judge”….if in fact he is a judge, the grammer and spelling would show that he is uneducated at best…as such…unfit to be a judge…obviously you two have never heard the word “sarcasim”…maybe you should look it up…learn a new word today.

Before you spout off…”sarcasm”.

Nice try! But you still didn’t get your nuts out of the fire.

The only “nuts” in the fire are you Libby Von Schtupes who have no respect for anyone that does not espouse your beliefs.
Tow your line…because you are all knowing and all seeing…I’ll bet you even have the Oil of Aphrodite and the Dust of the Grand Wazoo….while you’re at it….can you cure my asthma too?
You have to look beyond the end of your nose and your narrow mind…. to see the big picture.

Gay people don’t necessarily produce gay offspring. Cheesh! What century are you living in!

But according to polls, they are 11 times more likely to.

Then why do they use invitro fertilization?

Hey, Doc, are only those who disagree w/you malcontents?

No, only those who are talking trash about the United States of America.

How is talking about taking our country back from the libs trash? He wants to free this country from the cowards and traitors in Washington. Keep up the good fight!

I think a revolution would have happned a long time ago, but the government has controled so much of the news we receive and the amount of control is has taken with weapons that it would be alot harder than back in the day.

I think a revolution hasn’t happened is because most people are too intelligent to engage in that kind of thinking, let alone activity!

The very last thing I hope ever happens, make that one thing that I hope NEVER happens, is to see foreign soldiers wearing blue helmets patrolling the streets of the United States, enforcing THEIR version of peace on us. Then I will become an “insurgent”.

I’m just siting here smiling and sending love to you my friend. Am I supposed to be building a bunker to hide from the likes of you? You really do have a screw loose.

slickporsche:
We may have to have a revolution, but I hope not. I do expect most if not all the military to sit one out. However I’m also thinking that it is real handy right now for Oblama to have a war half way around the world so he can keep them out of our country.

I suspect any attempt to organize and lead a force to Washington would meet with resistance. But I do believe we would have the numbers on our side. I think they know it too.

Tell me, do you believe that they would hesitate for an instant in firing a nuke to obliterate such a move? I don’t. And they have the buttons. Take a city like Houston. 10,000,000+ people in and near Houston. Say a thousand armed men met there with the intention of going to Washington. I believe they would nuke Houston and wouldn’t let it bother them a bit. After all, those in Houston should have been smart enough to have stopped them first.

Further, I expect it to be an ariel burst to produce an EMP pulse to shut down all infrastructure in the immediate area – say at least a hundred miles across if not more. Then the news media can come racing in to record all the poor helpless people starving to death due to lack of food and water that they can’t bring in. I’m sure it would be a good object lesson on the rest of the country. Most people have less than a week’s worth of food at home and stores generally only stock two or three days’ worth of food. And if all the pumps are shut down, how long could you go without water?

“Don’t mess with us or we’ll punish you!”

Don’t you think our “enemies” in other countries would just love that and take advantage of a torn country? anybody with thoughts of revolution should give a thought to that fact.

Only until they determine we peons voted the right way!!
They allowed this question on the ballot…. in the bowl of Granola called California I’m sure they assumed this thing would get hammered!!

Oops!!

Didn’t come out the way they wanted so NOW it never should’ve been allowed in the first place!! Yes 1-man 1-vote isn’t on life-support yet… but it has developed a particularly nasty cough.

Doc,

You dno’t get it, a federal judge just took the vote away from 7 million Californians, it’s a states case not federal.

So the state should decide whether or not it’s own constitutional amendment is constitutional or not? Do you have any idea how frikking stupid that sounds?
State:…hey , is this constitutional?
State…yup…looks good to me.
Or maybe asking you local bank to investigate themselves…yup…we looked around…we found nothing wrong…take our word for it.
That is pricely why we have Federal judges…to make legal judgements on the constitutionality of laws and amendments passed by states.
I’ll just bet that you have a fox guarding your henhouse.

When we the people vote the way Liberals want us to vote, then we are wise & good. Otherwise we have a hissy-fit & the election results must be fixed by someone wiser than we are, got it?

Doc:
I certainly hope so!!

Hopefully their throwing in some lube so it doesn’t hurt so bad, or good, depending on your mood.

Well you know how all of these armchair lawyers are…they know everthing about the law and the Constitution…except the things that they don’t have a clue about, but that’s ok…they can make those things up as they go (based soley on their own opinion rather than facts).

Oh, but I bet you get a kick out of watching those two lesbians! :=) I think you people need a new country called “The Disunited States of America.”

Christ is LOVE!

Yeah, Christ IS love. But he also is to be the one making judgements come Judgement Day. Because he is lowe it doesn’t mean that he will automatically forgive everyone’s sins. He forgives sins IF YOU ASK HIM TO AND IF YOU DON’T CONTINUE TO SIN. That’s a big AND too. A real Christian, once forgiven, does his/her level best to not sin again although that is generally impossible. BUT (big BUT) he judges based on why you sinned. If you did it without thinking and made a mistake then you are likely forgiven. If you did it with full intent, I don’t think he is going to accept the excuse “But if you love me you HAVE to forgive me!” Try that on your spouse and see what happens.

I am AMAZED by your command of the English language & your quick wit in debating!

Rejoice Stewart, I found your medication.

Did we drink too much kool ade today, hmmm..?

Why don’t you just go back to your trailer park and give your sister/wife a big kiss. Or would that be your 1st cousin/wife? Your trash talk is soooooo laughable!

You are sounding a bit racist -

Sorry dude, but your wife just left my house a lot happier than with you. Since you think you know soooooo much about the subject, would you care to state your sources? If you do, I’ll look them up and if you are right, I’ll concede defeat. For being called a proud american, your overtones are a bit racial and lib to be called that.

“Marriage is two people making a pact before God and God does not ordain homosexual relations.”
Ok…so let God deal with them…is that such a difficult concept to fathom? Or did God appoint you to be his(or her) personl adjudicator of his law?
Each and every one of us will answer to God for our own sins on judgement day. Unless they are trying to force you into their bedrooms and sexual relationship, it shouldn’t concern you or me…it is soley their (your) sins that God will judge them (you) on.

Wow Joe,
Deep insight yet again!
How about you answer something of worth. If they gay community wants equal rights and we give them all the legal equality of a partnership with health benefits, surviorship, etc., but dont allow marriage. What would the big deal be? There are many people who just make vows to each other and never include God or the legal system because its just important for them to make that committment to each other. Is it just to piss people off or is it legal rights of partnership we are talking about.

How about….individual rights of supposedly sovereign citizens? You have no more right to impose your morality over me than I have to impose mine over you. I no no desire to impose my morals on anyone else, you on the other hand feel that you should do so… through the legal system and “democracy” (though the vote). The last time I checked, this nation was a Republic (with a democratic vote…to elect our representitives)….not a Democracy. All of us are granted certain inalienable rights “by the God of nature and natures law”. Maybe you should try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United (states) and the Federalist Papers, in order to understand the fundamental principals this nation was founded upon….and not your opinion as to how things should work.

And if you’re living as if there is no God then you better be praying that you’re right.

On that statement, we can agree.

I bet you believe that it was ok to keep “them darkies” out of restaurants and in the back of the bus. Sad.

You need to do some traveling and see the rest of the world. There are lots of different types of people and we share this lovely and precious planet that the Supreme Being created for ALL of us.

I agree Crystal. There was also a wedding photographer that was sued $7K because he did not want to photograph a gay wedding. Whatever happened to “we reserve the right to deny service to anyone”? As a former wedding videographer for 10 years, I soon learned you have to be choosey about your customers, or some of them will turn your business into a nightmare.

The Boy Scouts of America were kicked out of public meeting places because they omitted Homosexuals.

Homosexuals are a minority; and are protected as such under the law.

Blah, blah, blah, Bible, blah, blah, blah, God, blah, blah, blah, Bible, blah, blah, blah, God…………………………….

Be careful Karolyn. Your atheism is showing. Don’t attack the basic foundations of this country. Patriots don’t attack God and our founding fathers, they go buy their ways. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Being called proud american, you sure don’t sound like one. That’s coming from a patriot that has served this country for 20 years.

Proud and American! This country is great! You however, are questionable.

Keep up with the times Doc, it’s not 1865 it’s 2010 and your comment isn’t relevant!

I guess you like to believe there is no injustice in the world.

I agree with Doc’s point, which is the point of this particular forum. Having laws that exclude a segment of the population without any basis is just wrong.

You and Doc Sarvis still don’t get it do you? There is no discrimination when there’s no reason that gay people cannot marry. What’s “right and wrong” has to do with the BEHAVIORS and that is beside the point of this ruling. The definition of marriage for thousands of years is being changed here for what reason? To exert power over people. I will say this again, this is tyranny. If you don’t understand our nation’s founding and concepts like the “rule of law”, maybe you ought to think about going back to school.

Dagney
As I stated below; “They want to be treated the same under the law. Yes they can get married but there are many important issues under the law that they are excluded from.”

Doc:
Then get those issues resolves. They won’t be resolved if “marriage” is redefined. It just means you anger a large part of the population.

The War Between The States was fought because the “free” States wanted to force any new States being admitted to the Union to be “free”, or anti-slave. The Southern or “slave” States thought this was wrong. It should be up to the Territory applying for Statehood as to whether or not it would be “free” or “slave”. The institution of slavery was dying out slowly, & if the War had never happened slavery would not be in existence today, & we probably would not have the racial animosity we have, thanks to one side forcing their beliefs on the other at the point of a gun.

I guess you don’t believe in the Holocaust either.

The civil war wasn’t about slavery but states rights. There were still slaves in the North.

Cam:
I disagree about the reason the Civil War started. The South left the Union because the North insisted that states had no authority. Whatever the feds wanted was the law – and the South disagreed.

The NORTH went to war over the slave issue. The South did not. There were about 1200 slave owners at the start of the Civil War. Over 300,000 Southern men died due to the war. Do you honestly believe that those dead men really cared if 1200 men got rich on slave labor or not? No, they were upset because the North was telling them what they could and couldn’t do.

hose men died in an attempt to let the rich keep their slaves and were deluded by the rich slave owners in power that they were fighting for states rights. The rich Southern aristocracy manipulated their patriotism to fight to maintain the status quo of the plantation life style.

The same way Muslim mullahs delude patriotic followers of Islam to blow themselves up for Allah when what they are really doing is dying to enhance the power of the elite.

It’s the same in every war. The average man dies to help the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful.

I left a lot of dead friends in Viet Nam and now it’s a tourist attraction, we buy products from there, all is chummy between the two countries, but my friends are still dead and many others are permanently freaked out. We could have avoided that conflict and all those deaths if the ruling elite on both sides did what was right for the people and not their egos.

Doc, here is a true story from Tennessee in 1862-1863:

General Grant and Sherman were sitting under a big shade tree and they had a Confederate POW brought to them. The prisoner, a sergeant, stood in front of them and they began to ask him questions.

General Grant asked: “Why are you fighting this war, son? Do you own any slaves?”

The sergeant replied: “No, sir. No, sir. I don’t own any slaves, sir.”

General Sherman asked: “Really? Then are you fighting because you believe that a person has a right to own slaves?”

The sergeant replied: “No, sir. No, sir. I don’t believe that someone should own someone or force them to do something against their will, sir.”

General Grant finally asked: “Well, son, you don’t own any slaves. You don’t believe in owning slaves. Then why are you fighting against us?”

The sergeant turned and pointed and a group of soldiers nearby and said: “Because ya’ll is down here!”

The sergeant was fighting for his country, family, and we call that being a patriot. Most of the soldiers in the Confederate ranks were poor dirt farmers and small business owners. Some of them came from foreign countries. Thousands of them came from Canada alone to help the South fight for it’s freedom.

The main point for the North was preservation of the Union. Lincoln wanted to fight to free the slaves, but couldn’t do it. Why? Lincoln received many letters from soldiers lower ranking than sergeant, saying that if they are fighting to free the slaves, then they will pack up and go home. 90% of these soldiers would go home. If you were in a fight and had ten friends with you to fight another ten people, suddenly nine of them just go home, would you win that fight? Think about that hard. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Dagney says:

To exert power over people?…Is someone forcing you to marry a person of the same sex against your will? Is someone forcing you under threat to accept their beliefs? Are you being forced at gunpoint to to accept them and hang out with them?…hmmmm…I fail to see where anyone is exerting their power over you. Unless you are gay or lesbian, I fail to see where this affects you in any way shape or form. If you have a problem with G’s/L’s, don’t associate with them…that is your right. I would bet that if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone.

Doc Sarvis, do you have trouble comprehending English? Gays can already marry. This is about POWER, TYRANNY, and changing the definition of a word. When ONE JUDGE can overturn the votes of 7 MILLION, that is tyranny.

So if 7 million people voted to allow slavery they would be correct and the one person who said that is NOT RIGHT would be wrong? I know slavery is not the issue here but judging right and wrong is the issue.

To equate changing the definition of a word to slavery is an ignorant assertion. I’m sure people of color really appreciate your stance….NOT.

In the Dred Scott Case the Supreme Court upheld the LAW & ruled that slavery was legal, not that it was right. That is exactly what the courts are SUPPOSED to do, follow the law & not write it.

Homosexuals are not after POWER as you put it. They want to be treated the same under the law. Yes they can get married but there are many important issues under the law that they are excluded from.

Like WHAT? If they can have civil unions then they have all the rights of married heterosexuals, so why the big push to “marry”? It’s simply to spit in the face of the rest of the world.

When you are different you are treated different.

Despite what Doc says, the gay agenda is NOT about collecting all the civil rights that a married couple has. They can get that by convincing the government to give it to them.

What their real agenda is, is to convince everyone in the world that their lifestyle is just as good and acceptable as any married couple’s lifestyle is. And I can’t really see that happening despite what they want to do in courts to religions. A religion is decided by God as to what laws they obey – but the gays insist there is no God, only man.

What I really think is funny is the gay support of Islam. The only reason I would like to see Islam take over would be to see the looks on the faces of the gays who supported them when the Muslims come to execute them.

Bob says:
August 10, 2010 at 3:37 pm
When you are different you are treated different.

Collectivist? Resistance is futile…you will be assimilated! I suppose you would just as well throw out the Constituion and live under a “New World Order”…where you get privledges rather than having rights afforded to you by your creator? I kind of like being an individual..with my own thoughts and beliefs…not a Zombie that follows orders blindly.
Tomorrow’s dress shall be…pink shoes, green hair and a yellow plaid outfit..that is all…Violators will be shot on sight…sieg heil!

We are a nation of laws and do not reward those who exhibit immoral and unethical behavior.

This is actually the opposite of tyranny. Prop 8 is a laws of oppression. If one is a heterosexual homosapien person (we’re all homos), Prop 8 has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with their life.

One man’s opinion over the voices of 7 million is tyranny, not the opposite. You obviously are agreeing with the one man’s opinion. You, sir or madam, are a tyrant in waiting.

Dagney says:

7 million people’s “morality amendment” over basic “unalienable rights’ is tyranny.
Again, this is a Republic…not a Democracy… as some would have us believe.

Joe,
If a majority vote is “Tyranny” then there is a problem with the democratic system. “The majority rules.”

So, what type of government do you think we should have? Socialism/Communism where the Elite Rule? A monarchy where the King Rules? You can’t declare a majority vote a form of tyranny otherwise. Actually, all voting is a form of tyranny as far as the minority is concerned. And so is the reverse when the minority rules the majority. Does it make it right? Perhaps not; but freedom is safer when all have some of it than when only a few do.

Joe,
If a majority vote is “Tyranny” then there is a problem with the democratic system. “The majority rules.”
Uh..this is a Republic…not a Democracy….there is no majority rules in a Republic. The only thing that is Democratic in this nation…is the way with which we elect our representatives.

Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Joe:
I agree, it is a republic. But there is very little difference as long as the representatives listen and do what their constituents want them to do. One of our problems with our government is that our representatives go their own way as soon as they are elected and consider it an insult if we object to what they do. So it really doesn’t make any difference if it is a democracy or a republic when it comes to minorities, does it?

Doc,
Believe it or not…. I agree with you on this issue. Since we usually do not agree, I hope that I have not caused you any undue distress.

I’m fine, thanks.

Why is it that homosexuals always have to drag Black people down into their filth? We are not you.

What ARE you talking about? Slavery in this world has not been restricted to black people.

The point they were making is that black people were once considered by law a second class citizens. I consider all people equal. But since you choose to live a life of ignorance and closed mindedness, that’s far more filthy than anything you could say.

Agreed, I always remember the saying:
“Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open.”
Some of these people are going to hit the ground hard.

Blacks are not necessarily queer & vice versa. Ditto pedophiles, polygamists, Catholics, Baptists, or any other pigeon-hole compartment into which we put people. By the way, I am white, w/ancestry that includes Seminole Indian blood. Freed & runaway slaves in Southern GA &LA (Lower Alabama) often sought refuge w/them & were accepted into the tribe & intermarried w/them, so it’s possible this mutt has a dab of damn nera everything coursing through my veins.

On that same side of my family some possible kin from the early 1800′s were captured & enslaved by Cherokee Indians in TN. Slavery knows no bounds when it comes to either the slaver or the slave, skin color or religion, or any other exclusionary reason. There simply ain’t one. Slavery is still practiced today in AFRICA of all places, & other Middle Eastern countries that practice Muslim law. If you ain’t a slave, be vigilant in for whom you vote!

Excuse me? Do you just pull comments like that out of thin air (between your ears)? That would be considered infringment upon another persons rights. Consensual love between two adults is what we are discussing here…not child molesting.
Let’s consider that statiscally most child molesters are usually heterosexual males…or the recent rash of heterosexual female teachers accosting male students. Hmmmm, maybe we should ban all teahers and just home school our children. Or maybe you would perfer that our teachers espouse bigotry and hatred as part of their cirriculum? Get a grip on life and the disscussion at hand.
I am not a homosexual,nor do I agree with it morally. I do however agree that they have a basic right to choose to live their lives as they see fit…so long as they do not infringe upon the rights or force their views upon another human being.Everyone’s life choices are strictly between themselves and their creator.You do not answer to your creator for the sins of others.
Matt 7:2-5
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

The real problem here is that they don’t want to be morally responsible for themselves. They want everyone else to insist they are. So they want to train the youth to believe they are. (It also means an increase in possible lovers.) Marriage is considered moral; therefore they want to have gay marriages for the same reason.

Besides, everyone knows there is no God and that all religion is a myth. So what is the problem with changing it as desired?

Where did we gain the right to adjust there morals? I can only be responsible for my morals, just as are you the only one that may adjust yours. When we start adjusting one groups’ morals (through force of law), where does it end? Maybe next it will be your specific morals that are attacked. Since you have already stated that “they don’t want to be morally responsible for themselves” and that somehow we must help them…then you have given up your right to protest that your morals are now under attack. It is a very slippery slope we are on. Just an observation.
They came and took the local butcher away and I said nothing.
They came and took my neighbors away and I said nothing.
They came to take me away and there was no one left to speak for me.

I have no interest in adjusting their morals. As long as they do it privately, I don’t care. (I do pray for them, though.) But I don’t want them to try to adjust MY morals either! And that is what they are trying to do to me, my chruch, and my children.

Look in the mirror and read that verse. You might wake up from this kool ade induced sleep that you are having now.

Of course. Children are exposed to a lot worse things – like war and violence – and that coming from their own parents. I’ve known gay people who knew they were gay (as in knowing they were different and liked kids of the same sex) in grammar school and didn’t even know what it was. How do you explain that? These are older people who were never taught about homosexuality.

Well stated.

Alpha:
You are right. The only reason the government got involved is because they can tax it (called a “marriage license”.) They want more children so they give tax breaks to encourage it and encourage the civil part of it. Now they don’t want marriage, so they pay the single women to have children outside marriage.

Wow – Your name suits you!

That is where you are wrong. There is nothing immoral with being a certain color.
Morality is the key issue here and its a slippery slope when you start letting any kind of immorality in our legal or civil system. I have gay friends and they are really bent on their sexuality. This is no different than a pedifile who has a child fall in love with them. Just because they both agree to married does not mean its alright.

Being a different color is not immoral – you are born that way. Being gay is immoral because you choose to be gay. No one is FORCING you to be a gay, sexually active person. You can always be celibate if you don’t like women.

As I just wrote below, I know people in their 50s, 60s and older who knew they were gay when they were little. Where did that come from? It wasn’t taught to them! Do you think people choose to be something that is ridiculed and discriminated against. I sure wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. And there are more straight pedophiles than gay. Think about all the old men that love little girls. I would bet they are a larger group than gay pedophiles. You certainly hear a lot more about them.

THere are more straight pedifiles than gay pedifiles – but there are more straight people than gay people too. However there is a MUCH larger percentage of gay people who are pedifiles when compared againt all gay than there are Straight pedifiles when compared against straight people. Odd, isn’t it?

The origin of marriage comes out of the Bible. It was created by God and defined by God.

Wow!! I don’t believe I just read that!!
There’s only one group IMPOSING their views on everyone and it ain’t Christians. The tyrannical minority (<1% biologically based…. the rest merely doubling their chances of "gettin' lucky" on any given night) has/deserves the perks of marriage based on CA Union Laws. But that's not good enough….. we have to call it marriage?? NEVER!! Talk about IMPOSING!! The Bible, (actually a VERY good psychology book…. to achieve the BEST society and the OPTIMUM conditions to child rearing progressing to responsible adulthood) based on millenia of observation, created marriage for something a little bigger than "gettin' your yayas off". With… THEM… there is nothing bigger than that. AND once again the Godless KNOWS there's nothing more important in the universe than their "yayas" and them!!

You are right God did create us!!!!!!!!
But we still cant have nudist running around due to teenage drivers and car accidents.

Unless you live in Oregon where public nudity is allowed.

People in Oregon don’t tan…they rust….it only rains there 345 days a year 8)

It is dark ages thinking that all these things are bad? Or do you mean that they are bad and will never be made legal as they are making homosexualism? Or what?

Thank you! I appreciate that.

I guess all the steroids wore off.

And what if the judge were heterosexual? Could we then accuse him of being biased against gays? Neither can be proven to reap any benefit from the judgment. It’s not like he was a southern judge with major oil company holdings deciding whether deep water drilling should be allowed. There you can find a clear conflict of interest.

Don’t forget, judge Walker was a Bush 1 appointee who was chosen by Reagan. The only reason it took so long to seat him was that congress found him too conservative.

Hmmm..so if a Republican appointed fed judge being gay is enough to recuse himself from hearing the case…would that same analogy also not apply to a hetero judge?

Heterosexuals don’t have an agenda. When did you ever see any marching proclaiming that they are straight.

Actually , everyone on the planet has some agenda…..just saying.

That gives me an idea. Let’s have a Straight Pride parade.

I agree with you Palin12. Gays are not what our founding fathers wanted in this country and they won’t be allowed to enter heaven. Why don’t they just give up, because their immoral and unethical lifestyle will never be accepted in this country.

You’re the one who appears to be a moron! Your comments rarely sound as if it’s coming from someone with any brains. Is the 12 in your name your age?

Aha, a real tea bagger is here today.

tea bagging is a homosexual term. Are you calling someone who’s writing says he is hetro a homo?

What is tea bagging? Is that something like your overdose of ‘the koolaid’.

I guess I can’t really expect too much from someone with Palin in their name. You probably think it’s a good thing that Sara Palin ran for Governor, won, served a half term and then quit. I wouldn’t want to be associated with a moronic quitter like that! Palin 2012?!? Not a frickin’ change in Hell!

Stewart:
It depends entirely on who is running against her. For instance, would you vote for Oblama over her? I wouldn’t!

Stewart
Read some history. Andrew Jackson once resigned from the US House, got away from politics for awhile, and then went on to become US President. More recently, your beloved Andy Stern resigned as president of SEIU. So what? Sarah has bigger fish to fry, and I’d sure as hell rather have her for President than Hillary!

I believe that the 12 is IQ and yhat Palin is (His/Her) God.

I have a very intelligent, Christian, conservative friend who is 100% more mentally able than you. The “mental illness” scenario has been disproved over and over. Why can’t you just live and let live. Why do you care so much? It isn’t catchy.

It has been ‘proved’ that homosexualism is NOT a mental illness? Really? Can you provide the ‘proof’? I’ve not seen any that can stand the scientific study. Everything I’ve seen is – well, it is some times but not othertimes. So we are certain it is. And all those “studies” that “prove” anything are generally done by a homosexual.

I still think it is a mental illness. And I suspect most of you do too, particularly when you protest church groups that help others get away from it.

Oh, puleeese! The only studies that come out saying being gay is not a mental illness are done by homosexuals? What planet are you from? The only studies saying it is a mental illness are done by Christian universities.

Sorry, Karolyn, but being gay is not in one’s DNA. It comes from the heart. The place where satan has come into and makes them a perversion of what God had created. Your friend may be smart, nice looking, etc., but what is so important about that when he is very dark and dead on the inside? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

I left out he’s gay and very attractive.

I DO have the right to health, welfare,…
Really? which Constitutional amendments were those…I must have missed those when I read the document…hmmm…invisible ink maybe? Or was the fine print that can only be seen under an electron microscope?
Actually the last time I read the Constitution it had a list of things that the government can and cannot do Art. 1 sec 8 )…which “rights” it cannot violate (Bill of Rights)…. Established State rights aqmendment 10),but I don’t recall one word that indicated what rights that we as citzens have have been given.
However in the Declaration of Independence, I do recall these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

He does have the right to health and welfare – as long as he pays for it himself.

Agreed, just pointing out that “we” are not a party to the Constitution as we were not the signers of the document. It is a document spelling out the government’s role and limitations under the document (contract). Unalienable rights come from our creator and not from government.

Sorry Joe, but being gay isn’t a right, it is a choice. A choice to be on the dark side instead of in the light of God. Gays shouldn’t be given any special rights. You can’t reward a person at work for their immoral and or unethical behavior, so why reward them for it? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

Samurai,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Did you miss the part about ALL men are created equal? Sorry no points awarded for your comment. One point removed for personal bias.

Any laws made specifically for one group is unconstitutional.

Definately!

So, by your own train of thought, any law against one group of people is also…unconstitutional. Equal rights for all…under the law.

Hey hflashman,

Are homosexual’s and heterosexual’s similar conditions? If “NO” then homosexual’s have no legs to stand on under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It states word for word, prohibits states from denying any person within it’s jusrisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. IMHO you and your gay federal judge subverted the law giving one distinct group power over another distinct group. By the way, the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves at the end of the Civil War, it should’ve been repealed ages ago and or updated as the times changed.

You posed the question; “Are homosexual’s and heterosexual’s similar conditions?”. I would say YES they are.

Define similar conditions, because they aren’t similar due to one group loves the same sex the other loves the opposit. They are not similar conditions

Two adults who love each other and are attracted to each other and want to spend their lives in support of each other. Sounds like similar conditions to me; that occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

So why does it have to be to adults. Are we discriminating against age? We should marry 2 and 3 year olds too if they love each other. Or how about an older teacher who falls in love with her student?

Do you know how babies are made? You must have missed every single sex education and science class given, while you were in school. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are only the same in that everybody has two legs and two arms (technically that can be argued, but let’s keep it simple). The two groups have nothing in common and never will. This will be argued and fought the same way abortion was forced upon America.

We have to draw the line somewhere! If the issue is rights then it should be legal for polygamy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/if-gay-marriage-wins_b_676365.html

“Now, gay rights activists may take exception to this, because gays have long fought against any suggestion that other sexual arrangements (like polygamy) have nothing to do with them, or with the fight they’re fighting. This is understandable, because when gay rights were first being championed a few decades back, their first opposition painted with a very broad brush — lumping all “sexual deviants” (as they put it) together: homosexuals, pedophiles, polygamists, bestiality, incest, and anything else they could think up to smear those calling for gay rights. So let me be as clear as I can here: I’m not trying to “equate” being gay with polygamy in any way. I’m looking at this from a legal and societal standpoint. The two groups don’t have much (if anything) in common, really. Except from a legal standpoint — if (and only if) Perry v. Schwarzenegger stands.”

I believe the age of consent is in place for good reason.

If you want to make the argument against a legal age of consent I am sure a lot of church people and law enforcement people would be interested in what you have to say. Probably any of your neighbors who have children would be interested as well.

Doc,
I am not trying to pass that. I am just trying to illustrate how stupid this ruling is. We cant allow this and then not allow others, which opens up the door to many horrible things like I posted.

Homosexuals can’t make babies where as heterolsexuals can make babies, so they are not similar conditions.

Not all heterosexuals can make babies. So if a heterosexual is infertile should they be treated as homosexuals?

50 or 60 yrs ago,a vote in most of the south would have supported the ban on Blacks marrying Whites…would any of the rightwingers decrying the recent ruling on gay marriage want to keep inter racial marriage outlawed? People afraid of gay marriage are insecure in their own identity and culture. Gays have the same constitutional rights as any redneck or pedophile priest.

What about grown men w/ little boys or little girls? What about one man or woman w/multiple spouses? The ONLY reason queers want the “right” to marry (marrying is a privilege, not a right) is to get spousal benefits (inheritance, insurance, etc). If companies would grant these to “gay” people (I don’t see anything so happy about being funny as a football bat) then the question of marriage “rights” would disappear.

Cam:
You missed one important thing. If they wanted civil rights equal to those hetro people who are married, they could get them with a little work. But what they REALLY want is to get everyone to admire them. As one stated awhile back, “We will give up pushing our (gay) agenda when a boy comes home from highschool and tells his parents he is going to the prom with another boy and his parents like it.”

Their real mission with marriage is to force all religions to accept them. Their argument is that all religion is man-made and man-designed so it can be changed as times change. There is no real God. But I have to disagree with that.

They are both Human Beings, I think that is a similar condition

Doc and frownlee, they are human beings. The problem is that they are wrong in their hearts and mind. Being straight is the way God wants us and that’s the way we should be.

It’s comforting that you seem to know the mind of god so well. I’ve always thought that religious leaders have told us repeatedly that ‘we can’t know the mind of god’….????

Read your Bible, duhniso!

Your religion is so full of contradictions it’s not funny…the bible was written by men. On one hand you are told that you can’t know the mind of god when terrible things happen, and then you guys think that just by reading a little book you actually can know everything that an all knowing and all powerful god ‘thinks’ or wants for us…

Cameron says: ,

So in your opinion, the ability to love someone and make a commitment to them in front of witnesses is a privledge and not a right? So , now you have relegated “Love” to a priveledge in all of your infinate wisdom…with all due respet, I disagree with you thought proccess. As for the benifits, what authority does the government have to not apply the laws and rights of human beings equally across the full spectrum? What’s next? Hispanics get one set of rules, Whites get another, womenget anther, man get another, children get yet another…and on and on until there are differnt “rules” for every single human in the nation….”All men are created equal”…than means that the laws must be applied equally as well.

Gays already have the same rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they so choose. Or, they can commit to someone of the same sex, but that is not “marriage”.

Marriage, by definition, is the union of opposites, usually for creative purposes.

The term “marriage” has been distorted and misconstrued to mean something it doesn’t. It has become a legal issue, when it shouldn’t be.

I say, take the institution of marriage completely out of government jurisdiction. It never used to be a legal union, but a religious and personal one. The state took it over in order to lay claim to any children.

What a mess we’ve made.

Kate

Marriage under Constitutional law has no definition of marriage laws only, only in common law and the 14th amendment forbids making laws that discriminate in any way within any law, marriage can be defined as between two adults but it cannot be defined as only including some adults and not all adults. That is what the 14th amendment says and that is how this judge interpreted it and the decision is consistent with what the 14th amendment actually says. Your definition is simply your own, you are against freedom for those with whom you disagree but I;ll bet you want it for yourself.

Hi Kate,

The term “marriage” has been distorted and misconstrued to mean something it doesn’t. It has become a legal issue, when it shouldn’t be.

You and me usually hold very close to the same views on topics..and for the most part we agree here…with one exception. It almost appears that you are arguing about the word “marriage” ..as in “marriage is defined as”. Please try to remember that it is only a word which was not always a word…over the centuries it has has been many names in many languages “marriage” is just the current version of a constantly evolving “word”.What these people are trying obtain is not the word ,but rather the spousal right’s which heterosexuals enjoy without question. It isn’t about their sex lives or what they want to call themselves (married)…it is simpy to be seen under the law as equals in spousal rights…to be recognized legally as the next of kin in the event of a accident etc. To be able to make decisions for their loved ones (who would better know them better than their spouse?), to have the same survivor benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, the same tax laws afforded to heterosexual married couples. We are free to like them or not….free hang with out with them or not…free to accept them or not, but that isn’t the issue…it is simply about basic human rights…the same rights afforded heterosexuals…nothing more, nothing less. At this point, they have the “Union of Marriage”…without the legal recognition given to heterosexuals.
A name is a name is a name is a………just saying.

Sorry frownlee, but you are wrong. One of your lib heroes, Clinton, passed the defense of marriage act which states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the law of the land so get over it. I remember Obama bin Laden saying he was going to overturn it, but hasn’t had the guts to do so. They’re also fighting over the don’t ask don’t tell with the military. Neither one will Obama bin Laden end up winning, because the people are against him on these matters. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

But the law no is broken into groups. the black panthers get on verdict while tea party get the other. Women who live with a muslim man are granted shira law not our law, so rape you wive is not rape, and ethic violation are not violantion as long as you are a democrate from chicago

Homosexuals are neither man nor woman so Equal under the law doesn’t apply.If a man has sex with a man he is therefore not a man because a man has sex with a woman. Same goes for women.

WHAT?!?

Sober up Bob

Oh, come on 45,
Sure, we all want to be excepted. No one wants to be afraid of how their friends and family will treat them. It is unrealistic to think that homosexuals would not be working towards acceptance, but this has nothing to do with forcing “all religions to accept them.”

I attend a Christian Church. My church is all inclusive and that is how I like it. In the last town I lived in we had to choose between Catholic, Lutheran (ELCA) and Lutheran (Missouri synod). It’s hard to accept Catholicism if you were not raised Catholic, and Missouri Synod did not allow Women into the priesthood, so ELCA was the answer. The choice is the same for gays. You attend the church where you are accepted, the number of which is growing all the time.

This is a question of fairness and equality. Many heterosexual couples marry without any intension of having children. Yes, they may be capable, but so what. Homosexual couples want the same recognition of their commitment to each other. They also want to be seen as a couple under the law. Yes, to some extent this has to do with insurance and such (and why should they be forced to pay for separate insurance?) but also with spousal rights. Should a gay man be forced to die without his partner at his side? Many hospitals will only allow family to accompany a seriously ill patient, so gay partners are shut out. How cruel is that? If one partner works and another stays home, shouldn’t the home mate receive any pension or insurance that a housewife would receive? It has noting to do with sex, since a house husband has these rights in marriage, so why are homosexuals excluded?

As to the other questions, children are deemed unable to make educated decisions for themselves, and no parent should be allowed to force a child into a relationship, so kids can’t marry. Animals are pets, not equals. Polygamy is a tough one. The only reason it is not allowed is moral, and morals are not shared by all. I may be cutting my throat here, but I would support polygamy as long as all participants are aware and of age. I can’t imagine having more than 1 wife, or sharing my wife with another man, but that’s just me. According to diaries and historical writings I’ve read, it seems many Mormon women appreciated the support of other wives in their marriage. In some cases it allowed for those who wanted children to have and care for them while those who wanted to work ran shops and such. As long as no one is forced to live this way against their will, who are we to condemn them? If it is proven that most cases of Polygamy include women who are forced to enter or stay in the relationship, then I’ll reconsider my stand. Likewise, I can’t abide by anyone who has another mate in secret. Such deception is wrong as the unknowing mates have not made a choice.

Kinetic

Your totally missing the point, how churches treat marriage and gays has no bearing on legal marriage which is licensed by the state and it is the state that cannot make laws that discriminate, the state cannot dictate that to any religion or church and this ruling does not change that. The church can choose to marry gays or not marry gays that is their right but the no state has that right and that is what this ruling addressees, so quit your spinning!!

Smilee,
This was one of those times when our posts were separated in error. I was responding to 45′s claim that this is all about trying to to “force all religions to accept them. [Gays]” Once I addressed his point, I moved on to others that were posted at the time and made the point that,
1) Aside from religious beliefs, there is no reason that a homosexual couple should be denied the rights of a heterosexual couple.
2) Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia or bestiality. As such, it is ridiculous to suggest that allowing the first will lead to acceptance of the others.
3) Polygamy is another issue that, as far I understand it is only illegal because it offends accepted religious norms. There seem to be no real reasons why it should not be allowed.

As to government and religion, of course they have no power here. It would be the most blatant violation of the Constitution ever were they to try and force any Church to accept homosexuality. Yes, the state CAN grant a license to marry, and they can even perform a civil marriage if they want, but they can’t require even 1 single congregation to accept gay marriage. That, I agree is how it should be.

Kinetic1,
YOU choose a church that is based on the teachings of the Bible and the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son… Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit; and the TRUTH of the death (payment for our sins past, present & future) and resurrection of Jesus Christ who sits on the right hand side of God in Heaven.

YOU DON”T choose a church because you are accepted… lame… sorry brother.

flash:
If you’re right about the majority supporting you and your boyfriend, why did so many vote against you? Are you willing to take the vote nationwide? I doubt it!!

I suppose you must be taking the Army’s motto and changing it a little. Instead of “An Army of One”, your motto must be “A Majority of One”. In other words, everyone should take your opinion as gospel and ingnore everyone else’s ideas.

Read on.

http://americanvision.org/3327/the-redefinition-of-marriage-an-exercise-in-moral-and-cultural-suicide/

*

Pure Garbage!!

Your link article has nothing to do with facts or research, it is simply opinion rendered by the writer and as such has no validity.

They do however have the right and the obligation to the people to judge whether or not the LAW is constitutional or not (which BTW, this judge did as required by…other laws).

Duh Now I can see why you are average.

He is an average Joe when you consider all the other people on welfare with no real education.

Read Madison v Marbury…

Educate yourself. Helps prevent people from knowing you’re a robotic fooli easily led and manipulated.

You mean this one?

(1803) First decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. In 1801 newly elected Pres. Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison to withhold from William Marbury the commission of his appointment by former Pres. John Adams as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury then requested that the Supreme Court compel Madison to deliver his commission. In denying his request, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the section of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 that authorized the Court to issue such a writ was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, declared that the Constitution must always take precedence in any conflict between it and a law passed by Congress.
This case was concerning something that the president did in violation of the Constituion (as the court stated).
The issue we are talking about here, involves whether or not the “Constituional Amendment” (by vote) to a states’ Constituion is in fact Constitutional when held up against the National Constituion…”the Supreme Law of the land”. The judge ruled that is was in violation. I have no doubt that this will be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS…until a ruling is made there, it remains unsettled law.
Maybe you are the one in need of an education.

YOU ARE right whats going on in our country people even told me now judges can make laws and take them away come on and some churches say gay marriage is wrong.

So any law, no matter how unconstitutional must be upheld by our judges? It would appear that you are simply expressing your uneducated opinion and not instructing us with your vast legal expertise.

Debra:
She is a “cafeteria” Catholic. In other words, she chooses which parts of it she believes and ignores the rest of it. Such as no abortions.