Cali voters: YES on 8!!!

[Dinsdale]

Maybe this will become a national fad?

[War Wagon]

I laff.

You blow.

All at the same time, no doubt.

"Gay Families" = an oxymoron.

Some part of that you don't get?

It's on a par with "modest Ana Ng" or "svelte Mikey".

[Ana Ng]

.....or "interesting Wags".

[War Wagon]

I'm not gonna' dance for you slut, I'm War Wagon.

Put that in your sig.

[Ana Ng]

I'm not gonna' dance for you slut, I'm War Wagon.

Too late, Astaire.

[PSUFAN]

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.

Jumping bloody Jesus. How the fuck did I miss this?

All of this about Prop 8, and all Roger_the_16th can mention is TRANNIES? For TRANNIES he breaks free of his nodding pharmostupor and slams the pause button on The Rapture?

Just awesome! And thanks for the sig.

[Rasputin]

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.

Jumping bloody Jesus. How the fuck did I miss this?

All of this about Prop 8, and all Roger_the_16th can mention is TRANNIES? For TRANNIES he breaks free of his nodding pharmostupor and slams the pause button on The Rapture?

Just awesome! And thanks for the sig.

Thanks a lot. I saw it, I was trying to forget it.

Somehow I don't envision an epidemic of rump rangers having their packages sliced off just to get 'married'. And then divorced because their life partner thinks girls are icky.

[Ana Ng]

RTS couldn't win on the winningest day of his life if he had an electrified winning machine.

[PSUFAN]

NO on Prop 16th!!!!

[BSmack]

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

Fuck man, the two of you must have had a whole surgical ward tracking your every move.

[BSmack]

That wasn't necessary, we were well medicated.

Have you ever racked the trolls in a cemetery?

Can't say I have. Is it safe to say that RtS and yourself reprised the Mardi Gras scene from Easy Rider? You kooky kids you.

[Ana Ng]

NO on Prop 16th!!!!

Word.

That proposition has no legs.

[Rasputin]

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.

Ah ha. California's Constitution differs from Louisiana's Constitution in this regard:

Gay-marriage proponents filed three court challenges Wednesday against the ban. The lawsuits raise a rare legal argument: that the ballot measure was actually a dramatic revision of the California Constitution rather than a simple amendment. A constitutional revision must first pass the Legislature before going to the voters. Link.

So now I see where the plaintiffs are headed. I'm curious whether the California Supreme Court has rendered opinions on the revision/amendment distinction. That's where this case will be decided, and not on the merits of gay marriage.

Rack the upcoming train wreck.

From your link...

A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples when it comes to such things as taxes, estate planning and medical decisions. That law is still in effect.

That takes the equal protection argument off the table, which is why they're going the procedural route. If the idiots on the state SC try overturning this again, look for the original decision to be challanged at the federal level.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

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?

You wish you were blessed with "lovely bossums"?


W

T

F

?

[Mikey]

What's a bossum?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

What's a bossum?

Something ToddlerOwnin' wishes he had when he tucks his cock between his legs and tries on his mom's wigs.

[Cuda]

What's a bossum?

He's the guy whose ditch you better get your damn dirt out of

-sin

[Rasputin]

We knew these freaks hated Mormons to begin with, but now it looks like the homo community is ready to kick some black ass as well.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU mvscal, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a mvscal. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the mvscals better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Pretty surreal.

[Smackie Chan]

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

Fuck man, the two of you must have had a whole surgical ward tracking your every move.

No, but Python & I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

Separate rooms, of course.

[Rasputin]

A 2003 California law already gives gays registered as domestic partners nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of married couples when it comes to such things as taxes, estate planning and medical decisions. That law is still in effect.

That takes the equal protection argument off the table, which is why they're going the procedural route. If the idiots on the state SC try overturning this again, look for the original decision to be challanged at the federal level.

"Nearly all" does not equal "the same", and I suspect that is why they are still bitching.

I don't care if the names are different -- marriages for heterosexuals and unions for gays -- as long as both enjoy the same rights under federal and state law. Until that happens, I will continue to bitch with them. My reasons for this are professional and personal; I believe that anything less than equality is unconstitutional, and also, I have friends and in-laws who are gay.

The reason they are still bitching is because of the difference between tolerance and acceptance. It isn't enough for them to be treated the same as married couples, they are insisting on society saying that they are the same. Which even in Kali, the public won't. Because they aren't.

As far as practitioners of aberrant lifestyles having 'equality', I would presume you are all for legalizing polygamy and prostitution. Talk about violating someone's equal protection rights based on their lifestyle...

[Rasputin]

Sure, prostitution should be legal. Why should consenting adults be prohibited from doing that?

Polygamy, sure again. Again, why should consenting adults be prohibited from doing that? Plus there's a freedom of religion present for some. If Hugh Hefner wanted to marry his three hotties, and they all agreed, good for them, I hope they are happy together.

As for the gays, let's start by treating them equally. If they are still bitching after that, then you'll see me telling them to STFU. But until then, I'm bitching with them.

At least you're consistant. The fact is, unlike polygamists, gays are being treated equally as far as rights go. They just aren't being allowed to have the state say they are the same as married couples. It is possible to tolerate an aberrant lifestyle without accepting it. Which is what they are whining about. And my bottom line is that there is no constitutional problem here, which is why they are suing on procedural grounds. Barring that, the decision of electorate should be respected.

[SoCalTrjn]

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.

California has sunk in to financial doldrums by the courts interfering in the will of the people after the 1994 passing of Prop 187. Right now the faggots are just planning to boycott the state of Utah because the Mormon supported the yes on 8 campaign.

[Ana Ng]

Boycott?

Fuck that. Turn it to glass.

What has Utah ever done for us?

(besides the Aquabats)

[SoCalTrjn]

good snow boarding, great mountain biking, thousands of beautiful blonde girls, give them a beach and a ban on illegal immigrants and it just might be paradise

[SoCalTrjn]

Sure, prostitution should be legal. Why should consenting adults be prohibited from doing that?

Polygamy, sure again. Again, why should consenting adults be prohibited from doing that? Plus there's a freedom of religion present for some. If Hugh Hefner wanted to marry his three hotties, and they all agreed, good for them, I hope they are happy together.

As for the gays, let's start by treating them equally. If they are still bitching after that, then you'll see me telling them to STFU. But until then, I'm bitching with them.

In California they are treated equally, the civil unions entitle them to everything a married couple is entitled to. Marriage isnt the property of the Government, it was the churches that came up with the idea of a wedding/marriage and it is up to them to decide who gets one. Even straight couples that were not married in a church before the spaghetti monster should be labeled as being in a civil union instead of a marriage. If you invented something that everyone wanted, would it be right for the government to force you to give it to everyone?

[Diego in Seattle]

Sure, prostitution should be legal. Why should consenting adults be prohibited from doing that?

Polygamy, sure again. Again, why should consenting adults be prohibited from doing that? Plus there's a freedom of religion present for some. If Hugh Hefner wanted to marry his three hotties, and they all agreed, good for them, I hope they are happy together.

As for the gays, let's start by treating them equally. If they are still bitching after that, then you'll see me telling them to STFU. But until then, I'm bitching with them.

In California they are treated equally, the civil unions entitle them to everything a married couple is entitled to. Marriage isnt the property of the Government, it was the churches that came up with the idea of a wedding/marriage and it is up to them to decide who gets one. Even straight couples that were not married in a church before the spaghetti monster should be labeled as being in a civil union instead of a marriage. If you invented something that everyone wanted, would it be right for the government to force you to give it to everyone?

The church didn't invent the constitution.

The issue is the rights & privileges, not the church ceremony.

[Rasputin]

The church didn't invent the constitution.

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' of sexual deviants to get 'married'. It's a state issue. And of course 'the church' (whatever that means) didn't 'invent marriage' either. The institution has been a part of society for millenia. In many societies, polygamy was accepted, in many monogomy was the rule. Some societies arranged marriages between children or people who had never met, and in some consent of the parties involved wasn't even an issue. But even in societies such as Sparta where homosexuality was not only condoned but tacitly encouraged, there has never been an acceptance of 'gay marriage'.

Never.

And freaks like you aren't going to force it onto ours.

[SoCalTrjn]

If theyre going to let felchers marry each other they may as well let polygamists marry each other too, hell why not let a guy marry his dog so he can put his dog on his medical insuarnce, you seen the cost of vet bills?

[trev]

JSC,

What rights are gays missing out on because they can't legally marry? And don't tell me healthcare. There are plenty of people without healthcare. And there are many ways to get healthcare. As for inheritance, can't an individual just (legally) will his possessions to whomever he wants? So tell me besides what I've mentioned, what other rights are gays missing out on?

[Rasputin]

JSC,

What rights are gays missing out on because they can't legally marry? And don't tell me healthcare. There are plenty of people without healthcare. And there are many ways to get healthcare. As for inheritance, can't an individual just (leagally) will his possessions to whomever he wants? So tell me besides what I've mentioned, what otrher rights are gays missing out on?

Actually the Kali civil union laws protect both of those anyway.

[Diego in Seattle]

The church didn't invent the constitution.

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' of sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Nor is there anything in the constitution guaranteeing heterosexuals the right to marry.

Since marriage does provide rights & privileges the 14th amendment says that government can't arbitrarily restrict them (or at least not w/o due process).

What's been hilarious this past week during the republicans' metldown has been their saying that Obama will trash the constitution. Try looking in the mirror, dolts.

SoCalTrjn;
Can you decifer dog barks to deterimine consent? Is that one bark or two?

[Rasputin]

The church didn't invent the constitution.

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' of sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Nor is there anything in the constitution guaranteeing heterosexuals the right to marry.

Which is why it's a state issue.

[Diego in Seattle]

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the 'right' of sexual deviants to get 'married'.

Nor is there anything in the constitution guaranteeing heterosexuals the right to marry.

Which is why it's a state issue.

Just like slavery?

[Rasputin]

Nor is there anything in the constitution guaranteeing heterosexuals the right to marry.

Which is why it's a state issue.

Just like slavery?

No. Although we may see re-education camps once the Obamanation gets rolling along.

[Diego in Seattle]

By all means....continue your bleating meltdown.

[Rasputin]

By all means....continue your bleating meltdown.

I don't know why this would affect you. You're just praying for a law that makes it legal to fuck 4 year olds.

It's a process. First 'gay marriage'.
Then you can marry corpses, then great danes, then blowup dolls and cartoon characters.

Then it's Diego's turn.

[Diego in Seattle]

By all means....continue your bleating meltdown.

I don't know why this would affect you. You're just praying for a law that makes it legal to fuck 4 year olds.

It's a process. First 'gay marriage'.
Then you can marry corpses, then great danes, then blowup dolls and cartoon characters.

Dealing with reality & facts isn't your strength, is it?

[Rasputin]

...says the moron who thinks there's a major push to bring back slavery.

[Cuda]

Diego has a point, Buttsy: he's very scrupulous about them being 5 years old

[Diego in Seattle]

...says the moron who thinks there's a major push to bring back slavery.

Link to where I said that was the case?

Hallucinating dumbfuck.