T1B

R-Jack wrote:

trev wrote:Prop 8 will pass. I don't think even California is ready to abolish traditional marriage.

Yet.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:31 pm

What are you drinking this early in the morning?

Hitting the bong already?

trev wrote:Prop 8 will pass. I don't think even California is ready to abolish traditional marriage.

Yet.

No wonder your "husband" is voting no.

Rasputin wrote:

R-Jack wrote:

trev wrote:Prop 8 will pass. I don't think even California is ready to abolish traditional marriage.

Yet.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:31 pm

What are you drinking this early in the morning?

Hitting the bong already?

Traditional marriage only for those who aren't aware of the proposition.

R-Jack wrote:BLOORF

The time stamp had her posting at 1:30am before I logged in, then it corrected itself.

The question still has its merits.

Like I said before, I don't care if you want to 'marry' a dude, a blow-up doll or a cartoon character. But a majority of Kalifornians feel that marriage actually means something (don't ask my why), and that treating it like a joke devalues it.

Personally I just want to tell the state SC to fuck off.

Ah. I don't drink. Does that satisfy your curiosity?

R-Jack wrote:

trev wrote:
Traditional marriage only for those who aren't aware of the proposition.

Right. Traditional marriage was never in danger of being abolished, hence the questions of your a.m. drinking.

Actually traditional marriage has already been abolished with the state embracing no-fault divorce and treating adultery as a hobby instead of a vice, let alone a crime.

Rasputin wrote:

R-Jack wrote:

trev wrote:
Traditional marriage only for those who aren't aware of the proposition.

Right. Traditional marriage was never in danger of being abolished, hence the questions of your a.m. drinking.

Actually traditional marriage has already been abolished with the state embracing no-fault divorce and treating adultery as a hobby instead of a vice, let alone a crime.

So you think adultery should be a crime, and divorce should be as difficult as possible?

Goober McTuber wrote:So you think adultery should be a crime, and divorce should be as difficult as possible?

A) If you want to 'protect marriage' that would be more effective than worrying about a couple of homos pretending to be husband and husband.

B) Not make divorce as difficult as possible. Just require some grounds for dissolving it other than 'I changed my mind'. If you look at it as nothing more than a contract, what other contract can you set aside for shits and giggles?

C) Adultery is illegal in about half the states, and never prosecuted. It should be treated at least as seriously as prostitution, and prosecuted as harshly. What is more harmful to society- A single guy banging a single women and giving her way too much cab fare? Or a married father of three screwing a married mother of two, and potentiely damaging seven other lives?

As long as prostitution is a crime, adultery should be treated as more serious than an alternate lifestyle. And as long as marrage can be dissolved for no reason whatsoever, It is meaningless.

Since you asked.

I don't need laws against adultery or barriers to divorce to prevent me from lapsing into either. My own traditional marriage can stand on its own merits without a thicket of new regulations to "support" it.

If you want to respect "traditional" marriage, then go ahead and do so. If it's indeed something you respect, then you don't need a couple of flimsy laws to prop it up - your participation will do just fine. Guns don't kill people, people do. Laws don't marry people, people do.

People who have never been married (and prolly never will) should STFU about marriage.

People who have never had kids (and prolly never will) should STFU about raising kids.

EOS

No exceptions.

(except for trev, who should just STFU)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People with no take and no clue should STFU period.

Rasputin wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:So you think adultery should be a crime, and divorce should be as difficult as possible?

A) If you want to 'protect marriage' that would be more effective than worrying about a couple of homos pretending to be husband and husband.

B) Not make divorce as difficult as possible. Just require some grounds for dissolving it other than 'I changed my mind'. If you look at it as nothing more than a contract, what other contract can you set aside for shits and giggles?

C) Adultery is illegal in about half the states, and never prosecuted. It should be treated at least as seriously as prostitution, and prosecuted as harshly. What is more harmful to society- A single guy banging a single women and giving her way too much cab fare? Or a married father of three screwing a married mother of two, and potentiely damaging seven other lives?

As long as prostitution is a crime, adultery should be treated as more serious than an alternate lifestyle. And as long as marrage can be dissolved for no reason whatsoever, It is meaningless.

Since you asked.

Just wanted to illustrate why you’re NOT part of the Republican base, but a right wing whack-job.

Rasputin wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People with no take and no clue should STFU period.

Did you think I was referring to you?

Well...if the shoe fits - wear it, dumbfuck.

I neither know or care who you are refering to. What's next, people who haven't been in the military shouldn't comment on the war? People who don't or can't vote can't comment on the election?

I'll talk about whatever the fuck I want. EAD.

Mikey wrote:
(except for trev, who should just STFU)

Wow. I really hate to do this. I really, really do. But I'm going to have to. You have forced my hand.

Bode, me.

trev wrote: Bode, me.

Word has it that you are a fat, stupid, lazy, piece of shit. Is that true?

PSUFAN wrote:I don't need laws against adultery or barriers to divorce to prevent me from lapsing into either. My own traditional marriage can stand on its own merits without a thicket of new regulations to "support" it.

If you want to respect "traditional" marriage, then go ahead and do so. If it's indeed something you respect, then you don't need a couple of flimsy laws to prop it up - your participation will do just fine. Guns don't kill people, people do. Laws don't marry people, people do.

Simply, awesome.

Roach wrote:

Kierland wrote:

trev wrote: Bode, me.

Word has it that you are a fat, stupid, lazy, piece of shit. Is that true?

Well that settles it. I was thinking maybe 11th or 12th. But clearly you are still in junior high school.


Congrats, you are living up to your reputation.

You are being too leniant, I was thinking 5th grade edu, at best. Queerland is a colossal dumbfuck

Rasputin wrote:If you look at it as nothing more than a contract, what other contract can you set aside for shits and giggles?

When both parties are agreeable...


Uhm...


The correct answer would be...


Pull that dunce cap off for once in your life, idiot...


The correct answer is "all of them."


Glad I could help.

Dinsdale wrote:

Rasputin wrote:If you look at it as nothing more than a contract, what other contract can you set aside for shits and giggles?

When both parties are agreeable...

..it isn't an issue.

Dipshit.

PSUFAN wrote:I don't need laws against adultery or barriers to divorce to prevent me from lapsing into either. My own traditional marriage can stand on its own merits without a thicket of new regulations to "support" it.

If you want to respect "traditional" marriage, then go ahead and do so. If it's indeed something you respect, then you don't need a couple of flimsy laws to prop it up - your participation will do just fine. Guns don't kill people, people do. Laws don't marry people, people do.

I respect your opinion. Isn't it ironic that Barack Obama is against gay marriage? This proposition appears to be passing. The people have spoken.

I seem to recall a proposition passing years ago in California regarding illegal immigrants and public services only to be overturned in the courts later. Is there a lawyer who can offer up an opinion as to how well this proposition might withstand a legal challenge?

BSmack wrote:I seem to recall a proposition passing years ago in California regarding illegal immigrants and public services only to be overturned in the courts later. Is there a lawyer who can offer up an opinion as to how well this proposition might withstand a legal challenge?

That's what this is all about, dipshit. This passed as a referendum back in 2000 (I think). The Kali SC overturned it. This is a Constitutional amendment to tell those morons to fuck off and quit making 'rights' up.

Jsc810 wrote:The recent California Supreme Court decision was decided on state law grounds, that the state laws prohibiting gay marriage violated the California Constitution.

Passing Prop 8 changes that reasoning. That same case argued today would produce a different result.

As a direct challenge, perhaps today plaintiffs could argue that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Also, if there is a gay couple who legally marries in Connecticut and then moves to California (or any other state), they might argue that the state has to fully recognize their marriage based upon the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But as long as gays are allowed to form civil unions that are the functional equivalent of a marriage, it is not a constitutional violation to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, at least imhlo. Yes, I realize that separate but equal was struck down, but back then things were separate but they weren't really equal. If today we make things truly equal for gay families but simply have different names, then I don't see a constitutional problem.

By all means, take it to the federal court. Of course, to violate the equal protection clause you would have to define marriage as a right over which the state has no say. And then you would have to overturn Reynolds v. U.S. as well under the same principle.

Rasputin wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:The recent California Supreme Court decision was decided on state law grounds, that the state laws prohibiting gay marriage violated the California Constitution.

Passing Prop 8 changes that reasoning. That same case argued today would produce a different result.

As a direct challenge, perhaps today plaintiffs could argue that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Also, if there is a gay couple who legally marries in Connecticut and then moves to California (or any other state), they might argue that the state has to fully recognize their marriage based upon the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But as long as gays are allowed to form civil unions that are the functional equivalent of a marriage, it is not a constitutional violation to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, at least imhlo. Yes, I realize that separate but equal was struck down, but back then things were separate but they weren't really equal. If today we make things truly equal for gay families but simply have different names, then I don't see a constitutional problem.

By all means, take it to the federal court. Of course, to violate the equal protection clause you would have to define marriage as a right over which the state has no say. And then you would have to overturn Reynolds v. U.S. as well under the same principle.

The equal protection clause covers privileges as well as rights, dumbfuck.

Jsc810 wrote:gay families

I laff.

You blow.

War Wagon wrote:
I laff.

Ana Ng wrote:You blow.

All at the same time, no doubt.

Jsc810 wrote: But as long as gays are allowed to form civil unions that are the functional equivalent of a marriage, it is not a constitutional violation to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, at least imhlo. Yes, I realize that separate but equal was struck down, but back then things were separate but they weren't really equal. If today we make things truly equal for gay families but simply have different names, then I don't see a constitutional problem.

What is required to legally check "married" on a federal tax return, a civil union or a state issued marriage licence? If it's the latter, then I guess the mormons could fund another proposition to remove any legal or financial benefit from "marriage". If it's the former, and there truly are no distinctions between the two, then no harm no foul.

The federal government does not recognize "civil unions".

Kinda the point.

So you're saying they aren't equal?

Well that would seem to be a bit of a problem wouldn't it?

Ana Ng wrote:The federal government does not recognize "civil unions".

The people's republic of Kali does. But not 'gay marriage'.

That's the point.

The very idea of an amendment to the state (or federal) constitution for the purpose of stripping away basic civil rights is itself a vile and odious notion. That such an undertaking might be planned and funded by a cult of "Mormons" and "Christers" is absolutely disgusting.

The proposition 8 will be overruled as unconstitutional, of course, and hopefully all of these cult members will go off and die.

We the living deserve as much.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The proposition 8 will be overruled as unconstitutional...

Exactly who is going to rule a constituional amendment unconstitutional, counselor?

Take your meds and STFU.

Subjecting myself to, ....well....you know.

There is a HUGE loophole in California as well as Florida.

By defining marriage between a man and a woman,........there is NO definition as to what is a man or woman.

Having spent time on Bourbon Street with JSC, it can be, well difficult to ascertain.

And to any idiots that will chime in without thinking, the 4th amendment against unreasonable search will come into this.

Is a DNA test to determine gender constitutional? And trans-gender 'people'...how does that apply? What is preventing any gay couple, male or female, from declaring one of them being a member of the opposite sex? And how would a State, or the Fed's go about proving or disproving the claims of gender 're-assignment'? What if gay Bob married to gay John claims he is now a women, and traveled to a country, that records can not be retrieved from, and had a sex change? Or Ana married to Heather, claiming she is now a he? Pull down her jeans or check her genes? And is legal to do so? See my point?

It's a HUGE loophole, legally. And that is my point, just a legal one.

Not that Ana is a man. She isn't smart enough.

Toddowen wrote:Since we're all gay here, perhaps Ana would be willing to exhibit more pics of those lovely bossums that each of us wish we were blessed with in real life?

Someday when I get my operation done, Ana, I'm going to tell the doctor that I want my boobs to look exactly just like yours. How do they look with one of those sheer see thru bras pulled back tight? Do they flatten against your chest or do they ply off to the sides a little?

How did your mom's look in one of those sheer see thru bras pulled back tight?

Jsc810 wrote:I'm not quite following the logic of the plaintiffs.

Good for you. There is none.

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:Not that Ana is a man. She isn't smart enough.

Awesome. The jellyfish has jokes.

There isn't much I can do to you that you haven't already done to yourself on this, or any board, Ace Wheely.

Make like an Autobot, and roll the fuck out.

rack ana


...and ana's rack, btw