Author Topic: Federal judge in CA knocks down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage  (Read 10257 times)

~UN_$ung~

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 5248
  • Been real, been nice...but it hasnt been Real Nice
gays, with this ridicuolous push to get  homosexual marriage (a religious scarament) accepted is like a baby, who hasnt picked up a certain toy for months

...........but throws a tantrum the second some other kid picks it up and starts playing with it



they constantly celebrate "alternative lifestyles" and how different they are, the whole gay culture is based on eschewing traditional social and societal traditions and morays..........anything that is traditional is seen as "conservative" or "stodgy", or "boring"



but now, the want to be able to marry............just cause they arent allowed to

marriage is an antiquated, old institution stemming from religion...............s omething homosexuals tend to hate



but just like the baby throwing a tantrum over the toy the he never plays with, they are throwing a tantrum just cause they are bein gtold they cannot get married




some things are simply not meant for everyone..........men cannot have babies, ect ............i dont have a problem with homosexuality, gays should be allowed to do WHATEVER they want,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but they shoudl not be allowed to co-opt and soil the institution of marriage (further) its not for them


chaos

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57613
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
I didn't know there was a universal definition we all had to agree on  ::)
Epic changing your post...........to answer your previous question, Anthropologists. :)

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[7] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law".[8]
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
And who defined marriage as being between a man and a woman?
Nearly every culture throughout history. Not to mention the gays try and use bully tactics because theyre not happy having unions. They want it to be called Marriage. Not to mention theyre values and beliefs when it comes to relationships are totally different, its not even close to the same as what a marriage entails.. Like someone else in this thread said, they want to undue the most basic institution in human history. And for what? Why? Just because they want to. They cant be happy with a "Union", it has to be marriage. When theyre version of Marriage is a total perverse meaning. Just read the article someone posted above on how Gay men nearly all say that a monogous relationship to them doesnt mean being faithful sexually. They can fuck whoever they want. That isnt marriage as nearly everyone today takes the vows..

Like I said I dont give a fuck if theyre joined in a union, dont care what gays do, but dont try and push your lifestyle into ours like its normal. 2 totally different things lifestyles, they should have a totally different union. Dont bastadize mine. I dont want my children growing up thinking its Normal or cool to be gay. And I guarantee you, some will if its like the gays are pushing for.

Quote
In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Epic changing your post...........to answer your previous question, Anthropologists. :)

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[7] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law".[8]
Lol Dont worry, I got it.

And Un_sung, you beat me to it. They just want it because they cant have it. Their unions are no more "Marriages" than I am black. Nothing about their relationships are even CLOSE to what defines a marriage, they just want to be able to do it. Lol. Why, since theyre so concerned about being different and shit, they cant come up with their own fucking union I dont understand, but theyre bound and determined to bastardize the meaning of Marriage as every man and woman today believes in it.
Like you said, they cant have it, and it pisses them off, cause they should get everything a straight couple has. Its not about that, theyre not being denied to be together, theyre not being denied a union. Theyre so concerned with making homosexuality normal and cool that they push theyre agenda on everyone under that guise of equal rights. Gimme a break.

SF1900

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 48806
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
Nearly every culture throughout history. Not to mention the gays try and use bully tactics because theyre not happy having unions. They want it to be called Marriage. Not to mention theyre values and beliefs when it comes to relationships are totally different, its not even close to the same as what a marriage entails.. Like someone else in this thread said, they want to undue the most basic institution in human history. And for what? Why? Just because they want to. They cant be happy with a "Union", it has to be marriage. When theyre version of Marriage is a total perverse meaning. Just read the article someone posted above on how Gay men nearly all say that a monogous relationship to them doesnt mean being faithful sexually. They can fuck whoever they want. That isnt marriage as nearly everyone today takes the vows..

Like I said I dont give a fuck if theyre joined in a union, dont care what gays do, but dont try and push your lifestyle into ours like its normal. 2 totally different things lifestyles, they should have a totally different union. Dont bastadize mine. I dont want my children growing up thinking its Normal or cool to be gay. And I guarantee you, some will if its like the gays are pushing for.


I guess I feel the same way about religion, and how they try to push their morality onto others. I don't want my kids growing up believing in an imaginary being   :(
X

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59648
  • It’s All Bullshit
Appearently CNN forgot to mention that the judge that overturned this law (that I would NEVER recognize) was an openly gay judge. This will be automatically appealed on that basis alone. Since when can a liberal and gay one at that make a judgement on the constitution let alone interperate its meaning?

Voice of Doom

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3631
  • Everything is under control.
What consenting adults choose to do is their business...hard to believe this country was founded by people wanting to be free............ ::)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59648
  • It’s All Bullshit
The last time I checked an anatomy chart the asshole was an exit only orifice!

che

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16844
The last time I checked an anatomy chart the asshole was an exit only orifice!

Seriously ::)

Arnold jr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
  • fleshandiron.com
The reason Azn Muslce it was over turned is because it was deemed unconstitutional, by the 14th amendment.  So the people voted to put an illegal law on the books, wrong!  Nice try, but the people are not always right.  Conservatives want the best of both worlds, but if you want to live by the constitution, equal rights is part of it, you can't pick and choose.  Gay marriage all the way !!!!!!!!!!  luv it    :D
We are afforded equal rights, correct but we are afforded equal rights under the law…”under the law” being the key phrase.
This does not mean we are all afforded equality in every sense of the word, I am not afforded $1million if you have a million, you are not afforded to marry a man if I’m afforded to marry a woman. We are all afforded equal justice, meaning we are all afforded the benefit of the same starting point but we do not all end up at the same end.
As I said before I am not for/against gay marriage, I am just not a big fan of government telling me what I can and cannot do.  Like anything else, I just think it should be voted on.  CA had a chance to make gay marriage legal. The bill was given a fair shot, and it was up to the people to decide. Unfortunately for the gay community things didn't go as planned.

The bigger issue here though is not so much gay marriage etc, it is the governments role in our lives.  Why does this judge have the right to rule against the will of a majority?  Why am I penalized if I don't purchase health care?  Why do I have to give my tax payer dollars to wall street bankers for their incompetence?  Why do I have to bail out Detroit Auto Makers that make shitty cars?  The list goes on.

I guess we can agree to disagree friend.       
100% correct, any judge that does something like this, and I’m speaking of any issue, this judge should be dismissed permanently and immediately. You’re also right, the main issue of focus is governments role in our lives…it is and has gotten beyond out of hand.
I'm not legal beagle but I like the fact that the majority can't enact a law that violates peoples rights. Shockwave I'm not talking about this particular situation but in general. The majority ISN'T always right, that is why we have a system in place that protects the minority as well. 
You are correct, the CA proposition ballets are actually in opposition to the way our system is supposed to work, however, states do have the right to perform and function in the manner in which they choose so as long as it doesn’t violate federal law. That said, the reason CA has begun in recent years to use propositions as a large means of passing law has been nothing more than to circumvent republic style governance and institute more progressive means of governing. It takes away the power of the republic and leads to more solidarity control.
Did you read what you wrote? So the majority of people should suffer because the minority want to impose their views on us? What the gays are asking is that the laws be changed to suit their desires....they already have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, nobody is denying them that, but they are asking for special treatment and privileges that the people have already turned down. And now some pantywaist fag in a black dress denies the will of the people? Fuck that guy.
QFT!
No one is violating their rights, they have the right to live as they choose but this doesn’t mean they should be granted special privileges. For example, since this is a bodybuilding board and an issue close to my heart, I’d love to see the steroid laws changed but this doesn’t mean I’d expect to see steroid users given the same tax credits other medications afford…that would be retarded.

What consenting adults choose to do is their business...hard to believe this country was founded by people wanting to be free............ ::)
Again,  no one has ever said they can’t do what they want but you can’t redefine societal norms and the condition of the hearts of man because of few men disagree or desire that change based on feelings.
Further and this is the most important thing, we are granted rights, government however does not have the right to create more rights…this seems to be lost on the progressive movement. We are granted the rights of the constitution, we are all granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, meaning, we’re granted the right to live and exist, we’re granted the right to live freely as we best see fit, we are granted to live in a means and in a pursuit of those means that brings us the most happiness possible…homosexuals are not denied any of these rights but they are denied to create new rights just as every man is.

janet69

  • Time Out
  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 12
guys - or more correctly, gay rights/pride - are just another cog in the frankfurt school wheel of critical theory.

Just do the jews, and these 'anal gaping in public' deviants will follow.

easy peasy.

Croatch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8025
  • Man up, train natural.

Nice...haha
God is fictional, like Santa Claus.  But if there were one, no...he wouldn't like gays.
True story. :D
N

LatsMcGee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7464
  • Getbig!

Nice...haha
God is fictional, like Santa Claus.  But if there were one, no...he wouldn't like gays.
True story. :D

The "Fuck this guy" is wearing a Phobia shirt, which makes him cooler than anyone else in the photo.  Pretty cool fag right there.  Phobia rules. 

Samourai Pizzacat

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Meeoow!!
Did you read what you wrote? So the majority of people should suffer because the minority want to impose their views on us? What the gays are asking is that the laws be changed to suit their desires....they already have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, nobody is denying them that, but they are asking for special treatment and privileges that the people have already turned down. And now some pantywaist fag in a black dress denies the will of the people? Fuck that guy.

They want to be able to marry the person they love, just like heterosexual couples can. It's not about gender!

chaos

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57613
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
They want to be able to marry the person they love, just like heterosexual couples can. It's not about gender!

Have you read the thread? It is 100% about gender.
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

MORTALCOIL

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
Still don't get why Gay people want to get married. Biggest scam in history. If I were gay I'd be stting on the sideline thinking "Thank God, that ordeal is for stupid heteros and we'll leave it at that!". Even with a kid and living with the same GF for a while now, I wouldn't marry her even with a gun pressed to my head.

buffdnet

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 840
  • fuck the pope
do you know why homosexuals smell?
so blind people can hate them too

GroinkTropin

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3138
They want to be able to marry the person they love, just like heterosexual couples can. It's not about gender!

Marriage being a religeous ceremony are these same people attending church regularly? Oh wait, the church HATES HOMOSEXUALS. Tell me again why participating in marriage is so important?

El Diablo Blanco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31826
  • Nom Nom Nom Nom
The judge who overturns it called the ban "unconstitutional" , yet isn't it just as "unconstitutional"  for a single man to try to overturn a vote by millions of people?  Who the fuck does this judge think he is trying to overturn the majority vote?  The fact that this country gives such power to a single person is amazing.  The sad part is you can have 10 judges and each can give out 10 different verdicts , yet you are subjected to the luck of the draw, maybe the female judge is pms'ing and gives you a harsher sentence.  This shit happens.  Fucking sad, pathetic world we live in.

chaos

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 57613
  • Ron "There is no freedom of speech here" Avidan
It is a sad state of affairs when one man holds the power to change the voice of millions.
Liar!!!!Filt!!!!

Oldschool Flip

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3309
  • Eat Balut! High in Protein!
Lol. Prove me wrong. Marriage, is something that stemmed and came from religion. It was around before this government. So how, pray tell, can I be incorrect? In this case, the government is interferring with religious law. Which it shouldnt have anything to do with.
You can be for gay marriage all you want, but dont try and twist the facts to make it suit your purpose.
Actually marriage originated as a formal contract between a brides father and the groom. If marriage is a religious sanctity (as many religious claim) then why do you need a marriage license to prove it? Why isn't being married in a church proof? Why do you need to go to court to divorce? This is where many religious make the mistake because their interpretation of marriage was from a fairy tale book. And as we know most fairy tale books usually end up in happy endings that aren't realistic.

Voice of Doom

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3631
  • Everything is under control.


It is a sad state of affairs when a million men hold the power to change the voice of one.

"Democracy is the tyranny of the mediocre" - Oscar Wilde (big fag)



sigh...I cant wait for technology to make it possible to get off this prison planet.

"There are also those among us who look up in hopes of finding someone more intelligent to talk to" - Timothy Leary

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14997
Heard a talk show on my way into work, the host was bashing the decision. A caller pointed out that it wasn't just about getting to play heterosexual games like the other people, it wasn't about "They have it so we want it" that as it stands, if two homosexuals fall in love, and cohabitate for years, if one dies, the other is without any rights normally granted to married couples. If one falls critically ill, the other can't make life or death decisions for the other as a married couple could, if they adopted, there are custody rights they aren't afforded in the event of the death of one of them etc etc. he also pointed out the "sanctity  of marriage" among heterosexuals has really lost any weight when the divorce rate is 54% and many heterosexuals are married and remarried several times.
If there were a way to grant or afford legal protections to same sex couples that are similar to married heterosexuals, yet we didn't call it "marriage" would that be okay?

noworries

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
  • Train Heavy or Go Home
What does this admitted "cock sucker" gay think about this decision.  Bay as a fairly good looking gay (no homo I swear) would you pound the shit (literally) out of Goodrum if he came calling on you.  I mean he has everything a man would want.  he has success, fame, money, a great body, smart, numerous titles, many college degrees and he even cleans house. 
No Worries 4 me

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
The judge who overturns it called the ban "unconstitutional" , yet isn't it just as "unconstitutional"  for a single man to try to overturn a vote by millions of people?  Who the fuck does this judge think he is trying to overturn the majority vote? 

judges aren't suppose to represent the people.  they represent the Constitution.    If it weren't for 'activist judges', we'd still have segregated schools, interracial marriages would be illegal in many places, and oral sex (even m-f) would be illegal.