@8000cheese If people want a Looney toon themed weeding let them have it, it's not your place or anyone else's to tell them they can't. If a giant group of people said White was unholy or wrong,does that mean there could be no white in a wedding? And to compare gay marriage to a looney toon wedding is just ignorant and flat out idiotic. Marriage is not bound by "Men to Woman marriage only". Marriage is two unite two people that love each other, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, AND gender.
@XXCoeusXX having a looney toon themed wedding isnt the problem. its when they want me to believe in daffy duck that is the problem.
they had a vote, which they thought they would win and when they didn't they cried about it. they claim they dont hurt anyone, but turning a blind eye to delusional indulgence does hurt.
Marriage is a contract between the two people and the state......that is where the problem is....the state should not be involved...Why do you think you need a license to get married?
@lulz666f It could be argued that the law against gay marriage derives from a religious institution but then again, that's a double edged sword. Many gay marriage activists would also argue that the bible is vague. You can't say the bible is vague on it and then turn around and say separation of church and state. Ultimately, this could open up many doors for polygamy and perhaps bestiality. I know gay people hate the comparison, but seriously, you have to think about it.
But marriage not only pre-dates Christianity, but the early church didn’t even count marriage as a sacrament till 200 years after its founding. They can’t just call copyright on marriage.
@lulz666f That's also fallacious. We really shouldn't be arguing the source of the term or its original meaning, but what it means now. For instance, for a time, spousal rape was not a crime because it was argued that it was a woman's duty to give her good up to her husband any time he wanted it... even if he had to do it with her against her will. When our morals changed as a society, as did our laws. Likewise homosexuality was not always outlawed.
@lulz666f continued about that Jungle in the cave, scientist are now toying with the idea that there may just be vegetation deep within the earth's crust. It has never scientifically been ruled out by the way. As Far as slavery, you have to understand that the bible was not a book collectively written, but a book made up of collective writings. Some about God's law, some about man law. Not all of it is relative.
Not all plants need vast quantities of sunlight. There is no plant that does not need sunlight or UV radiation. None. Nice try, though. Also, yeah. We don’t know exactly how the earth was formed, but I do know it wasn’t made by some invisible man, 5,000 years ago. We have potassium uranium dating for that.
@lulz666f By that same token, not all plants NEED any light, even at all. That has been proven. I didn't say we don't know how the earth was formed. I said we have no clue how life developed, we only have theories that are actually being changed every day. It is true that we at least think we know how life evolved but we cannot say without live samples how it was then compared to how it is now. As I stated it is NOT inconceivable for plants to have lived without life knowing what we know today.
Plants need light in order to form basic sugars. Also, we do have an idea of how life first developed. Look into Sydney Fox's experiments. Also, we can tell how things evolved through transition species, homologous structures, and similarities in the gene code.
Also, this is a secular republic. I don’t see why we need to consider what the bible says, when clearly know many of the things it says are false and even immoral. The bible even advocates for slavery. If the bible was to get something like that wrong, why listen to it about human sexuality? Something we don’t even fully understand today?
@lulz666f Lest we not confuse servitude and slavery. Many people do that. Yes, the bible does mention slaves but like clauses against homosexuality, they were centered around laws of the land. Slavery still exists, even in america. We call it prison labor. Back then most slaves were either born into servitude (human contracts) or were prisoners working off debts.
No, it clearly talks about slaves. Not servants. Also, yes. Slavery does exist. Not just in prisons, but in plain sight. Slavery is bigger than it has ever been, but I don't see why a we should follow a book that advocates for it. The bible is rubbish. I mean, it even says that plants came before the sun. That's nuts.
@lulz666f Why is that nuts? Obviously, I know why, but you do know they just found an tropical jungle in an cave, right? Why is it inconceivable with revelations like this? Furthermore plants thrive and grow deeper than the sun light reaches under water so again I ask, why is that so difficult to believe? Yes, we know how plants have worked now and thousands of years ago, but like human biology, we cannot be certain as to how it was when earth was created. It's impossible.
The roof of the Hang Son Doong Cave collapsed long ago, which allowed light in. This allowed for plant growth. Also, plants that grow in deeps waters are still exposed to small traces of sunlight. Different plants have different light saturation points.
Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others, who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization and it should not be redefined by activist judges. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
It is a systematic plan to expand the homo community. Trust me; next there will be an attack on religion because the gays know that is a huge barrier for their activism. Here, in IL, we are having a civil unions bill they are trying to pass, and it will be the stepping stones for this nonsense here.
Who are you to tell other people they cant marry the one's they love and want to spend their lives with? Really, who the hell are you and the 12 morons who gave you thumbs up!
@billieholiday42 But the government was redefined -- and by the same discrimination-to-equality change, in fact -- in 1920. It went from a group chosen by men to a group chosen by people regardless of sex. Is voting not a fundamental institution of our civilization like marriage? It's not really a supported argument you've got there, because redefinition in itself implies neither good nor bad, and you insult and marginalize gays while you're at it. You should rethink or support your comment.
Some people just don't go by gender, but individual sexual attraction. Others prefer the same sex, Is that only wrong because it is "immoral" ? something so imaginative should be up to you and not be forced on others.
If I had my way we would never have Civil Rights because we would recognize the individual over the group. There would be no racism because racial and gender segregationist groups would not be able to lobby Congress. That is true equality Democrats.
The people must decide moral issues for their state. Why have an amoral greedy legislature or judiciary determine and dictate our moral values? The State is amoral. The State just wants more power to legislate private behaviors. The people are the only ones with scruples.
Listin up! All people who are homophobic and narrow minded are nothing more than hate filled human beings! God wants us to love every body as equals! Nothing can come between the bound of those who have found the warming embrace of love and passion!!!!
I'm confident that Prop 8 WON'T prevail, because it deprives citizens of a basic right. And I don't pray for that; rather I use logics and reason, as the people who will decide should; if they do, they WILL reject Prop 8, as there is no way it can be constitutionally held, no way it can be reasoned for. All arguments for it are religious, and thus irrelevant in a modern democracy.
Now pray in your closet if you want, but stop messing with other people's lives.
@scottyvjs IF you as a voter had your way, blacks could never marry whites, nor would blacks be any more than slaves. Civial rights such as marriage, should not be up for a vote.. The court system is needed in this case to ensure everyone's rights are protected.. not just the religious right, which I might add is to remain seprate from state in the US and Canada.
The bible says in Romans 1:26-27 that this is vile, shameful and unnatural. This is God's word and enough said! Two homosexuals CANNOT produce children, that's why its unnatural. And for those who don't believe in God, will then it doesnt really matter with YOU people then because you don't have any morals and value anyway! Enough said.
Gravity cannot be argued with… Nor can centrifugal force… They are not laws made by man. Being gay is against human nature… The sex-drive that we possess is strictly for procreation. It is wasted, perverted, and misused/abused by many (not only gays). Achieving gay marriage will only ensure social acceptance. Homosexuality has it’s own natural consequences, independent of what man does or thinks. Beware of your actions, every action has a consequence.
Gay Marriage Unconstitutional-Establishes anti-God religion; Prohibits free exercise of religion_Fight Evil_Obey God_Warn of Hell
Gay Marriage is unconstitutional because it is establishing an anti-God religion and prohibits the free exercise of our religion. Thousands of religions honor God’s ban on homosexuality in all His holy books. The US Constitution says the government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of our religion.
Way to honor democracy, by overturning the people of California's voice THREE TIMES! The people have decided that they DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE! Oh, and by the way, the judge who overturned prop 8 is himself a homosexual, so it's not much of a shock. Why even take a vote when a single judge can just make the decision for everyone?
It HURTS don't you feel the pain!! Won't someone think of the Children!! Who will think about the children? WTF is she talking about?? Of course your marriage doesn't hurt. Marriage is between you and your spouse. Why are you looking for pain in gay marriage? She needs to get hit to know what real pain is.
It's a difficult issue when marriage is both legal AND religious to many people. Voting based on morals makes total sense--the idea of freedom and liberty is a moral issue in and of itself. Both those for Prop 8 and against Prop 8 voted based on their moral conscience. Some understanding on both sides, instead of extreme and uneducated opinions without any logical backing, is truly needed for this issue.
@belleramirez07 Except one side wants to limit the rights of their fellow Americans and the other wants to expand those same rights. Which isn't the same thing at all. On moral grounds or any other.
First off, you can't compare this perverted sick gay rights movement to the civil-rights movement of the 60's. And furthermore, these name calling, smear campaign the gay mafia is conjuring up is nothing more than forcing your sinful lifestyles on the weak! And the fact that one perverted federal judge can nullify 7 million votes is nothing short of racketeering!! I can't wait for the final decision from the Supreme Court!
@scottyvjs Judges are in place to interpret the Constitution, and to repeal laws that infringe upon our Constitutional rights. It doesn't matter how many Californian voters think its a great idea to violate the 14th Amendment rights of gay people; it's the duty of our judicial system to ensure that the US doesn't become an ochlocracy where minority rights are decided by popularity contests like Prop 8.
@scottyvjs The Supreme Court will agree, like incredulosity said, it's there job to uphole the constitution. Holdon, the vote is in, 52% of americans have voted that you can't get married, now you have to live with that, oh wait, you don't. If you don't agree with Equality for all, what do you agree with, women's rights? Minority's rights? Or do you belive in the all male master race?
@scottyvjs The fact that ANY number of votes could result in the passing of a discriminatory law is what the third branch of government is meant to prevent.
Government does not work based solely on public opinion-- this isn't American Idol.
Since laws have never been and will NEVER be based on "morals " or majority rules concerning rights .You have no legal standing and your "case" against gay marriage will be destroyed via the 14th amendment. He IS not an activist Judge he is following the Constitution. Murder and theft are not illegal because they're immoral but because it does harm and destabilizes society. Get it straight. please Educate yourselves on the country you CONservatives pretend to love.
No state has the right (and thus the Cali. state gov.) to deprive any citizen of life or liberty, so either the Supreme Court or preferably the President, should intervene to enforce the 14th amendment. And for all of you religious individuals out there - most mammals engage in homosexual acts, which means you can't handle the way the world was naturally made, and that is just pathetic.
Geez, a vote in California doesn't mean spit anymore. And here's a message to that gay fed. judge who declared Prop.8 "unconstitutional"...a REAL marriage is STILL between a MAN & a WOMAN! Anything else is an abomination!
When the state gets involved in the church then there is no seperation. If you are being denied equality it is because the state has denied you by not making a civil union equal to the holy ceremony sanctified by God called marriage. Why do you want Gods blessing when what you are doing is in direct opposition to his word.
His word? That would become a theological argument and this is not the day or place for that.
Point is marriage is not just about religion actually marriage in the basis is not religious. It is about taxation, Ownerships, Benefits in the very basics. A married couple has benefits from the state that those that are not married don't get.
The governess can't force churches to marry gay people. The gay people want marriage because of the rights and lets be fair! the love.
Exactly, and the state (government) Is about taxes. They are using the institution of marriage to divide and conquer when all the have to do is accord the same right to a civil union as the do to religious marriage. And I was not aware that one had to be married to love, thanks for the update lol.
And that is why he offends you. You as an American want your freedom at the expense of anothers. We are here and science has run out of ideas to explain it. They have added years upon millions of years , then billions of years till they have come up with their own god called "punctuated equilibria". The same people that do not believe in God will believe this.
@scottyvjs yeah using children as masks in a commercial is a great way of getting votes, you homophobic cod-piece. People like you are nothing but Zealots blinded by your faith. Your just afraid of us gay guy's hitting on you, well, sorry your probably really fucking ugly and gay guy's don't have Breeder Radar. Your god will be casting judgement on you for judging us. Take your head out of your preacher's ass, or your god will send you to hell for judgement against a group of people.
@scottyvjs A "real" marriage is only between a white man and a white woman, right? That's how stupid and out of date you sound. Same-sex marriage on a nationwide scale is inevitable. Get used to it.
@scottyvjs The job of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority. This case is an excellent example. There is no justification to ban gay marriage. Marriage has evolved in the past (women's rights, divorce, no longer arranged marriages, etc) and it is evolving again. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Problem solved. No voting required.
Gay Marriage Unconstitutional-Establishes anti-God religion; Prohibits free exercise of religion_Fight Evil_Obey God_Warn of Hell
Gay Marriage is unconstitutional because it is establishing an anti-God religion and prohibits the free exercise of our religion. Thousands of religions honor God’s ban on homosexuality in all His holy books. The US Constitution says the government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of our religion.
if they had a winning argument, the 'yes on 8' folks would not have stopped their own advertisements, made, paid for, and run by them, to get people to vote for it... from being shown in the courtroom, where it's legality was being decided.....
It is amazing how a first world country can treat its citizens like this. A country which has always fought for freedom, which has fought for the defense of human rights even in other countries. A country, where the law says every one is equal under the LAW, no religion or religions. A country which sees Iran as a treat, but at times behaves like that country, denying the reality of its citizens. I just hope for the best and that gay people can make their dreams come true, just as anyone else.
People forget, that same-sex or 'gay' marriages happen every single day. Many couples have religious or civil ceremony solemnizing their union before friends, family, and their God.
But they are denied the legal rights that come with marriage - and that's as wrong as denying women the right to vote. Prop 8 is immoral as it is unAmerican.
@kdselectric No you don't. You can be gay all you want. But there is no way there taking away a tradition that has always been between a man and a Women. Lol Completly stupid, now they demand that they want to go in the military openly gay?
@0o0oOoOoO Traditionally between a man and a woman of the same race. And the woman was the man's property, traditionally. And traditionally, he could beat her if she became too outspoken. And if she left him for another man, traditionally, you could take her to the edge of town and stone her.
@0o0oOoOoO This is why "tradition" isn't an argument. Not that a "tradition" is even being taken away. Heterosexuals can still marry heterosexuals.
And yes, God forbid anyone should openly profess to be anything other than a Pure-blood White Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestant Heterosexual in the army. Next thing you know, people will be asking to openly identify themselves as African Americans, or to admit they're Jewish.
@01010146 I know right? There ruining the definition of marriage.. its already horrible enough that gay couples adopt children and will be bullied and made fun of in school.
@0o0oOoOoO Don't we all love some good tradition? Going around town stoning everybody that is remotely different, killing and raping them without having to go to trial... Where did the good old days go?
If different churches have different beliefs on how to define marriage and the government recognizes one definition as being more valid than another that is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The government isn't supposed to be promoting any particular religion.
Funnest part is that the same "new voters" who overwhelmingly voted for Obama are the "new voters" who overwhelmingly voted for prop 8 in the first place. So just to make sure I stated this simply enough for you, it was Obama supporters who swung that vote. Hmmm this must be really embarrassing for some of you. By the way if homosexuality is so natural why cant you procreate? Why, because its unnatural that's why. Prop 8 was response to your gay agenda not vice versa.
@1proudinfidel An appeal to nature will never be a convincing argument, especially when it comes to homosexuality. For one, there are plenty of non-reproductive sex acts that straight people enjoy (sex with use of condoms/birth control, anal sex, oral sex). You are trying to conflate non-reproduction with unnaturalness, and unnaturalness with immorality, but I doubt you would apply the same standards to straight people.
@1proudinfidel Furthermore, there are a number of animal species in which exclusive homosexuality is prevalent. These include sheep (8% of rams are exclusively homosexual), sea gulls and dragonflies, among others. Are you meaning to tell me that something that occurs naturally is unnatural?
@1proudinfidel ...well if you mean by new voters.. that alot of them consist of older black christians ..voting for once in thier life..because past canindates didnt match..are the same new voters who choose in favor to this..then yes that seems rather embarrasing..hahahaha..
Marriage is a right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California. And the right to marry has never been conditioned on or tied to procreation
@filmstocker Actually it's a pretty strong argument under Washington v. Glucksberg. Fundamental rights derived from the 14th Amendment's due process clause have to be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Does gay marriage sound "deeply rooted" to you? Yeah, thought so. By contrast, a woman's right to vote is rooted in the 19th Amendment, and the right to attend a desegregated school rooted in the equal protection clause of the 14th. Big difference.
@sklanger Marriage is "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."
Gay people in California possessed the right to marry on Nov 3, 2008 and the next day they were deprived of that right. Now scrutiny is required to determine if they've been unconstitutionally deprived of that fundamental right.
And you are probably the only one in the world who thinks the defense made a strong argument at the Prop 8 trial. Everyone else on your side has all but conceded the trial: it was a mess
@filmstocker You are delusional. 2008 isn't "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." A passing fad, maybe. That being the case, gay marriage simply isn't a "fundamental right" by any stretch of the imagination. And if you think I'm the "only one," then you simply don't get out very much.
@sklanger Dude, get it through your head. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right , deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.
You may not agree that the right was correctly extended to gays in CA, but it was. It existed. This, at the very least, was understood by lawyers for your side. And yes, you are the only one who thought the defense did a good job. The only way Cooper could have embarrassed himself more is if his fly was undone. It was downright odd.
@filmstocker Oopposite-sex marriage, which was the only type of marriage they were talking about then, is a fundamental right. They weren't talking about gay marriage. I thought the defense had a ridiculously easy job, given the weight of federal law on its side. They really couldn't balls it up even if they wanted to. That you think Prop 8 defenders would do badly is really just wishful thinking on your part.
This sort of thing worked REALLY well for your side at the voting booth. But this is federal court we're talking about here. In other words, the grown-ups are talking.
"I thought the defense had a ridiculously easy job."
LOL. So YOU'RE the one. Well, I guess we'll see how well they did in a few weeks, won't we?
btw You'll be told the judge was biased and that the witnesses were scared. As a good tool, you'll want to start repeating that now
@sklanger That type of half-cocked reasoning and semi-informed, half-understood conception of rights worked really well for your side at the voting booth. But this is federal court. The grown-ups are talking now, dear.
@filmstocker LOL. And federal courts have all held that gay marriage isn't a fundamental right, and that homosexuals aren't a suspect class for equal protection purposes. The grown-ups talked. You didn't listen. Maybe you should start listening now.
@sklanger Oh, and you're going to be told that the judge was biased and that the witnesses were intimidated. As the good little tool that you are, you may want to start repeating that now. Actually trying to understand the legal concepts just shows how little you understand and highlights (again) the surprisingly poor case of the defense. Really, no one--least of all myself--was expecting it be THAT weak.
@filmstocker Judge Walker is gay isn't he? He just can't win. If he rules against hysterical homos like you, he's going to be accused of being a traitor to his kind, and beholden to the party that appointed him to the federal bench. If he rules for you, he's going to be accused of ruling on the basis of his sexual orientation. So I don't really see the point of debating if he's "biased."
@sklanger Wow, you really are an uneducated hack. The Prop 8 defenders got massacred so badly it has lead to speculation they threw the case. Your idiocy is palpable.
@sklanger Because...it is not like marriage is deeply rooted. But I love how you use desegregated schools, a tradition not "deeply rooted," in fact not rooted at all most places at the time of that decision to support your case. Don't you love it when you contradict yourself?
@thanatos101b Yeah. BANNING interracial marriage was a tradition more deeply rooted in our country than recognizing it as a fundamental individual right .
@filmstocker Not really. Historians have noted that there was no tradition of banning interracial marriages at common law. And further, when Loving was decided, the vast majority of states had no such laws, belying your claim that such bans are "deeply rooted." Try again.
@thanatos101b Opposite-sex marriage is. Not gay marriage. The problem for you is that desegregated schools didn't rely on "deeply rooted traditions" at all under the due process clause -- the case was decided under the equal protection clause. Only fundamental rights derived from the due process clause have to have be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." There is no contradiction -- it's just use being an ignoramus.
@thanatos101b Too bad for you Brown wasn't decided on substantive due process grounds but on equal protection, meaning your idiotic, laughable claim about desegregation being foreclosed by "deeply rooted tradition" under the Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence is precisely that -- laughable. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're asserting a doctrinal contradiction on my (and the Court's) part? You clown.
@thanatos101b Too bad for you Brown wasn't decided on substantive due process grounds but on equal protection, meaning your idiotic, laughable claim about desegregation being foreclosed by "deeply rooted tradition" under the Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence is precisely that -- laughable. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're asserting a doctrinal contradiction on my (and the Court's) part? You clown.
@sklanger God, you are so stupid you can't even keep yourself straight from myself. Actually that's classic Tone: the Angry Troll. In the future, remember who you are, and remember who you aren't. We get it, Tone, you want to be me with every fiber of your being. More importantly, you want me to recognize you for how great you are. But that's never going to happen. Not as long as you keep making rookie mistakes like being confused if you are me or you are you.
@thanatos101b I know you're smashing your keyboard in argumentative (and no doubt, sexual) frustration when you get all paranoid and imagine that I'm somebody called "Tone" who apparently is an ex-boyfriend of yours you haven't got over. Your angry vein is pulsating. :)
@thanatos101b Tone is apparently someone who rogered you senseless that you're still hung up about? LOL. You're traumatized, incoherent, and now verging on the paranoid, imagining that I'm someone from your past. If internet comment threads routinely trigger psychotic breaks in you, I suggest you seek psychiatric help.
This has been flagged as spam show
@montsyblackmadonna Barney Rubble is the Antichrist. VOTE OBAMA.
montsybIackmadonna 4 months ago
Fag marriage that is
Grenademan1 6 months ago
@Grenademan1 No it just called marriage based on love
tigerstone91 5 months ago
Yes on prop 8 ny will ban it too
Grenademan1 6 months ago
@8000cheese If people want a Looney toon themed weeding let them have it, it's not your place or anyone else's to tell them they can't. If a giant group of people said White was unholy or wrong,does that mean there could be no white in a wedding? And to compare gay marriage to a looney toon wedding is just ignorant and flat out idiotic. Marriage is not bound by "Men to Woman marriage only". Marriage is two unite two people that love each other, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, AND gender.
XXCoeusXX 6 months ago
@XXCoeusXX having a looney toon themed wedding isnt the problem. its when they want me to believe in daffy duck that is the problem.
they had a vote, which they thought they would win and when they didn't they cried about it. they claim they dont hurt anyone, but turning a blind eye to delusional indulgence does hurt.
CobraStyleDevil 6 months ago
Stop the HURT!!! it will be a much better world. . .
SirCaseyHollywood 6 months ago
So people can have a looney toon themed wedding and that is not destroying the sanctity of marriage?
8000cheese 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gay Marriage passes in NY!!! Equality always wins!!!
tytheeman20 8 months ago
The case won't make it to the supreme court, it's totally unconstitutional. No H8.
BigJack101 8 months ago
Marriage is a contract between the two people and the state......that is where the problem is....the state should not be involved...Why do you think you need a license to get married?
gottitgood4me 10 months ago
Simple biology tells us only a man and a women are able to have kids. The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution.
jenn1ifer 1 year ago
@jenn1ifer
"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f It could be argued that the law against gay marriage derives from a religious institution but then again, that's a double edged sword. Many gay marriage activists would also argue that the bible is vague. You can't say the bible is vague on it and then turn around and say separation of church and state. Ultimately, this could open up many doors for polygamy and perhaps bestiality. I know gay people hate the comparison, but seriously, you have to think about it.
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
But marriage not only pre-dates Christianity, but the early church didn’t even count marriage as a sacrament till 200 years after its founding. They can’t just call copyright on marriage.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f That's also fallacious. We really shouldn't be arguing the source of the term or its original meaning, but what it means now. For instance, for a time, spousal rape was not a crime because it was argued that it was a woman's duty to give her good up to her husband any time he wanted it... even if he had to do it with her against her will. When our morals changed as a society, as did our laws. Likewise homosexuality was not always outlawed.
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
No, those are from primary sources. I agree with you on the rest.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f continued about that Jungle in the cave, scientist are now toying with the idea that there may just be vegetation deep within the earth's crust. It has never scientifically been ruled out by the way. As Far as slavery, you have to understand that the bible was not a book collectively written, but a book made up of collective writings. Some about God's law, some about man law. Not all of it is relative.
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
Not all plants need vast quantities of sunlight. There is no plant that does not need sunlight or UV radiation. None. Nice try, though. Also, yeah. We don’t know exactly how the earth was formed, but I do know it wasn’t made by some invisible man, 5,000 years ago. We have potassium uranium dating for that.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f By that same token, not all plants NEED any light, even at all. That has been proven. I didn't say we don't know how the earth was formed. I said we have no clue how life developed, we only have theories that are actually being changed every day. It is true that we at least think we know how life evolved but we cannot say without live samples how it was then compared to how it is now. As I stated it is NOT inconceivable for plants to have lived without life knowing what we know today.
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
Plants need light in order to form basic sugars. Also, we do have an idea of how life first developed. Look into Sydney Fox's experiments. Also, we can tell how things evolved through transition species, homologous structures, and similarities in the gene code.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
It's all man's law.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f More genetic fallacy...
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
Also, this is a secular republic. I don’t see why we need to consider what the bible says, when clearly know many of the things it says are false and even immoral. The bible even advocates for slavery. If the bible was to get something like that wrong, why listen to it about human sexuality? Something we don’t even fully understand today?
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f Lest we not confuse servitude and slavery. Many people do that. Yes, the bible does mention slaves but like clauses against homosexuality, they were centered around laws of the land. Slavery still exists, even in america. We call it prison labor. Back then most slaves were either born into servitude (human contracts) or were prisoners working off debts.
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
No, it clearly talks about slaves. Not servants. Also, yes. Slavery does exist. Not just in prisons, but in plain sight. Slavery is bigger than it has ever been, but I don't see why a we should follow a book that advocates for it. The bible is rubbish. I mean, it even says that plants came before the sun. That's nuts.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f Why is that nuts? Obviously, I know why, but you do know they just found an tropical jungle in an cave, right? Why is it inconceivable with revelations like this? Furthermore plants thrive and grow deeper than the sun light reaches under water so again I ask, why is that so difficult to believe? Yes, we know how plants have worked now and thousands of years ago, but like human biology, we cannot be certain as to how it was when earth was created. It's impossible.
PhantomLyric 1 year ago
@PhantomLyric
The roof of the Hang Son Doong Cave collapsed long ago, which allowed light in. This allowed for plant growth. Also, plants that grow in deeps waters are still exposed to small traces of sunlight. Different plants have different light saturation points.
lulz666f 1 year ago
Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others, who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
billieholiday42 1 year ago
@billieholiday42
Why?
lulz666f 1 year ago
do large populations of gays cause natural disasters like flooding/earth quakes/ pestilence hurricanes
optionsupdate 1 year ago
@optionsupdate
yes they do; it's called AIDS
ma7799 1 year ago
Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization and it should not be redefined by activist judges. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
billieholiday42 1 year ago
@billieholiday42
Your username maes me smlie. Billie Holiday used to sleep with women,
lulz666f 1 year ago
@lulz666f Billie Holiday did not support gay marriage.
billieholiday42 1 year ago
@billieholiday42
No. She just liked to have sex with chicks. That's all. :/
lulz666f 1 year ago
Comment removed
billieholiday42 1 year ago
@billieholiday42
It is a systematic plan to expand the homo community. Trust me; next there will be an attack on religion because the gays know that is a huge barrier for their activism. Here, in IL, we are having a civil unions bill they are trying to pass, and it will be the stepping stones for this nonsense here.
ma7799 1 year ago
@billieholiday42
You're pretty dumb.
lulz666f 1 year ago
@billieholiday42 you can keep your fear, we will keep forming families with or without the law
ElZanma 1 year ago
@billieholiday42 Shut up with your archaic views!
Who are you to tell other people they cant marry the one's they love and want to spend their lives with? Really, who the hell are you and the 12 morons who gave you thumbs up!
Kelz06081984 1 year ago
@billieholiday42 ''between a man and a woman'' Marriage is between two people who love each other, enough with your bullshit already.
Reasonwillwin 11 months ago 3
@billieholiday42 too bad its against the united states constitution. :3
ughzean 10 months ago
@billieholiday42 But the government was redefined -- and by the same discrimination-to-equality change, in fact -- in 1920. It went from a group chosen by men to a group chosen by people regardless of sex. Is voting not a fundamental institution of our civilization like marriage? It's not really a supported argument you've got there, because redefinition in itself implies neither good nor bad, and you insult and marginalize gays while you're at it. You should rethink or support your comment.
samiam9503 10 months ago
@billieholiday42 fuck you.
ojdidit92 9 months ago
Some people just don't go by gender, but individual sexual attraction. Others prefer the same sex, Is that only wrong because it is "immoral" ? something so imaginative should be up to you and not be forced on others.
wetdream09 1 year ago
The people elect their leaders Sir not political appointee justices not elected by the people.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
The majority rules. Otherwise Republicans could have blocked Obamacare.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne if that was true, then gore, not bush would have won 2000
idaman12345 1 year ago
If I had my way we would never have Civil Rights because we would recognize the individual over the group. There would be no racism because racial and gender segregationist groups would not be able to lobby Congress. That is true equality Democrats.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
The people must decide moral issues for their state. Why have an amoral greedy legislature or judiciary determine and dictate our moral values? The State is amoral. The State just wants more power to legislate private behaviors. The people are the only ones with scruples.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
Listin up! All people who are homophobic and narrow minded are nothing more than hate filled human beings! God wants us to love every body as equals! Nothing can come between the bound of those who have found the warming embrace of love and passion!!!!
XTheAwesomenessDudeX 1 year ago
Good News!!! Gay marriages has been delayed till December! I pray the will of the voters(supporters of prop 8) will prevail :O)
scottyvjs 1 year ago
@scottyvjs Dear bigot,
I'm confident that Prop 8 WON'T prevail, because it deprives citizens of a basic right. And I don't pray for that; rather I use logics and reason, as the people who will decide should; if they do, they WILL reject Prop 8, as there is no way it can be constitutionally held, no way it can be reasoned for. All arguments for it are religious, and thus irrelevant in a modern democracy.
Now pray in your closet if you want, but stop messing with other people's lives.
intigfx 1 year ago
@intigfx
"Now pray in your closet if you want, but stop messing with other people's lives."
Which is why Prop 8 will stand, because "gay marriage" is a farce that will have a huge impact on society.
ma7799 1 year ago
@ma7799 The huge impact being... gay people marry.
OH THE HUMANITY
intigfx 1 year ago
@scottyvjs IF you as a voter had your way, blacks could never marry whites, nor would blacks be any more than slaves. Civial rights such as marriage, should not be up for a vote.. The court system is needed in this case to ensure everyone's rights are protected.. not just the religious right, which I might add is to remain seprate from state in the US and Canada.
koreyb1980 1 year ago
@scottyvjs too bad the supporters of prop 8 will lose
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
they will win in the Supreme Court.
ma7799 1 year ago 9
Comment removed
billieholiday42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ma7799 The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2009.
billieholiday42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BEING GAY IS A CHOICE SO WHY SHOULD THEY MARRY EACH OTHER?
DiamondsnGold4p 1 year ago
Good. Maybe California should make it legal to marry an animal too. Stupid people overturning prop 8.
mikeyrobins022585 1 year ago
@mikeyrobins022585 Stupid people thinking animals have the ability to express informed consent.
intigfx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikeyrobins022585
What do you expect? California is the land of the fruits and nuts!
ma7799 1 year ago
The bible says in Romans 1:26-27 that this is vile, shameful and unnatural. This is God's word and enough said! Two homosexuals CANNOT produce children, that's why its unnatural. And for those who don't believe in God, will then it doesnt really matter with YOU people then because you don't have any morals and value anyway! Enough said.
jdmccord74 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gravity cannot be argued with… Nor can centrifugal force… They are not laws made by man. Being gay is against human nature… The sex-drive that we possess is strictly for procreation. It is wasted, perverted, and misused/abused by many (not only gays). Achieving gay marriage will only ensure social acceptance. Homosexuality has it’s own natural consequences, independent of what man does or thinks. Beware of your actions, every action has a consequence.
JohnnyVegaz007 1 year ago
Twr:
Gay Marriage Unconstitutional-Establishes anti-God religion; Prohibits free exercise of religion_Fight Evil_Obey God_Warn of Hell
Gay Marriage is unconstitutional because it is establishing an anti-God religion and prohibits the free exercise of our religion. Thousands of religions honor God’s ban on homosexuality in all His holy books. The US Constitution says the government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of our religion.
MarieDevine 1 year ago
@MarieDevine From your bizarre definition of religion, you might as well call the USA a religion too.
It's hilarious what twisted logics you people come up with just to delay a little more the advance of democracy. Bigots will be bigots.
intigfx 1 year ago
Way to honor democracy, by overturning the people of California's voice THREE TIMES! The people have decided that they DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE! Oh, and by the way, the judge who overturned prop 8 is himself a homosexual, so it's not much of a shock. Why even take a vote when a single judge can just make the decision for everyone?
DavidLynch007 1 year ago
faggots
blaky626 1 year ago
It HURTS don't you feel the pain!! Won't someone think of the Children!! Who will think about the children? WTF is she talking about?? Of course your marriage doesn't hurt. Marriage is between you and your spouse. Why are you looking for pain in gay marriage? She needs to get hit to know what real pain is.
graffitypsycho 1 year ago
It's a difficult issue when marriage is both legal AND religious to many people. Voting based on morals makes total sense--the idea of freedom and liberty is a moral issue in and of itself. Both those for Prop 8 and against Prop 8 voted based on their moral conscience. Some understanding on both sides, instead of extreme and uneducated opinions without any logical backing, is truly needed for this issue.
belleramirez07 1 year ago
@belleramirez07
Well put. The matter is about equal treatment and terminology.
danieljeromemartinez 1 year ago
@belleramirez07 Except one side wants to limit the rights of their fellow Americans and the other wants to expand those same rights. Which isn't the same thing at all. On moral grounds or any other.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
We will let people marry animals as soon as animals start demanding equality.
DwarfElfZombie 1 year ago
First off, you can't compare this perverted sick gay rights movement to the civil-rights movement of the 60's. And furthermore, these name calling, smear campaign the gay mafia is conjuring up is nothing more than forcing your sinful lifestyles on the weak! And the fact that one perverted federal judge can nullify 7 million votes is nothing short of racketeering!! I can't wait for the final decision from the Supreme Court!
scottyvjs 1 year ago
@scottyvjs
Careful bud I might suck your cock.
DwarfElfZombie 1 year ago
@scottyvjs Judges are in place to interpret the Constitution, and to repeal laws that infringe upon our Constitutional rights. It doesn't matter how many Californian voters think its a great idea to violate the 14th Amendment rights of gay people; it's the duty of our judicial system to ensure that the US doesn't become an ochlocracy where minority rights are decided by popularity contests like Prop 8.
incredulosity 1 year ago
@scottyvjs The Supreme Court will agree, like incredulosity said, it's there job to uphole the constitution. Holdon, the vote is in, 52% of americans have voted that you can't get married, now you have to live with that, oh wait, you don't. If you don't agree with Equality for all, what do you agree with, women's rights? Minority's rights? Or do you belive in the all male master race?
dave19941000 1 year ago
@scottyvjs Hahahahahaha. You just made my morning. Comedy gold.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@scottyvjs The fact that ANY number of votes could result in the passing of a discriminatory law is what the third branch of government is meant to prevent.
Government does not work based solely on public opinion-- this isn't American Idol.
limonade09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since laws have never been and will NEVER be based on "morals " or majority rules concerning rights .You have no legal standing and your "case" against gay marriage will be destroyed via the 14th amendment. He IS not an activist Judge he is following the Constitution. Murder and theft are not illegal because they're immoral but because it does harm and destabilizes society. Get it straight. please Educate yourselves on the country you CONservatives pretend to love.
hellboundmatt 1 year ago
It's not officially over yet. The Supreme Court need to look over.
Support Prop 8.
Warmoviefanatic 1 year ago
@Warmoviefanatic Or, you know support human rights and oppose Prop 8.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
Comment removed
flashesofcolor 1 year ago
EQUALITY WINS!
RMillerJones 1 year ago
No state has the right (and thus the Cali. state gov.) to deprive any citizen of life or liberty, so either the Supreme Court or preferably the President, should intervene to enforce the 14th amendment. And for all of you religious individuals out there - most mammals engage in homosexual acts, which means you can't handle the way the world was naturally made, and that is just pathetic.
Tirius9393 1 year ago
WHHHHHHHAT THE FUCK! 75 second add? no thanks
watzimagiga 1 year ago
Geez, a vote in California doesn't mean spit anymore. And here's a message to that gay fed. judge who declared Prop.8 "unconstitutional"...a REAL marriage is STILL between a MAN & a WOMAN! Anything else is an abomination!
scottyvjs 1 year ago
@scottyvjs blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. In your next life you are soooo gonna be gay. Yup. Its called karma, bitch.
JazBlogShow 1 year ago
@scottyvjs I think you are an abomination... simply put.
gimmins 1 year ago
@scottyvjs But how do you know it's an abomination?
KaseyAkira 1 year ago
@scottyvjs
That is a religious argument and America has a something called Separation of State and Church. Meaning in State Law no religious laws are allowed.
Get it?
masticina 1 year ago
Comment removed
danieljeromemartinez 1 year ago
@masticina
When the state gets involved in the church then there is no seperation. If you are being denied equality it is because the state has denied you by not making a civil union equal to the holy ceremony sanctified by God called marriage. Why do you want Gods blessing when what you are doing is in direct opposition to his word.
danieljeromemartinez 1 year ago
@danieljeromemartinez
His word? That would become a theological argument and this is not the day or place for that.
Point is marriage is not just about religion actually marriage in the basis is not religious. It is about taxation, Ownerships, Benefits in the very basics. A married couple has benefits from the state that those that are not married don't get.
The governess can't force churches to marry gay people. The gay people want marriage because of the rights and lets be fair! the love.
masticina 1 year ago
@masticina
Exactly, and the state (government) Is about taxes. They are using the institution of marriage to divide and conquer when all the have to do is accord the same right to a civil union as the do to religious marriage. And I was not aware that one had to be married to love, thanks for the update lol.
danieljeromemartinez 1 year ago
@danieljeromemartinez Why do you need marriage, then?
aarongtr180 1 year ago
@danieljeromemartinez Why do I want god's blessing when he's make-believe?
davidls11 1 year ago
@davidls11
And that is why he offends you. You as an American want your freedom at the expense of anothers. We are here and science has run out of ideas to explain it. They have added years upon millions of years , then billions of years till they have come up with their own god called "punctuated equilibria". The same people that do not believe in God will believe this.
danieljeromemartinez 1 year ago
@scottyvjs yeah using children as masks in a commercial is a great way of getting votes, you homophobic cod-piece. People like you are nothing but Zealots blinded by your faith. Your just afraid of us gay guy's hitting on you, well, sorry your probably really fucking ugly and gay guy's don't have Breeder Radar. Your god will be casting judgement on you for judging us. Take your head out of your preacher's ass, or your god will send you to hell for judgement against a group of people.
The13thflower 1 year ago
@scottyvjs A "real" marriage is only between a white man and a white woman, right? That's how stupid and out of date you sound. Same-sex marriage on a nationwide scale is inevitable. Get used to it.
davidls11 1 year ago
@scottyvjs The job of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority. This case is an excellent example. There is no justification to ban gay marriage. Marriage has evolved in the past (women's rights, divorce, no longer arranged marriages, etc) and it is evolving again. Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Problem solved. No voting required.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tetsubo57
Twr:
Gay Marriage Unconstitutional-Establishes anti-God religion; Prohibits free exercise of religion_Fight Evil_Obey God_Warn of Hell
Gay Marriage is unconstitutional because it is establishing an anti-God religion and prohibits the free exercise of our religion. Thousands of religions honor God’s ban on homosexuality in all His holy books. The US Constitution says the government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of our religion.
MarieDevine 1 year ago
@MarieDevine no, only islam, judaism and christianity
nothing in hinduism or buddhism
MamaMario13 9 months ago
if they had a winning argument, the 'yes on 8' folks would not have stopped their own advertisements, made, paid for, and run by them, to get people to vote for it... from being shown in the courtroom, where it's legality was being decided.....
markofthebeasts 1 year ago
WOOOOOOOOOOT! Celebrate!!! At 1:42 PM on 8/4/2010, a federal judge in California has declared Prop.8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Billymaysfan6837 1 year ago
It is amazing how a first world country can treat its citizens like this. A country which has always fought for freedom, which has fought for the defense of human rights even in other countries. A country, where the law says every one is equal under the LAW, no religion or religions. A country which sees Iran as a treat, but at times behaves like that country, denying the reality of its citizens. I just hope for the best and that gay people can make their dreams come true, just as anyone else.
34roberees 1 year ago
@34roberees hm human rights, get rid off the death penalty and we can talk ;)
JazBlogShow 1 year ago
fuck the H8!
ottodob 1 year ago
People forget, that same-sex or 'gay' marriages happen every single day. Many couples have religious or civil ceremony solemnizing their union before friends, family, and their God.
But they are denied the legal rights that come with marriage - and that's as wrong as denying women the right to vote. Prop 8 is immoral as it is unAmerican.
theknowbody 1 year ago
Of course! We are tax paying citizens, we deserve the same rights!
kdselectric 1 year ago
@kdselectric
Amen: prop 8 will fail. Google "California Same-Sex
Trial:An Uneven Matchup" by Andrew Cohen
Prop 8 is going down. Pardon the pun
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
@kdselectric No you don't. You can be gay all you want. But there is no way there taking away a tradition that has always been between a man and a Women. Lol Completly stupid, now they demand that they want to go in the military openly gay?
0o0oOoOoO 1 year ago
@0o0oOoOoO Traditionally between a man and a woman of the same race. And the woman was the man's property, traditionally. And traditionally, he could beat her if she became too outspoken. And if she left him for another man, traditionally, you could take her to the edge of town and stone her.
01010146 1 year ago
@0o0oOoOoO This is why "tradition" isn't an argument. Not that a "tradition" is even being taken away. Heterosexuals can still marry heterosexuals.
And yes, God forbid anyone should openly profess to be anything other than a Pure-blood White Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestant Heterosexual in the army. Next thing you know, people will be asking to openly identify themselves as African Americans, or to admit they're Jewish.
01010146 1 year ago
@01010146 I know right? There ruining the definition of marriage.. its already horrible enough that gay couples adopt children and will be bullied and made fun of in school.
0o0oOoOoO 1 year ago
@0o0oOoOoO So naturally what we need to do is extend that same bigotry to their parents, rather than changing our attitudes.
...
Right.
01010146 1 year ago
@0o0oOoOoO Don't we all love some good tradition? Going around town stoning everybody that is remotely different, killing and raping them without having to go to trial... Where did the good old days go?
TheIngefied 1 year ago
@0o0oOoOoO
there is this law called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
ma7799 1 year ago
@ma7799 The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2009.
billieholiday42 1 year ago
@ma7799 Not Anymore
Chumpster1981 1 year ago
If different churches have different beliefs on how to define marriage and the government recognizes one definition as being more valid than another that is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The government isn't supposed to be promoting any particular religion.
Toddgpoole 1 year ago 2
Funnest part is that the same "new voters" who overwhelmingly voted for Obama are the "new voters" who overwhelmingly voted for prop 8 in the first place. So just to make sure I stated this simply enough for you, it was Obama supporters who swung that vote. Hmmm this must be really embarrassing for some of you. By the way if homosexuality is so natural why cant you procreate? Why, because its unnatural that's why. Prop 8 was response to your gay agenda not vice versa.
1proudinfidel 1 year ago
@1proudinfidel An appeal to nature will never be a convincing argument, especially when it comes to homosexuality. For one, there are plenty of non-reproductive sex acts that straight people enjoy (sex with use of condoms/birth control, anal sex, oral sex). You are trying to conflate non-reproduction with unnaturalness, and unnaturalness with immorality, but I doubt you would apply the same standards to straight people.
incredulosity 1 year ago
@1proudinfidel Furthermore, there are a number of animal species in which exclusive homosexuality is prevalent. These include sheep (8% of rams are exclusively homosexual), sea gulls and dragonflies, among others. Are you meaning to tell me that something that occurs naturally is unnatural?
incredulosity 1 year ago
@incredulosity Hey dumb ass. Animals are not as smart as we are. Stop comparing them to us.
Warmoviefanatic 1 year ago
@incredulosity
Also 40% of the dolphin population is homosexual.
DwarfElfZombie 1 year ago
@1proudinfidel ...well if you mean by new voters.. that alot of them consist of older black christians ..voting for once in thier life..because past canindates didnt match..are the same new voters who choose in favor to this..then yes that seems rather embarrasing..hahahaha..
blackvenomnicole 1 year ago
@1proudinfidel Why can't some straight people procreate? Are they unnatural?
34roberees 1 year ago
Marriage is a right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California. And the right to marry has never been conditioned on or tied to procreation
gabbababble 1 year ago
Thank God. Also they need to quit comparing prop 8 to the African Community or any OTHER minorities. We're nothing alike. Get over it!
Sileni 1 year ago
@thanatos101b You were so traumatized you spent the weekend fulminating on this page. Pretty funny.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Wow, please look up "fulminating." Your idiocy is amazing.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@MrRyukage What religious belief? I'm an atheist.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Yeah, I'm sure we all believe that.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
Give gays no quarter !
Gays fornicate in the bushes of america,
and then cry out for gay rights.
Gays should be arrested not married.
montsyblackmadonna 1 year ago
@montsyblackmadonna In other words, they're a lot like straights, but they shouldn't have the same rights? Uh huh. That makes a lot of sense.
l0gically 1 year ago
@filmstocker Actually it's a pretty strong argument under Washington v. Glucksberg. Fundamental rights derived from the 14th Amendment's due process clause have to be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Does gay marriage sound "deeply rooted" to you? Yeah, thought so. By contrast, a woman's right to vote is rooted in the 19th Amendment, and the right to attend a desegregated school rooted in the equal protection clause of the 14th. Big difference.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Marriage is "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."
Gay people in California possessed the right to marry on Nov 3, 2008 and the next day they were deprived of that right. Now scrutiny is required to determine if they've been unconstitutionally deprived of that fundamental right.
And you are probably the only one in the world who thinks the defense made a strong argument at the Prop 8 trial. Everyone else on your side has all but conceded the trial: it was a mess
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker You are delusional. 2008 isn't "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." A passing fad, maybe. That being the case, gay marriage simply isn't a "fundamental right" by any stretch of the imagination. And if you think I'm the "only one," then you simply don't get out very much.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Dude, get it through your head. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right , deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.
You may not agree that the right was correctly extended to gays in CA, but it was. It existed. This, at the very least, was understood by lawyers for your side. And yes, you are the only one who thought the defense did a good job. The only way Cooper could have embarrassed himself more is if his fly was undone. It was downright odd.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker Oopposite-sex marriage, which was the only type of marriage they were talking about then, is a fundamental right. They weren't talking about gay marriage. I thought the defense had a ridiculously easy job, given the weight of federal law on its side. They really couldn't balls it up even if they wanted to. That you think Prop 8 defenders would do badly is really just wishful thinking on your part.
sklanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sklanger "It's not marriage. It's GAY marriage."
This sort of thing worked REALLY well for your side at the voting booth. But this is federal court we're talking about here. In other words, the grown-ups are talking.
"I thought the defense had a ridiculously easy job."
LOL. So YOU'RE the one. Well, I guess we'll see how well they did in a few weeks, won't we?
btw You'll be told the judge was biased and that the witnesses were scared. As a good tool, you'll want to start repeating that now
filmstocker 1 year ago
@sklanger That type of half-cocked reasoning and semi-informed, half-understood conception of rights worked really well for your side at the voting booth. But this is federal court. The grown-ups are talking now, dear.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker LOL. And federal courts have all held that gay marriage isn't a fundamental right, and that homosexuals aren't a suspect class for equal protection purposes. The grown-ups talked. You didn't listen. Maybe you should start listening now.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger ". I thought the defense had a ridiculously easy job"
So YOU'RE the one!
filmstocker 1 year ago
@sklanger Oh, and you're going to be told that the judge was biased and that the witnesses were intimidated. As the good little tool that you are, you may want to start repeating that now. Actually trying to understand the legal concepts just shows how little you understand and highlights (again) the surprisingly poor case of the defense. Really, no one--least of all myself--was expecting it be THAT weak.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker Judge Walker is gay isn't he? He just can't win. If he rules against hysterical homos like you, he's going to be accused of being a traitor to his kind, and beholden to the party that appointed him to the federal bench. If he rules for you, he's going to be accused of ruling on the basis of his sexual orientation. So I don't really see the point of debating if he's "biased."
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Really. Please offer any proof of Walker's sexual orientation.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@sklanger Wow, you really are an uneducated hack. The Prop 8 defenders got massacred so badly it has lead to speculation they threw the case. Your idiocy is palpable.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@thanatos101b You were owned by an uneducated hack? The shame. :)
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Sure Tone, sure. You really are obsessed with us.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@sklanger Because...it is not like marriage is deeply rooted. But I love how you use desegregated schools, a tradition not "deeply rooted," in fact not rooted at all most places at the time of that decision to support your case. Don't you love it when you contradict yourself?
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@thanatos101b Yeah. BANNING interracial marriage was a tradition more deeply rooted in our country than recognizing it as a fundamental individual right .
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker Not really. Historians have noted that there was no tradition of banning interracial marriages at common law. And further, when Loving was decided, the vast majority of states had no such laws, belying your claim that such bans are "deeply rooted." Try again.
sklanger 1 year ago
@thanatos101b Opposite-sex marriage is. Not gay marriage. The problem for you is that desegregated schools didn't rely on "deeply rooted traditions" at all under the due process clause -- the case was decided under the equal protection clause. Only fundamental rights derived from the due process clause have to have be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." There is no contradiction -- it's just use being an ignoramus.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Well then, it's a good thing the equal protection clause is in play here too. And I agree with you, you are "use[d] to being an ignoramus."
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@thanatos101b Too bad for you Brown wasn't decided on substantive due process grounds but on equal protection, meaning your idiotic, laughable claim about desegregation being foreclosed by "deeply rooted tradition" under the Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence is precisely that -- laughable. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're asserting a doctrinal contradiction on my (and the Court's) part? You clown.
sklanger 1 year ago
@thanatos101b Too bad for you Brown wasn't decided on substantive due process grounds but on equal protection, meaning your idiotic, laughable claim about desegregation being foreclosed by "deeply rooted tradition" under the Court's fundamental rights jurisprudence is precisely that -- laughable. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're asserting a doctrinal contradiction on my (and the Court's) part? You clown.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger God, you are so stupid you can't even keep yourself straight from myself. Actually that's classic Tone: the Angry Troll. In the future, remember who you are, and remember who you aren't. We get it, Tone, you want to be me with every fiber of your being. More importantly, you want me to recognize you for how great you are. But that's never going to happen. Not as long as you keep making rookie mistakes like being confused if you are me or you are you.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@thanatos101b I know you're smashing your keyboard in argumentative (and no doubt, sexual) frustration when you get all paranoid and imagine that I'm somebody called "Tone" who apparently is an ex-boyfriend of yours you haven't got over. Your angry vein is pulsating. :)
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Hehehe. Oh Tone, you continue to amuse. Please, please try to keep this sockpuppet charade up. It's just too adorable.
thanatos101b 1 year ago
@thanatos101b Tone is apparently someone who rogered you senseless that you're still hung up about? LOL. You're traumatized, incoherent, and now verging on the paranoid, imagining that I'm someone from your past. If internet comment threads routinely trigger psychotic breaks in you, I suggest you seek psychiatric help.
sklanger 1 year ago
@sklanger Okay, I will. But only if you climb off your couch and complete elementary school first.
thanatos101b 1 year ago