Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112767 times)

bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #200 on: May 29, 2008, 05:07:00 AM »
one of the many executive tools available...there are more to come.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #201 on: May 30, 2008, 10:24:33 AM »
How Governor Set His Stance on Gay Rights
By JEREMY W. PETERS and DANNY HAKIM

When David A. Paterson was growing up and his parents would go out of town, he and his little brother would stay in Harlem with family friends they called Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald.

Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald, he said, were a gay couple, though in the 1960s few people described them that way. They helped young David with his spelling, and read to him and played cards with him.

“Apparently, my parents never thought we were in any danger,” the governor recalled on Thursday in an interview. “I was raised in a culture that understood the different ways that people conduct their lives. And I feel very proud of it.”

Mr. Paterson, who two months ago was unexpectedly elevated to be governor of New York, has accepted gay men and lesbians since early in life. From his first run for office, in 1985, he reached out to gays and lesbians, and in 1994, long before gay rights groups were broadly pushing for it, he said he supported same-sex marriage.

As he rose in politics, he became a go-between in the occasionally strained relationship between gay and black residents in his district and beyond, using his easygoing manner to broker disagreements and soothe hurt feelings.

On Thursday, the governor, who is still largely unknown to many New Yorkers, appealed to them to recognize what he called the basic common sense of allowing gay men and lesbians married elsewhere to gain the same rights here as heterosexual couples.

In doing so, he is stepping to the forefront of an issue that has often tripped up his party nationally, and he is going further than either of the two Democratic presidential candidates have been willing to do.

“People who live together for a long time would like to be married — as far as I’m concerned, I think it’s beautiful,” he said in a news conference called to discuss his directive to state agencies to revise their regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like California.

“I think it’s fine, regardless of the tenets of religion or the beliefs of some,” he added. “It’s something that the government should allow for people. It’s maybe misunderstood in this generation.”

But already on Thursday, there were signs of a backlash against his decision, with some conservative groups mulling whether to mount a legal challenge to the directive. Some Republican legislators said that Mr. Paterson is wading into an issue that should be settled by the Legislature, and likened it to the ill-fated attempt by his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants without seeking legislative support.

“It’s outrageous that the governor did what he did,” said Michael Long, chairman of the state’s Conservative Party. “He’s for same-sex marriage, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. To do this in the dark of night, through the back door, to begin the process of destroying the sanctity of marriage, is really wrong.”

It was shortly after Mr. Paterson was sworn in, on March 17, that his legal counsel, David Nocenti, approached him to discuss a February appellate court ruling in Rochester. In that case, the court said that because of New York’s longstanding practice of recognizing marriages from other jurisdictions, a community college in Monroe County must provide health benefits to the wife of a woman who was married in Canada.

Mr. Nocenti recommended that Mr. Paterson order all state agencies to bring their policies in line with that decision.

Mr. Paterson quickly agreed to do so, not only because the state risked legal exposure if it did not, but also because such a directive would be a strong statement of principle about an issue he cares about deeply. He met with his inner circle, and there was no dissent.

On May 14, Mr. Nocenti’s memo went out to the agencies. The governor’s plan called for not publicizing the directive until after June 30, when the agencies were asked to report back to Mr. Nocenti with the revisions necessary to comply with the court ruling. Once the governor approved those changes, he planned to announce them publicly. But Mr. Nocenti’s memo was reported on Wednesday night by The New York Times, and the governor described its contents at a dinner with gay advocates on May 17.

In the interview, Mr. Paterson said he believes deeply that gay men and lesbians today face the same kind of civil rights battle that black Americans faced. He acknowledged that this position put him at odds with some black leaders, who bristle at such comparisons.

“In many respects, people in our society, we only recognize our own struggles,” Mr. Paterson said. “I’ve wanted to be someone in the African-American community who recognizes the new civil rights struggle that is being undertaken by gay and lesbian and transgendered people.”

When Mr. Paterson became governor, gay activists cheered, saying they would have an ally in Albany even more committed than Mr. Spitzer. The Web site of The Advocate, a gay magazine, ran a story headlined, “Could Spitzer’s woes have a silver lining?” The story called Mr. Paterson “the best-case scenario for gays and lesbians in the state.”

Mr. Paterson introduced the State Senate’s first hate crimes bill in the 1980s and refused to support a compromise that did not include gay men and lesbians. When the Senate ultimately agreed to pass a hate crimes bill in 2000, it marked the first time the phrase “sexual orientation” appeared in New York State laws.

Mr. Paterson, then a senator, said: “Now I can die in peace,” adding, “If nothing else ever happens here, I feel that I can point to a contribution that I made.”

During his years as minority leader of the Senate, from 2002 to 2006, his warm relations with the majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican, helped pave the way for laws extending civil rights protections to gay men and lesbians, and coincided with a softening of Mr. Bruno’s views on gay rights.

“From the get-go, when I first introduced marriage, which was in, like, 2001, he put his name down right away as a sponsor,” said Senator Tom Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the only openly gay member of the Senate. “The second I asked him if he wanted to be a sponsor, he said yes. When he was minority leader, he also fought for funding for groups and he’s been great on H.I.V./AIDS issues, as well. He has been 100 percent behind us.”

Some lawmakers said they particularly admired Mr. Paterson’s position on gay marriage because it would have been easy for him to let the issue rest once he became governor.

“I just think it shows the steel in his spine,” said Assemblyman Micah Z. Kellner, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side. “He knows he is now the governor of all people in New York State, gay and straight.”

Mr. Paterson said he does not see his support for gay marriage as an issue of political fortitude, but rather something more human and almost reflexive.

“All the time when I’d hear Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald and my parents talk, they were talking about the civil rights struggle,” Mr. Paterson said. “In those days, I knew I wanted to grow up and feel that I could change something.”


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #202 on: May 31, 2008, 11:09:42 AM »
10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay Marriage 

Friday, May 30, 2008 2:30 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gay_marriage_states/2008/05/30/100258.html

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #203 on: May 31, 2008, 04:25:28 PM »
10 States Ask Calif. Court to Delay Gay Marriage 

Friday, May 30, 2008 2:30 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gay_marriage_states/2008/05/30/100258.html

They don't have to do so, according to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why gay "marriage" supporters were looking for a state, other than Massachusetts, to legalize it.

Baker v. Nelson already stated that bans on gay "marriage" don't violate the 14th amendment, which is the argument that supporters will attempt to use. They must present the case as to why it does not, as it did not 37 years ago.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #204 on: May 31, 2008, 04:42:11 PM »
They don't have to do so, according to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why gay "marriage" supporters were looking for a state, other than Massachusetts, to legalize it.

Baker v. Nelson already stated that bans on gay "marriage" don't violate the 14th amendment, which is the argument that supporters will attempt to use. They must present the case as to why it does not, as it did not 37 years ago.

I don't know McWay.  Anytime we leave decisions like these in the hands of the Courts, you never what can happen.  Just look at the case (Bowers v. Hardwick?) where they overturned precedent that couldn't have been more than 20 years old or so. 

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #205 on: June 03, 2008, 12:01:31 PM »
First Same-Sex Weddings in Greece
By ANTHEE CARASSAVA

ATHENS — Defying governmental wrath, the mayor of a remote Greek island performed the country’s first same-sex marriages on Tuesday, wedding two men and two women.

The civil ceremonies, held at sunrise in the nondescript town hall of Tilos, a tiny island in the eastern Aegean Sea, defied statements by a senior Greek prosecutor last week that such unions were illegal.

“It’s done, now,” the mayor, Anastassios Aliferis, said in a telephone interview. “The unions have been registered and the licenses have been issued. It’s a historic moment.”

With its abundance of glamorous gay bars and summer island resorts such as Mykonos, Greece has long drawn thousands of gay tourists annually. But gays and lesbians in this European Union nation of 11 million people frequently complain of discrimination. Public displays of affection are widely frowned upon. The country’s military bars gays from joining its ranks, and in 1993 a private Greek television network, Mega Channel, was fined $116,000 by the National Radio and Television Council for showing men kissing in a weekly drama. Greece’s powerful Orthodox Church has also denounced homosexuality as a sin and “defect of human nature.”

On Tuesday, however, a bubbling just-married Evangelia Vlami emerged from the Tilos town hall, telling the BBC that the unions would help end discrimination. “We did this to encourage other gay people to take a stand,” she said.

About two dozen people attended the no-frills ceremony, held under the watchful eyes of police officers and dumfounded locals.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Sofia Kamma, a resident contacted by phone. “I know they’re people too, but couldn’t they have gone on doing what they were doing without getting our community involved?”

Greek gay rights groups have noted a loophole in a 1982 law that does not specify that a civil union must involve a man and woman.

But last week, as the gay couples made plans to tie the knot, taking out a wedding notice in a local newspaper, Greece’s top prosecutor, Giorgos Sanidas, warned that any marriage between same-sex couples would be “automatically nullified and considered illegal.”

He said the decree was founded in the spirit of the constitution that defines marriage as matrimony between a man and a woman with the intent of forming a family.

But Mr. Aliferis, a Socialist foe of the ruling conservative government, insisted otherwise. “There is no court in Europe that will side by this arcane reading of the constitution,” he said. “What happens if a couple can not reproduce and have a family? Is their marriage null and void?”

Gay activists have warned that they may now begin to sue any of the country’s municipalities if civil authorities resist requests for similar sax-sex unions.

The Netherlands was the first European Union country to offer full civil marriage rights to gay couples in 2001. Belgium did so in 2003, followed by Spain, despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.

Most other European Union countries have varying forms of civil unions.

“It’s ludicrous for Greece, the cradle of democracy and human rights, to defy homosexuals equal rights and privileges,” said Mr. Aliferis. “Officials should take the time and reassess their views.”

Gay activists have vowed to seek recourse with the European Court of Justice if authorities in Greece continue to challenge same-sex marriages.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #206 on: June 03, 2008, 01:10:03 PM »
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #207 on: June 03, 2008, 01:17:07 PM »
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63713
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #208 on: June 03, 2008, 01:19:24 PM »
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314

Good.  The voters should decide, one way or the other. 

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #209 on: June 03, 2008, 02:17:53 PM »
It's official! The California Marriage Amendment is on the ballot:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide (6/2/08)


Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”


“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

“The vast majority of research continues to state that California’s voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court’s decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago.” stated Prentice.





http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=314
The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue.  It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment.  Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution.  And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.

bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #210 on: June 03, 2008, 02:26:11 PM »
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?
no more than that mormon cult already does

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #211 on: June 03, 2008, 02:35:54 PM »
Do you guys believe that legalizing GAY marriage would make a mockery of the practice?

No more so than getting divorced and remarried does. I bet everyone reading this knows someone who is remarried once, twice, or even thrice!

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #212 on: June 03, 2008, 03:23:39 PM »
no more than that mormon cult already does
No more so than getting divorced and remarried does. I bet everyone reading this knows someone who is remarried once, twice, or even thrice!


You know i asked one of my clients this the other day and he said "like many husbands and wives don't already make a mockery of marriage with the way they cheat and treat each other?"


MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #213 on: June 03, 2008, 04:28:19 PM »
The opponents of this issue being on the ballot in November will still try to convince the public through the tanked-up media that the polls show that more people care less about the issue.  It will be a wake-up call when the ballot results should at least a 5-10% point margin in favor of a marriage amendment.  Twenty-Seven states already have this amendment in their constitution.  And if California ends up with vote to amend it's state constitution, the adversaries will have to concede that, indeed, not everyone sees this lifestyle as favorable as they deem it to be.

That's generally the case. Some of these outlets will prop up polls, claiming that people support gay "marriage". If history repeats itself, these polls will be shot to pieces, when the results of the vote are tallied. 1.1 million people signed this petition in record time; they only needed 695,000.

If the amendment passes, it will be the third time a state's residence has voted for such, after its court deemed laws that declared marriage as only a 1M-1W union unconstitutional. And, California will join Michigan, Oregon, Hawaii, and Wisconsin, as "blue" states with constitutional amendments, regarding the definition of marriage.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19253
  • Getbig!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #214 on: June 03, 2008, 04:30:09 PM »
no more than that mormon cult already does

In other words, more of a mockery.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #215 on: June 03, 2008, 05:30:55 PM »
In other words, more of a mockery.

LOL  ;D

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #216 on: June 04, 2008, 10:07:37 AM »
California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage until after November election
The ruling, on a 4-3 votes, means same-sex couples could tie the knot as early as later this month.
By Andrew Blankstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:07 AM PDT, June 4, 2008

The California Supreme Court today has rejected a request by conservative and religious groups to delay implementing its legalization of same-sex marriage until after the November election.

The ruling, made on a 4-3 vote, means that gay marriage could begin soon -- perhaps as early as later this month.

State officials announced last week that California counties are authorized to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning June 17.

On Monday, the California secretary of state said an initiative barring gay marriage had enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

The proposal would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo last month's historic California Supreme Court ruling, which found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional.


drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #217 on: June 04, 2008, 10:10:40 AM »
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #218 on: June 04, 2008, 01:47:13 PM »
What will the gays have to continually whine and bitch about now?
fecal matter on the penis
!

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #219 on: June 04, 2008, 06:33:53 PM »
George Takei and partner plan to wed in September
By MICHAEL WEINFELD, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 4, 2008

George Takei, best known for playing Sulu on "Star Trek," will never forget the first time he saw Brad Altman, the man he plans to marry, more than two decades ago.

They were working out in a running club and he couldn't take his eyes off Altman, who had a "lean, tightly muscled" body, the 71-year-old actor told AP Radio in an interview.

Takei said he asked Altman to help him train for a marathon, they fell in love, and now they've been living together for 21 years.

Altman said he proposed by getting down on one knee in their kitchen while Takei was eating a sandwich after seeing on TV that the California Supreme Court had legalized same-sex marriage. It surprised Takei, who thought he would be the one who popped the question.

They bought each other turquoise and silver wedding rings.

Takei and Altman plan to marry Sept. 14 in the Democracy Forum at the Japanese National Museum in Los Angeles.

Walter Koenig, who played Chekov in "Star Trek," will be the best man and Nichelle Nichols, who played Uhura, will be the matron of honor. Castmate Leonard Nimoy will be among the 200 guests, but probably not William Shatner. Takei has said Shatner didn't treat him and most of the cast very well.

Takei, who had a recurring role on NBC's "Heroes" last year, and Altman plan to honeymoon for a month in South America.

As for what they'll wear on their big day, Altman said they'll both walk down the aisle in white tuxedoes, which seemed to catch Takei off-guard.

"Well, now that you've announced it on the air, I guess it's settled," he said.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #220 on: June 04, 2008, 07:07:48 PM »
So what?

A nerd icon is getting married.  :)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #221 on: June 04, 2008, 09:38:17 PM »
At some point who really gives a sh1t?   Unless of course you are a closet phobe.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19432
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #222 on: June 04, 2008, 11:07:30 PM »
At some point who really gives a sh1t?   Unless of course you are a closet phobe.

Closet phobes? On a bodybuilding board no less?  Could it be?  :D

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #223 on: June 05, 2008, 07:56:00 AM »
At some point who really gives a sh1t?   Unless of course you are a closet phobe.

No one does care, that's what is so funny.

I'm not really in favor of re-defining marriage but will gladly trade marriage meaning less for not having to hear gays carp about the issue anymore.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #224 on: June 05, 2008, 08:38:28 AM »
No one does care, that's what is so funny.

I'm not really in favor of re-defining marriage but will gladly trade marriage meaning less for not having to hear gays carp about the issue anymore.

Although even though I'm in California, i don't hear much about it.