Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
November 23, 2014, 05:38:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 49   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 45951 times)
howardroark
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2523


Resident Objectivist & Autodidact


WWW
« Reply #900 on: January 20, 2012, 10:37:18 PM »

I want to see the court system start applying a more expansive understanding of the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution...
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17168



« Reply #901 on: January 25, 2012, 08:38:39 AM »

Christie Wants Voters to Decide on Gay Marriage
By KATE ZERNIKE

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said Tuesday that he would veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and he challenged the State Legislature instead to put the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.

Democrats, who control the Legislature, swiftly rejected the idea, accusing the governor, a Republican, of trying to punt on a politically sensitive issue.

“Marriage equality isn’t like sports betting,” said Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Union County Democrat, referring to a referendum on an amendment to the State Constitution on gambling last year. “It’s a civil right, which is already guaranteed in our Constitution. It’s up to the Legislature to guarantee these rights.”

The same-sex marriage bill is a priority for Democrats, led by the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, who has said that his decision not to vote on a similar bill two years ago, when there was a Democratic governor who supported same-sex marriage, was “the biggest mistake” of his political career.

Gay-rights advocates had been hoping that Mr. Christie, who supports civil unions over same-sex marriage, might sign the legislation, or, if he vetoed it, give Republican legislators tacit approval to vote for an override.

Mr. Christie is considered a rising national star in a party still dominated by socially conservative voters who oppose same-sex marriage. But he had been uncharacteristically noncommittal in recent weeks. On Monday, he nominated a gay man to the State Supreme Court, and when asked about the prospects for the marriage bill, said that he would make a decision if and when the bill ever reached his desk.

He made his proposal on Tuesday after a town-hall-style meeting in Bridgewater, suggesting that the ballot question be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment. “The fact is, we’re discussing huge change, and I believe we need to approach this not only in a thoughtful way, not in a rushed way, but also in a way where we’re able to get the most input that we can from the public,” he said.

The news was quickly conveyed to Republicans at a crowded hearing on the marriage legislation in Trenton. Senator Christopher Bateman, a Republican from Somerset County who some Democrats had been hoping would support the bill, announced Mr. Christie’s stance about an hour into the hearing and said he agreed with it.

“Get this issue for once and all decided,” Mr. Bateman said.

Senator Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat, shot back: “Civil rights will not be placed on the ballot.” When the crowd at the hearing applauded, he added: “We don’t need to wait for an answer. We just got one.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the same-sex marriage bill, 8-4.

“When the governor was doing his town hall meetings, I can’t tell you how many times he said, ‘Call your legislator, I want to make these changes;’ ” Mr. Sweeney said in an interview later. “Why would he put this on the ballot when everything that’s been important in this state in the last two years has been handled by the Legislature?”

Mr. Christie’s move also disappointed gay-rights advocates, who had just on Monday been effusive in their praise for his nominating Bruce Harris, who will be the state’s first openly gay Supreme Court justice if confirmed.

A poll released by Quinnipiac University last week found that 52 percent of New Jersey voters believed that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, and 53 percent believed that denying them that right constituted discrimination. But across the country, the right to same-sex marriage has been granted mostly by court decision or legislative action. Same-sex-marriage advocates noted that almost every one of more than 30 ballot questions on gay rights had failed to broaden them; even in 2008, when the country elected a Democratic president, voters in California approved Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

“It’s a hard dynamic to win at the polls,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who is openly gay. “At the end of the day, gays are a minority and they can’t match the crazies, who are out there and really motivated to vote against it.”

Democrats argued that the last time the state placed a civil rights issue on the ballot was in 1915, when voters — then limited to men — considered whether to allow women to vote, and rejected the proposal.

A separate move for same-sex marriage is proceeding through the courts in New Jersey. In 2006, the State Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but left it up to the Legislature to decide how to ensure those rights.

The Legislature passed a law allowing civil unions, but gay couples have sued, arguing that it fails to provide equal rights.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84829


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #902 on: January 25, 2012, 09:16:03 AM »

let everyone get married.  no sense in straight ppl being the only miserable ones Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #903 on: January 25, 2012, 02:38:12 PM »

Christie Wants Voters to Decide on Gay Marriage
By KATE ZERNIKE

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said Tuesday that he would veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and he challenged the State Legislature instead to put the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.

Democrats, who control the Legislature, swiftly rejected the idea, accusing the governor, a Republican, of trying to punt on a politically sensitive issue.

“Marriage equality isn’t like sports betting,” said Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Union County Democrat, referring to a referendum on an amendment to the State Constitution on gambling last year. “It’s a civil right, which is already guaranteed in our Constitution. It’s up to the Legislature to guarantee these rights.”

The same-sex marriage bill is a priority for Democrats, led by the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, who has said that his decision not to vote on a similar bill two years ago, when there was a Democratic governor who supported same-sex marriage, was “the biggest mistake” of his political career.

Gay-rights advocates had been hoping that Mr. Christie, who supports civil unions over same-sex marriage, might sign the legislation, or, if he vetoed it, give Republican legislators tacit approval to vote for an override.

Mr. Christie is considered a rising national star in a party still dominated by socially conservative voters who oppose same-sex marriage. But he had been uncharacteristically noncommittal in recent weeks. On Monday, he nominated a gay man to the State Supreme Court, and when asked about the prospects for the marriage bill, said that he would make a decision if and when the bill ever reached his desk.

He made his proposal on Tuesday after a town-hall-style meeting in Bridgewater, suggesting that the ballot question be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment. “The fact is, we’re discussing huge change, and I believe we need to approach this not only in a thoughtful way, not in a rushed way, but also in a way where we’re able to get the most input that we can from the public,” he said.

The news was quickly conveyed to Republicans at a crowded hearing on the marriage legislation in Trenton. Senator Christopher Bateman, a Republican from Somerset County who some Democrats had been hoping would support the bill, announced Mr. Christie’s stance about an hour into the hearing and said he agreed with it.

“Get this issue for once and all decided,” Mr. Bateman said.

Senator Sweeney, a Gloucester County Democrat, shot back: “Civil rights will not be placed on the ballot.” When the crowd at the hearing applauded, he added: “We don’t need to wait for an answer. We just got one.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the same-sex marriage bill, 8-4.

“When the governor was doing his town hall meetings, I can’t tell you how many times he said, ‘Call your legislator, I want to make these changes;’ ” Mr. Sweeney said in an interview later. “Why would he put this on the ballot when everything that’s been important in this state in the last two years has been handled by the Legislature?”

Mr. Christie’s move also disappointed gay-rights advocates, who had just on Monday been effusive in their praise for his nominating Bruce Harris, who will be the state’s first openly gay Supreme Court justice if confirmed.

A poll released by Quinnipiac University last week found that 52 percent of New Jersey voters believed that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, and 53 percent believed that denying them that right constituted discrimination. But across the country, the right to same-sex marriage has been granted mostly by court decision or legislative action. Same-sex-marriage advocates noted that almost every one of more than 30 ballot questions on gay rights had failed to broaden them; even in 2008, when the country elected a Democratic president, voters in California approved Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

“It’s a hard dynamic to win at the polls,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who is openly gay. “At the end of the day, gays are a minority and they can’t match the crazies, who are out there and really motivated to vote against it.”

Democrats argued that the last time the state placed a civil rights issue on the ballot was in 1915, when voters — then limited to men — considered whether to allow women to vote, and rejected the proposal.

A separate move for same-sex marriage is proceeding through the courts in New Jersey. In 2006, the State Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but left it up to the Legislature to decide how to ensure those rights.

The Legislature passed a law allowing civil unions, but gay couples have sued, arguing that it fails to provide equal rights.
Why not? If the dems are ok with states voting on abortion. Then reps should be ok with voting on marriage...oh wait
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #904 on: January 25, 2012, 02:59:18 PM »

Why not? If the dems are ok with states voting on abortion. Then reps should be ok with voting on marriage...oh wait

I am ok with this.

I think eventually the votes will go the way of gay marriage anyway... if not today, then in a time not in the distant future.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #905 on: January 25, 2012, 03:02:11 PM »

I am ok with this.

I think eventually the votes will go the way of gay marriage anyway... if not today, then in a time not in the distant future.
Agreed just like eventually the votes will go the way of banning most elective forms of abortion
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #906 on: January 25, 2012, 03:09:56 PM »

Agreed just like eventually the votes will go the way of banning most elective forms of abortion

It might... I don't know if it will. Personally I don't think so, but if it does, then it does.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #907 on: January 25, 2012, 03:35:32 PM »

It might... I don't know if it will. Personally I don't think so, but if it does, then it does.

Look at the polling trends and you will probably be surprised if you really don't think so
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #908 on: January 25, 2012, 08:13:04 PM »

Look at the polling trends and you will probably be surprised if you really don't think so

I know the polling trends.

No one says late term abortions and shit... I know the routine and all of the topics on it... I'm just tired of the abortion argument from everyone when abortions aren't what's fucked this country.

If anything, it saves us money.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #909 on: January 25, 2012, 08:42:57 PM »

I know the polling trends.

No one says late term abortions and shit... I know the routine and all of the topics on it... I'm just tired of the abortion argument from everyone when abortions aren't what's fucked this country.

If anything, it saves us money.

so would euthanizing anyone over 75 but thats not legal...

I feel the same way though, but then again i also feel that way about any glbt bullshit politically correct topic. Yet we still have threads like this that keep getting bumped by our obsessed resident post and run troll...
Report to moderator   Logged
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2450



« Reply #910 on: January 26, 2012, 03:59:13 PM »

so would euthanizing anyone over 75 but thats not legal...

I feel the same way though, but then again i also feel that way about any glbt bullshit politically correct topic. Yet we still have threads like this that keep getting bumped by our obsessed resident post and run troll...

because they make a nice change from all that newt madness.
plus, it gives you a chance to rehash your old arguments for the newbies here.
'showers with gays in military'?  a classic.
Report to moderator   Logged

tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #911 on: January 26, 2012, 09:51:58 PM »

because they make a nice change from all that newt madness.
plus, it gives you a chance to rehash your old arguments for the newbies here.
'showers with gays in military'?  a classic.
yea, a thread about gay marriage is a "nice change"...yeeeeaaaaaa
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17168



« Reply #912 on: February 07, 2012, 11:14:42 AM »

Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

In a separate decision,  the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship.  Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling  that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.

ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday's decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

Gays and lesbians were entitled to marry in California for six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban in May 2008. The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment of the California Constitution.

While the Proposition 8 case was still pending in state court, two same-sex couples sued in federal court to challenge the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

Court's decision http://documents.latimes.com/proposition-8-gay-marriage-unconstitutional/


* protesters.jpg (129.19 KB, 620x417 - viewed 58 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10050


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #913 on: February 07, 2012, 11:26:06 AM »

Incredible.   Why even have fucking elections and referendums?

Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #914 on: February 07, 2012, 04:07:50 PM »

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,"

LMFAO ahhh nooooo, nature did that!!!

goodness gracious, hey bayway does this mean your finally going to STFU about gay marriage?

Report to moderator   Logged
headhuntersix
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15860

Our forefathers would be shooting by now


« Reply #915 on: February 07, 2012, 04:47:54 PM »

If the people of the state vote for it...one way or another, the people have spoken. I don't have agree....but it was fair. This shit...voted fairly and overturned by some lib douchbag, gimme a break.
Report to moderator   Logged

L
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2450



« Reply #916 on: February 07, 2012, 05:19:19 PM »

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,"

LMFAO ahhh nooooo, nature did that!!!

goodness gracious, hey bayway does this mean your finally going to STFU about gay marriage?


why bother to read/post here if his postings bother you?
Report to moderator   Logged

chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2450



« Reply #917 on: February 07, 2012, 05:24:02 PM »

If the people of the state vote for it...one way or another, the people have spoken. I don't have agree....but it was fair. This shit...voted fairly and overturned by some lib douchbag, gimme a break.
back in New Jersey, a vote was taken whether to allow women the right to vote.
it lost.
the people aren't going to vote on civil rights issues- if they had allowed the people to vote there still would be people riding in the backs of buses and separate lunch counters.
Report to moderator   Logged

tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25401



« Reply #918 on: February 07, 2012, 05:28:58 PM »

why bother to read/post here if his postings bother you?
LOL so you only look and post on things you agree with?

how do you feel about the 9th blaming voters for something that nature did?

doesnt seem very fair does it?
Report to moderator   Logged
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2450



« Reply #919 on: February 08, 2012, 11:24:08 AM »

LOL so you only look and post on things you agree with?

how do you feel about the 9th blaming voters for something that nature did?

doesnt seem very fair does it?
truth hurts sometimes. but in the end [pun intended] people learn and grow as adults.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10050


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #920 on: February 08, 2012, 12:58:47 PM »

Poster Couple" For Gays Rights Divorcing



Tuesday's ruling was "bittersweet," said Robin Tyler, who filed for divorce in JanuaryBy Irene Moore and Cary Berglund|  Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012  |  Updated 11:03 AM PST#videoCapture { z-index:5 !important; }

When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss. It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.

Gay Marriage "Poster Couple"...
TweetLinkEmbedEmailCopyC loseLink to this video

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/news//Gay-Marriage-"Poster-Couple"-Divorcing/138912434CopyCloseEmbed this video


When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.

It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.

Even as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, one of the state's first gay couples to tie the knot was calling it quits. 

Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on January 25. The pair were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged the ban in 2008.

In an exclusive interview with our NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, Tyler spoke about her decision.

"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said. 

Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.

When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied- a marriage license.

The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere.

"I don't know how to describe it - I wanted this all my life," Olson told the Jewish Journal that day. "Every time I went to a girlfriend's wedding, and when my brother got married, it was something I always wanted for myself. It looks like God must have wanted it for me, too."

In November 2008 voters passed Prop. 8, banning gay marriage. Tyler and the thousands of other gay and lesbian couples who wed before Nov. 4, were allowed to remain married but same-sex couples who wanted to get married were forbidden under the new law.

During the prolonged litigation over Prop 8, Olson marveled at the scope of the ban. "For a bunch of people to tell me who I can love, who I can marry, who I can say this is my person, this is who I choose to spend the rest of my life with, it's mindboggling to me that a few religious people can vote for our equal rights," she said.

Reflecting on their marriage in August of 2010, Tyler said:  "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older."

But even the best of marriages can come to an end.The right to marry wasn't meant to guarantee that gay couples would live happily ever after, Tyler said, but to provide a basic human civil liberty.

Tyler said her marital problems were no different than if the two parties had been a man and woman. Gays and lesbians shouldn't be held to a different standard when granted the same civil rights as everyone else, she said.

"What is the standard to expect when you integrate equality," Tyler asked. "We're just like anybody else and that's all they can expect of us."

Let us know what you think. Comment below, or send us your thoughts via Twitter @PropZero.
 

 
 
 
 

 
Find this article at:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Poster-Couple-For-Gays-Rights-Divorcing-138944094.html


 
 





LMFAO - gay divoerce court is going to be awesome.   
Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #921 on: February 08, 2012, 01:02:23 PM »


LMFAO - gay divoerce court is going to be awesome.   

As I've always said... Everyone deserves the right to be as miserable as I was.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16084


Getbig!


« Reply #922 on: February 08, 2012, 01:40:33 PM »

Poster Couple" For Gays Rights Divorcing



Tuesday's ruling was "bittersweet," said Robin Tyler, who filed for divorce in JanuaryBy Irene Moore and Cary Berglund|  Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012  |  Updated 11:03 AM PST#videoCapture { z-index:5 !important; }

When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss. It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.

Gay Marriage "Poster Couple"...
TweetLinkEmbedEmailCopyC loseLink to this video

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/#!/news//Gay-Marriage-"Poster-Couple"-Divorcing/138912434CopyCloseEmbed this video


When gay couples first sought the right to legally wed in California, they argued that they were entitled to all of the benefits of marital bliss.

It was only a matter of time before that benefit extended to the right to split up.

Even as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, one of the state's first gay couples to tie the knot was calling it quits.  

Robin Tyler filed for divorce from Diane Olson on January 25. The pair were among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged the ban in 2008.

In an exclusive interview with our NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, Tyler spoke about her decision.

"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.  

Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.

When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied- a marriage license.

The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere.

"I don't know how to describe it - I wanted this all my life," Olson told the Jewish Journal that day. "Every time I went to a girlfriend's wedding, and when my brother got married, it was something I always wanted for myself. It looks like God must have wanted it for me, too."

In November 2008 voters passed Prop. 8, banning gay marriage. Tyler and the thousands of other gay and lesbian couples who wed before Nov. 4, were allowed to remain married but same-sex couples who wanted to get married were forbidden under the new law.

During the prolonged litigation over Prop 8, Olson marveled at the scope of the ban. "For a bunch of people to tell me who I can love, who I can marry, who I can say this is my person, this is who I choose to spend the rest of my life with, it's mindboggling to me that a few religious people can vote for our equal rights," she said.

Reflecting on their marriage in August of 2010, Tyler said:  "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older."

But even the best of marriages can come to an end.The right to marry wasn't meant to guarantee that gay couples would live happily ever after, Tyler said, but to provide a basic human civil liberty.

Tyler said her marital problems were no different than if the two parties had been a man and woman. Gays and lesbians shouldn't be held to a different standard when granted the same civil rights as everyone else, she said.

"What is the standard to expect when you integrate equality," Tyler asked. "We're just like anybody else and that's all they can expect of us."

Let us know what you think. Comment below, or send us your thoughts via Twitter @PropZero.
 

  
 
  
 

  
Find this article at:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Poster-Couple-For-Gays-Rights-Divorcing-138944094.html


  
  





LMFAO - gay divoerce court is going to be awesome.  

Actually, the poster couple would be the lesbians who started this mess in Massachusetts. Less than TWO YEARS after they got "married", after all the bally-hoo, lawsuits, etc., they split up.

This and the example you gave SLAPS RIGHT IN THE FACE the screwball narrative from the left that legalizing gay "marriage" will promote monogamy and stability for gay couples.

Of course, if you followed what happened in Scandinavian countries, where gay "marriage" has been legal for in excess of a decade, you would have seen this coming.

Furthermore, Olson's argument make no sense, "For a bunch of people to tell me who I can love, who I can marry, who I can say this is my person, this is who I choose to spend the rest of my life with, it's mindboggling to me that a few religious people can vote for our equal rights.

NEWS FLASH!! A "few" people already do that. A "few religious people" say:

- You can marry only ONE person at one time
- You can't marry a child (at least, in some states, without parental consent)
- You can't marry a relative closer than a first or second cousin (depending on the state)
- You can't marry a non-human being.

To quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it? Love ain't really a requirement for marriage, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
Report to moderator   Logged
chadstallion
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2450



« Reply #923 on: February 08, 2012, 02:25:18 PM »

As I've always said... Everyone deserves the right to be as miserable as I was.
and Newt was [apparently] unhappy twice...jury's out on # 3
Report to moderator   Logged

tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15970


Robot


WWW
« Reply #924 on: February 08, 2012, 02:54:51 PM »

and Newt was [apparently] unhappy twice...jury's out on # 3

After he loses this year, he will divorce her too.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 49   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!