Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on August 16, 2010, 08:56:16 PM
-
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.
Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.
In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.
"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.
A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.
Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.
Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
-
the coach = republican closet fag who goes an anti-gay crusades in order to cover up his own homosexual activity/desire ala mark foley, tim haggard , larry craig, bob allen , glen murphy , etc
See you're still the biggest pussy on here talking shit behind that keyboard...hahahahahhaha ha!
-
the coach = republican closet fag who goes an anti-gay crusades in order to cover up his own homosexual activity/desire ala mark foley, tim haggard , larry craig, bob allen , glen murphy , etc
(http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0810/lust-ted-haggard-bible-jesus-god-stupid-indoctrination-creat-demotivational-poster-1225472152.jpg)
-
(http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0810/lust-ted-haggard-bible-jesus-god-stupid-indoctrination-creat-demotivational-poster-1225472152.jpg)
-
people on each side of this issue are stupid and irrational....
these closet fags, making it their life's endeavor to prevent homosexuals from marrying need to reconsider their priorities....
but just as well, i dont know why gays need the vindication of "marriage" if the courts are willing to give them all the benefits of marriage under a different name.............they constantly pride themselves on their "ALTERNATIVE" lifestyle.............so why then are they fighting tooth and nail for one of the oldest, most traditional and stodgy of all humanities institutions.
-
Cant forget the most holiest man who covers up child abuse
(http://fromtheleft.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/pope_rat2.jpg)
-
LOL..nice try libs, pathetic attempt at justifying yourselves...hahahaha!
-
I think the fags and dikes should be allowed to marry as long as they re-right the law to say any two people... Who cares if the gays and dikes marry, if they do it in front of the christian god it isn't accepted anyways right???
-
I think the fags and dikes should be allowed to marry as long as they re-right the law to say any two people... Who cares if the gays and dikes marry, if they do it in front of the christian god it isn't accepted anyways right???
Its pretty perplexing why people like The Coach care so much if 2 men get married. Its sort of an obsession on his part. Kind of weird.
-
meltdown
Oh brother. Epic, well thought out, come back. Not only are you a cowardly, shit-talking, worthless piece of shit -- but a lame and feeble moron with zero imagination and wit.
Coach has always been willingly to back up what he says and when challenged by people that live in his area always gives them an open invitation, none which has been accepted to date.
Still claiming 5'10", 230lbs, 10% body fat? Ever going to back that up with a pic?
I didn't think so. All talk. Typical of cowardly fags like you.
-
I'm not Catholic you twink, I don't understand why you keep putting that up. But then again you're a coward who hides.
-
I'm not Catholic you twink, I don't understand why you keep putting that up. But then again you're a coward who hides.
Hey coach I don't care much for the christian faith, but what is your true arguement for not letting the fags and dikes not marry?? I mean if it is an unholy union than thats what it is...Let them do what they want...Like 2liveCrew said: rubbin belly to belly skin to skin fuckin like hell, but no dick goin in....If the world were gay we would destroy ourselves
-
In this case, it's not whether you agree that there should be same sex marriage. But does a single judge have the right to overrule the will of the people? Even those who are for same sex marriage considered this ruling a travesty that a single judge can impose his will on the people of California.
There was a fair vote and the people of California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. For a single Judge to decide to impose his will and personal preference on society is judicial tyranny.
-
In this case, it's not whether you agree that there should be same sex marriage. But does a single judge have the right to overrule the will of the people? Even those who are for same sex marriage considered this ruling a travesty that a single judge can impose his will on the people of California.
There was a fair vote and the people of California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. For a single Judge to decide to impose his will and personal preference on society is judicial tyranny.
im kinda with ya on that.........but lets also remember that there was a time a "majority" of people would have voted for blacks to continue to go to different schools, and restaurants, and drink from different water fountains (i would probably be one of those people)
so just cause a majority votes for something, doesnt make the will of the people right necessarily.............
just to play devil's advocate...
-
There is no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is between male and female, period.
If it's really about equal rights then they should have the same rights/benefits as a married couple but it needs to be called something else.
Sadly it seems to be about using bully tactics in order to make homosexuality more mainstream and socially acceptable. They have every right to live whatever type of lifestyle they choose but don't attempt to push it on society as a whole.
-
In this case, it's not whether you agree that there should be same sex marriage. But does a single judge have the right to overrule the will of the people? Even those who are for same sex marriage considered this ruling a travesty that a single judge can impose his will on the people of California.
There was a fair vote and the people of California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. For a single Judge to decide to impose his will and personal preference on society is judicial tyranny.
I have to agree with this....Only because if there were a judge out there that chose that knocking people over the head with a hammer were legal based on his views would be outrageous....
-
Hey coach I don't care much for the christian faith, but what is your true arguement for not letting the fags and dikes not marry?? I mean if it is an unholy union than thats what it is...Let them do what they want...Like 2liveCrew said: rubbin belly to belly skin to skin fuckin like hell, but no dick goin in....If the world were gay we would destroy ourselves
First of all, please be clear that gays are asking for special rights. In regard to marriage, they have the same rights as anybody else. As Arnold said when he was first running for office, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."
So gays are trying to redefine marriage in a way that has never existed in history. You may be for that but just be clear it's about same sex marriage.
Would you support a brother and sister getting married? Father/daughter? Father/son? Mother/son? How about marrying more than one spouse? There's a movement that wants to allow a person to marry their pet or an animal of their choice. Is that OK? Why or why not?
-
First of all, please be clear that gays are asking for special rights. In regard to marriage, they have the same rights as anybody else. As Arnold said when he was first running for office, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."
So gays are trying to redefine marriage in a way that has never existed in history. You may be for that but just be clear it's about same sex marriage.
Would you support a brother and sister getting married? Father/daughter? Father/son? Mother/son? How about marrying more than one spouse? There's a movement that wants to allow a person to marry their pet or an animal of their choice. Is that OK? Why or why not?
Look I agree that the U.S. is playing "devils advocate" with this...But seriously who gives a damn if the fags and dikes marry??? I mean they do already...I believe in a long enough time line gays will be eliminated anyways for sake of survival....Most lesbian women bounce back in forth between gay and straight for a reason....
-
HAHA ::) this is rich coming from a guy who spends hours hanging out naked in the bath room of the local ymca trying to strike up conversations with young men about to work on there glute/hamstring tie ins
No YMCA anywhere near where I live so you fail again. And that, my chubby friend, is single digit bodyfat that I have the balls to post. You make a lot of claims about how impressive you are, prove it?
That's what make you a coward and you may think I'm skinny but that skinny old man will easily, and I mean easily, bet the living shit out of you.
And I back up what I say, queer. Just pray we never meet. I will make sure your homo ass is crippled for life.
-
im kinda with ya on that.........but lets also remember that there was a time a "majority" of people would have voted for blacks to continue to go to different schools, and restaurants, and drink from different water fountains (i would probably be one of those people)
so just cause a majority votes for something, doesnt make the will of the people right necessarily.............
just to play devil's advocate...
Actually my friend, your wrong. Jim Crow laws were never voted on but impose on by the courts. Remember what a law is. You have a law because you want to prevent an action or behavior that would take place without that law. Most businesses didn't care if they had Black customers. Like most businesses they care only about the color of money. Jim Crow laws were passed to prevent these business owners, schools, buses... from from accepting Blacks they otherwise would.
And it is never a good argument to pose that because there were bad laws and policies in the past it should be tolerated in the present day.
The question is, California has a legislative process that allows these laws and policies to be voted on. It's in their State constitution. Many disagree with their referendum process that allows this. And some have tried to change it -- unsuccessfully. So is it right that a single Judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people? Forget about whether you agree or disagree with the law.
If we allow Judges to make policy what's next?
-
Actually my friend, your wrong. Jim Crow laws were never voted on but impose on by the courts. Remember what a law is. You have a law because you want to prevent an action or behavior that would take place without that law. Most businesses didn't care if they had Black customers. Like most businesses they care only about the color of money. Jim Crow laws were passed to prevent these business owners, schools, buses... from from accepting Blacks they otherwise would.
And it is never a good argument to pose that because there were bad laws and policies in the past it should be tolerated in the present day.
The question is, California has a legislative process that allows these laws and policies to be voted on. It's in their State constitution. Many disagree with their referendum process that allows this. And some have tried to change it -- unsuccessfully. So is it right that a single Judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people? Forget about whether you agree or disagree with the law.
If we allow Judges to make policy what's next?
we already allow judges to make policy.........
i could dig and cite a thousand examples of court decisions that drastically altered the american sociocultural landscape.........brown vs. the board of education, and roe vs. wade being the most obvious that comes to mind
everyday the us circuit courts make decisions that alter the lives of american citizens profoundly.
-
Look I agree that the U.S. is playing "devils advocate" with this...But seriously who gives a damn if the fags and dikes marry??? I mean they do already...I believe in a long enough time line gays will be eliminated anyways for sake of survival....Most lesbian women bounce back in forth between gay and straight for a reason....
Well, apparently, many do. You may not care but many want to simply keep marriage, as recognized by society and government as between a man and a woman. As it has always been.
My question would be, why is it so important to gays that others endorse and honor their unions? Just do what they want. Hugh Hefner, for all practical purposes, most of his life, was a polygamous. He didn't give a crap what others thought. He didn't demand that you or I or anybody else endorse, legalized and honor his alternative life style.
If a couple of homos want to get married in whatever church they support, like Bob Paris did, and play house together -- have at it. Why is it so important to them that others recognize, endorse and support this?
-
Well, apparently, many do. You may not care but many want to simply keep marriage, as recognized by society and government as between a man and a woman. As it has always been.
My question would be, why is it so important to gays that others endorse and honor their unions? Just do what they want. Hugh Hefner, for all practical purposes, most of his life, was a polygamous. He didn't give a crap what others thought. He didn't demand that you or I or anybody else endorse, legalized and honor his alternative life style.
If a couple of homos want to get married in whatever church they support, like Bob Paris did, and play house together -- have at it. Why is it so important to them that others recognize, endorse and support this?
Damn I really never liked you before, but you just made to much sense right now....I agree 100% with this....
-
we already allow judges to make policy.........
i could dig and cite a thousand examples of court decisions that drastically altered the american sociocultural landscape.........brown vs. the board of education, and roe vs. wade being the most obvious that comes to mind
everyday the us circuit courts make decisions that alter the lives of american citizens profoundly.
Site thousands? Um, OK.
But back to your point: Yes, and they were wrong. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue today is because the courts usurped State rights. Remember, abortion was already legal in 13 States prior to Roe V Wade. Many, if not most, today, though they would not support over turning Roe v Wade, still consider it bad law and the reason it's still such a contentious issue today. A clear violation of State rights and the 10th amendment. Judicial activism is alive and well and getting worse.
Anyway, this is a good discussion to have and one of the reasons GetBig is such a great board, because other than the few like pugalist666 who once again shows his profound lack of intellectual heft and substance and really adds nothing to the board but just dead weight, there are a lot of thoughtful people here from all walks of life. This board truly transcends the trivial sport that is bodybuilding and why many stay here.
That's why it's such a tragedy that this board is so poorly run and maintained. I'd love to continue this discussion but having to waiting literally ten minutes for your post to load is just ridiculous and I don't have the time and patience for it.
And to pugalist, the lot right next to me, no house or anything. Just the lot. Is on the market for $750,000. I guarantee you that my garage is worth more than any house you live in in Canada.
So keep hiding behind you mommy's skirt making faces at everyone. No here likes you or respects you. You occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of manhood. That of a coward.
-
we already allow judges to make policy.........
i could dig and cite a thousand examples of court decisions that drastically altered the american sociocultural landscape.........brown vs. the board of education, and roe vs. wade being the most obvious that comes to mind
everyday the us circuit courts make decisions that alter the lives of american citizens profoundly.
Site thousands? Um, OK.
But back to your point: Yes, and they were wrong. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue today is because the courts usurped State rights. Remember, abortion was already legal in 13 States prior to Roe V Wade. Many, if not most, today, though they would not support over turning Roe v Wade, still consider it bad law and the reason it's still such a contentious issue today. A clear violation of State rights and the 10th amendment. Judicial activism is alive and well and getting worse.
Anyway, this is a good discussion to have and one of the reasons GetBig is such a great board, because other than the few like pugalist666 who once again shows his profound lack of intellectual heft and substance and really adds nothing to the board but just dead weight, there are a lot of thoughtful people here from all walks of life. This board truly transcends the trivial sport that is bodybuilding and why many stay here.
That's why it's such a tragedy that this board is so poorly run and maintained. I'd love to continue this discussion but having to waiting literally ten minutes for your post to load is just ridiculous and I don't have the time and patience for it.
And to pugalist, the lot right next to me, no house or anything. Just the lot. Is on the market for $750,000. I guarantee you that my garage is worth more than any house you live in in Canada.
So keep hiding behind you mommy's skirt making faces at everyone. No here likes you or respects you. You occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of manhood. That of a coward.
-
Site thousands? Um, OK.
But back to your point: Yes, and they were wrong. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue today is because the courts usurped State rights. Remember, abortion was already legal in 13 States prior to Roe V Wade. Many, if not most, today, though they would not support over turning Roe v Wade, still consider it bad law and the reason it's still such a contentious issue today. A clear violation of State rights and the 10th amendment. Judicial activism is alive and well and getting worse.
Anyway, this is a good discussion to have and one of the reasons GetBig is such a great board, because other than the few like pugalist666 who once again shows his profound lack of intellectual heft and substance and really adds nothing to the board but just dead weight, there are a lot of thoughtful people here from all walks of life. This board truly transcends the trivial sport that is bodybuilding and why many stay here.
That's why it's such a tragedy that this board is so poorly run and maintained. I'd love to continue this discussion but having to waiting literally ten minutes for your post to load is just ridiculous and I don't have the time and patience for it.
And to pugalist, the lot right next to me, no house or anything. Just the lot. Is on the market for $750,000. I guarantee you that my garage is worth more than any house you live in in Canada.
So keep hiding behind you mommy's skirt making faces at everyone. No here likes you or respects you. You occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of manhood. That of a coward.
yeah, thousands..........if you really took the time to research the subject.......you would see thousands of state and federal court decisions over the years on many different important issues:
from decisions that broke up corporate monopolies, to ones about the military draft, to drugs and how big pharma could market them, to issues regarding housing, who is given loans,and who you have to give loans to, and affirmative action
you would see that just as much as the legislative branch of government, the judicial branch of govenrment has shaped the cultural landscape of the last century........
oftentimes, when politicians want to push an issue that they know will be unpopular with the people, they do it through the judges they elect...........because judges cannot be voted out, so they are put there as the business-arm of hot button issues...............thi nk about it
-
Who gives a fuck seriously
Keep fighting homos don't give up ,interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967 .
-
Who gives a fuck seriously
Keep fighting homos don't give up ,interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967 .
The only thing I believe in is if two "humans" want to be married that are not related to one another why not let it be??? who gives a damn if to homos or lesbos get married if they are not related to eachother...???
-
yeah, thousands..........if you really took the time to research the subject.......you would see thousands of state and federal court decisions over the years on many different important issues:
from decisions that broke up corporate monopolies, to ones about the military draft, to drugs and how big pharma could market them, to issues regarding housing, who is given loans,and who you have to give loans to, and affirmative action
you would see that just as much as the legislative branch of government, the judicial branch of govenrment has shaped the cultural landscape of the last century........
oftentimes, when politicians want to push an issue that they know will be unpopular with the people, they do it through the judges they elect...........because judges cannot be voted out, so they are put there as the business-arm of hot button issues...............thi nk about it
And you took the time to research thousands of case histories? OK.
The question still is, not whether or not judicial activism has occurred in the past, but do you support judges unilaterally over ruling the will of people and making law?
-
Who gives a fuck seriously
Keep fighting homos don't give up ,interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967 .
A race is a state of being. You cannot change what race or nationality you are. Homosexuality is a behavior.
Huge difference.
-
The only thing I believe in is if two "humans" want to be married that are not related to one another why not let it be??? who gives a damn if to homos or lesbos get married if they are not related to eachother...???
If you support same sex marriage, on what basis do you oppose people related to each other getting married? Say a father and a son, or brother/brother? Sister/sister?
-
Hey Coach, where the fuk are you? Whenever I step in to back your position you always disappear and leave all the fighting to me. I can more than hold my own but if you start a thread challenging or promoting a thought or position see it through even when the fists start flying.
-
(No homo), but I agree, I don't really care what two faggotts do to each other (so long as they don't try it on me, that's cool). If they want to get married, its fine with me. But if a faggott wants to touch me etc that's not cool. So long as they keep their hands off and don't try to fag on me, or spread HIV etc deliberately, or molest kids etc, I got no problem.
-
(No homo), but I agree, I don't really care what two faggotts do to each other (so long as they don't try it on me, that's cool). If they want to get married, its fine with me. But if a faggott wants to touch me etc that's not cool. So long as they keep their hands off and don't try to fag on me, or spread HIV etc deliberately, or molest kids etc, I got no problem.
Friend, please understand, gays already do get married. They are now demanded that everyone else recognize, endorse and honor their union.
People don't seem to understand and grasp that gays are asking for special rights, rights nobody has and ever had, and they are attempting to redefine marriage in a way that has never existed ever in any society. If you support that why not polygamy, or brother/sister marriage, or people marrying their pets?
-
the coach = republican closet fag who goes an anti-gay crusades in order to cover up his own homosexual activity/desire ala mark foley, tim haggard , larry craig, bob allen , glen murphy , etc
;)
-
Friend, please understand, gays already do get married. They are now demanded that everyone else recognize, endorse and honor their union.
If you support that why not polygamy, or brother/sister marriage, or people marrying their pets?
I do support all of these things. Pologamy is cool with me. If sibliings want marry, no problem with me. And if a guy really wants to marry hit pet, again its no problem with me at all. Each to his own I say, so long as what they do does not cause any harm to others, all's cool with me.
-
I do support all of these things. Pologamy is cool with me. If sibliings want marry, no problem with me. And if a guy really wants to marry hit pet, again its no problem with me at all. Each to his own I say, so long as what they do does not cause any harm to others, all's cool with me.
So insurance companies will have provide health care benefits for your cat?
Remember, the question is not how one lives their lives. If an adult brother and sister or brother and brother want to have sex and live together I don't have a problem with that. But the issue is what we as a society support, honor and endorse?
-
::) and ?
And?
And that you're a fuking queer who's a cowardly shit talker hiding behind a computer and in real life Coach will hand your flabby ass to you.
5'10", 230lbs, 10% -- LOL!
BTW, still having trouble satisfying your Black man's rectum?
when it comes to sex drive which drugs do you guys find work best
-
I thought Coach had sworn off his manufactured outrage!?
-
Toe Touching Twink...
-
The problem is people who are different than me.
-
meltdown , you should relax, get away from the computer for a while till your no longer whipped up in a frenzy
lol @ "meltdown" Your stock phrase due to lack of any coherent comeback when you are, once again, getting brutally owned.
You're such a pathetic little shit.
-
time for a break melty , your embarrassing yourself with your obsessed revenge quest against some one who made fun of the way you look ::)
What's the matter, fag? Getting to rough for you? Sucks getting your ass handed to you -- AGAIN!
BTW, I look in better shape and condition than you even have. If I didn't you would have proved me wrong long ago.
LOL @ "embarrassing yourself" Your quotes and pics on this thread are priceless. God, you are such a queer. Seriously. A straight up queer.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=345775.0
-
And you took the time to research thousands of case histories? OK.
The question still is, not whether or not judicial activism has occurred in the past, but do you support judges unilaterally over ruling the will of people and making law?
::) ::) ::)
what are you even talking about, you have absolutely no leg to stand on here
no, obviously i havent researched them..........but a retarded person knows what im saying is true, its not even a debatable point
why do you think such a fuss is made about the nomination of supreme court judges
-
;)
Is that "pugalist666"? aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha hahahahaha, 5'10 230 @ 10% BF? AAaaahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaha! Changes my whole prospective on how to take this clowns posts..AAaahahahahahahah ahaha!
-
Pellius, I tend to agree with some of the intelligent comments you've been making on this subject.
I have no hate or animosity against gays nor lesbians and bi-guys and bi-gals .... absolutely none at all ...
BUT my problem is the apparent fact that a judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people.
If that turns out to be the case, there is something definitely wrong somewhere.
I is dumb when it comes to political and most legal matters but I honestly believe that there is something going on among these judges that we are not aware of and it's not a conspiracy theory.
Could it be possible that a gay judge was appointed in an effort to eventually initiate the legalization of gay 'marriages' for reason we may not be presently aware of?
And that all this legal mumbo-jumbo that is going on right now is some type of covert cover-up in an effort to 'save face'?
At present I firmly believe that the gay guys and gals are going to eventually win this battle which will lead to further complications regarding the justice system's right to control our lives by negating what the citizens have voted on.
I've have personally been involved in three court cases which definitely proved to me that some judges have less smarts than the average GI Joe selling pencils on the sidewalk. In one such case the judge ruled in favor of the 'accused' who played poker with him a few times each month and had absolutely no concern for the kid who nearly had his foot amputated.
Nuff said. Thanks for list'nen.
-
If you support same sex marriage, on what basis do you oppose people related to each other getting married? Say a father and a son, or brother/brother? Sister/sister?
marrying close family members to each other was common enough through most of history, especially with the ruling classes.
its only cultural differences that decide these things. in the US we dont eat dogs, the idea horrifies us - other countries eat them all day.
legal marriage should be open to any people that consent to it. marriage in a church, temple, etc., is just for show. it isnt legally binding without the secular license.
-
::) ::) ::)
what are you even talking about, you have absolutely no leg to stand on here
no, obviously i havent researched them..........but a retarded person knows what im saying is true, its not even a debatable point
why do you think such a fuss is made about the nomination of supreme court judges
You seem to have avoided the question. I am not disputing that judicial activism takes place. It does and it's wrong. Just like this case where a single judge is over turning the rule of the people. My simple and direct question to you is do you support a single judge over ruling the will of the people in this case?
-
marrying close family members to each other was common enough through most of history, especially with the ruling classes.
its only cultural differences that decide these things. in the US we dont eat dogs, the idea horrifies us - other countries eat them all day.
legal marriage should be open to any people that consent to it. marriage in a church, temple, etc., is just for show. it isnt legally binding without the secular license.
I'm a bit confuse. I believe you said you were against family members marrying but now it sounds like you support it.
-
Pellius, I tend to agree with some of the intelligent comments you've been making on this subject.
I have no hate or animosity against gays nor lesbians and bi-guys and bi-gals .... absolutely none at all ...
BUT my problem is the apparent fact that a judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people.
If that turns out to be the case, there is something definitely wrong somewhere.
I is dumb when it comes to political and most legal matters but I honestly believe that there is something going on among these judges that we are not aware of and it's not a conspiracy theory.
Could it be possible that a gay judge was appointed in an effort to eventually initiate the legalization of gay 'marriages' for reason we may not be presently aware of?
And that all this legal mumbo-jumbo that is going on right now is some type of covert cover-up in an effort to 'save face'?
At present I firmly believe that the gay guys and gals are going to eventually win this battle which will lead to further complications regarding the justice system's right to control our lives by negating what the citizens have voted on.
I've have personally been involved in three court cases which definitely proved to me that some judges have less smarts than the average GI Joe selling pencils on the sidewalk. In one such case the judge ruled in favor of the 'accused' who played poker with him a few times each month and had absolutely no concern for the kid who nearly had his foot amputated.
Nuff said. Thanks for list'nen.
I really like reading your posts. You come across so sober and mature -- traits often lacking here.
I do believe judges are often appointed base on their agenda. Not following constitutional law but injecting their personal beliefs and bias.
I also have no problem with gays per se. I find that most gays are not activists wanting to parade on the streets in hot pants shoving their life style in your face. Most just want to live their quietly and privately and mind their own business. It's the homosexual agenda I have a problem with. It's like their goal is to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. That it wouldn't matter at all when your son goes out on his first date that he's hand and hand with a girl or hand in hand with a boy.
-
The homosexuals are trying to get abnormal behavior llegally protected. That's all there is to it. Once gay marriage is legally recognised (against the will of society) we will see the ACLU-types then moving to legally protect behaviors such as beastiality, pedophilia, incest, etc. It's the logical 'next step' for these people.
But you gotta love how, if your cause loses the popular test, you can just go find some sympathetic judge to force your agenda on 36 million other people.