T1B

Mikey wrote:

War Wagon wrote:
I laff.

Ana Ng wrote:You blow.

All at the same time, no doubt.

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

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote: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.

PSUFAN wrote:

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote: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.

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

Jsc810 wrote:That wasn't necessary, we were well medicated.

Have you ever racked the trolls in a cemetery?

PSUFAN wrote:NO on Prop 16th!!!!

Jsc810 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: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.

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.

Toddowen wrote:Since we're all gay here, perhaps Ana would be willing to exhibit more pics of those...

Toddowen wrote:...lovely bossums that each of us wish we were blessed with in real life?

Mikey wrote:What's a bossum?

Mikey wrote:What's a bossum?

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.

BSmack wrote:

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote: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.

Jsc810 wrote:

Rasputin wrote: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.

Jsc810 wrote: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.

Rasputin wrote:

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: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.

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Jsc810 wrote: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 wrote:The church didn't invent the constitution.

trev wrote: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?

Rasputin wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:The church didn't invent the constitution.

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

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Rasputin wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: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.

Rasputin wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Rasputin wrote:
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 wrote:

Rasputin wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Nor is there anything in the constitution guaranteeing heterosexuals the right to marry.

Which is why it's a state issue.

Just like slavery?

Papa Willie wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: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.

Rasputin wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: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.

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