T1B

If this doesn't convince you, you should burn in Hell.

http://www.radiosocal.net/955klos/marka ... 102708.mp3

"Why am I married to my wife when I could be fondling my buddys wang."

I instantly thought of you Mikey.

I bet that piece turned you on.

trev wrote:"Why am I married to my wife when I could be fondling my buddys wang."

I instantly thought of you Mikey.

I bet that piece turned you on.

Oh yessss!! You know me so well, trev.

If I was married to somebody like you you'd probably be spot on.

Great.

I'm knee deep in lap flounder.

Mikey wrote:If this doesn't convince you, you should burn in Hell.

http://www.radiosocal.net/955klos/marka ... 102708.mp3

So if it passes, I assume you and your shitdicked gay lover will tie teh knot then?

MadRussian wrote:

Mikey wrote:If this doesn't convince you, you should burn in Hell.

http://www.radiosocal.net/955klos/marka ... 102708.mp3

So if it passes, I assume you and your shitdicked gay lover will tie teh knot then?

It's funny and intelligent responses like this that keep me coming back here.

RACK you, you studmuffin, and keep up the good work.

That link is quite gay.

Of course, none of it has anything to do with the fact that Kali already decided this 'issue', this is just about telling three political hacks disguised as state SC justices to fuck off and quit inventing non-existant 'rights'.

The RIGHT is already there, just not "recognized".....and therein lies the problem.

The religious right v. the human right.

Unfortunately, the church NEVER runs out of $$$, or weak minded people to scare.

Jsc810 wrote:Their marriage has absolutely zero impact on your life.

My tax dollars object to that statement. Gay marriage means Ellen can now check the box that reads "Married" on the healthcare packet she has to fill out.

how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg, jsc?

Ana Ng wrote:The RIGHT is already there, just not "recognized".....and therein lies the problem.

The religious right v. the human right.

More like nonexistant constitutional 'rights' vs. the Right of the voters of a state to decide.

For the record, I voted against this 'issue' first time around since it did nothing to protect the legal non-institution of marriage. If it would have outlawed no-fault divorce and criminalized adultery, I would have been on board. This time, I voted with the electorate and against the judicial activists.

Cuda wrote:how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg, jsc?

It won't matter after jsc runs him over.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Their marriage has absolutely zero impact on your life.

My tax dollars object to that statement. Gay marriage means Ellen can now check the box that reads "Married" on the healthcare packet she has to fill out.

Wrong. They already have that in Kali.

mvscal wrote:

Rasputin wrote:More like nonexistant constitutional 'rights' vs. the Right of the voters of a state to decide.

Legally competant adults don't have the right to enter into binding contracts?

Really?

It depends on the nature of the contract and the laws of the state whether said contract is legally recognized. And unfortunatly, some are unaware that marriage has been legally downgraded to nothing more than a contract.

Just because you don't believe in the concept of sacraments doesn't make them less valid. Only the state could do that.

mvscal wrote:

Rasputin wrote:Just because you don't believe in the concept of sacraments doesn't make them less valid.

It also doesn't change the fact that marriage is and always been a contract. You can have "God" (ie your Church) witness the contract or you can have a justice of the peace witness the contract. Either way it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the transaction. It also doesn't change the fact that two fags getting married is really none of your business.

You're correct that states are free to regulate and/or recognize contracts more or less as they see fit but, absent any compelling state interest, I don't believe they should be interfering in anyone's business.

What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting these contracts?

Reduced income taxes?

mvscal wrote:
What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting these contracts?

It's just so icky.

Sin,
tardogenes and his Mormon bretheren.

First of all,. there should be a compelling reason, but even if their isn't, this was already decided by an overwhelming majority of the electorate via referendum. There is no valid constitutional reason to countermand that decision, and three political hacks engaging in judicial activism shouldn't decide state policy. As for the rest...

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/11 ... -is-wrong/

Whether it is compelling or not, I don't know or care. This isn't about the evil religious right against the poor persecuted pervs, it's about majoritarian rule vs. judicial activism.

I could care less whether you are 'married' to a dude, a blowup doll or a cartoon character. The voters of Kali seem to though.

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:
What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting these contracts?

It's just so icky.

Sin,
tardogenes and his Mormon bretheren.

Try again, dumbfuck.

Rasputin wrote:

Ana Ng wrote:The RIGHT is already there, just not "recognized".....and therein lies the problem.

The religious right v. the human right.

More like nonexistant constitutional 'rights' vs. the Right of the voters of a state to decide.

For the record, I voted against this 'issue' first time around since it did nothing to protect the legal non-institution of marriage. If it would have outlawed no-fault divorce and criminalized adultery, I would have been on board. This time, I voted with the electorate and against the judicial activists.

mvscal wrote: What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting these contracts?

So the U.S. of A. doesn't become gayer than Spain, Greece, and France.

Conversely, what's the compelling state interest in allowing them?

RumpleForeskin wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Their marriage has absolutely zero impact on your life.

My tax dollars object to that statement.

Since when have you paid taxes in California.... idiot.





the truth

For the record, this is the first time I've ever voted for a Constitutional amendment. I general oppose screwing with the Constitution, but I'd rather have he electorate do it than political hacks in robes.

It's also the first time I recall voting for a Dem. The city attorney here (Aguirre) has pissed off the politicians of both parties equally, that definitly gets my vote.

Rasputin wrote:First of all,. there should be a compelling reason, but even if their isn't, this was already decided by an overwhelming majority of the electorate via referendum. There is no valid constitutional reason to countermand that decision, and three political hacks engaging in judicial activism shouldn't decide state policy.

Diothumper.....after this are you going to move to the South to get a proposition on the ballot to permit slavery? I'm sure that would probably get a majority vote as well down there. And I'm sure you could find some scriptures to back you up as well.

mvscal wrote:

Rasputin wrote:Just because you don't believe in the concept of sacraments doesn't make them less valid.

It also doesn't change the fact that marriage is and always been a contract. You can have "God" (ie your Church) witness the contract or you can have a justice of the peace witness the contract. Either way it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the transaction. It also doesn't change the fact that two fags getting married is really none of your business.

You're correct that states are free to regulate and/or recognize contracts more or less as they see fit but, absent any compelling state interest, I don't believe they should be interfering in anyone's business.

What is the compelling state interest in prohibiting these contracts?

RACK.

bootlicking Wagon wrote:Conversely, what's the compelling state interest in allowing them?

I thought you were all about government getting out of people's lives. I guess you'd prefer the Nanny State as long as it coddles your own insecurities, eh?

Pretty fucking pathetic, bro, even for you.

RadioFan wrote:

bootlicking Wagon wrote:Conversely, what's the compelling state interest in allowing them?

I thought you were all about government getting out of people's lives. I guess you'd prefer the Nanny State as long as it coddles your own insecurities, eh?

Again...


It isn't the government vs. individual 'rights', it's the wishes of people vs. the ideology of three political hacks in Sacramento. The non-issue of pervs 'marrying' has already been decided. What's at stake here is majoritarian rule vs. judicial supremecy.

Rasputin wrote:What's at stake here is majoritarian rule vs. judicial supremecy.

Not having read the Calif. Sup. court decision, I highly doubt that's what the proposition says. What's more likely is that a bunch of insecure ex-Oklahomans got their panties in a bunch about fags being allowed to marry, based on the decision and decided that they would like a Nanny State, when it comes to this issue.

Not that I give a fuck either way ... it is Kalifornia, after all, but honest question:

Do you think this measure would be on the ballot had the CSC case been about "civil unions," as opposed to "marriage?"

Imo, it still would have been on the ballot, only the opposition would be far less. This issue is one of language, as much as anything.

Rasputin wrote:It isn't the government vs. individual 'rights', it's the wishes of people vs. the ideology of three political hacks in Sacramento.

Call it what you will. It's the wishes of the "religious right", which is the driving force behind this proposition.

Ask 'em.

If there was a financial gain to be had from gay marriages, with the churches on the receiving end......you can be damn sure they would find a different way to "interpret" the constitution, and sell the fuck out of it.

RadioFan wrote:Not that I give a fuck either way ... it is Kalifornia, after all, but honest question:

Do you think this measure would be on the ballot had the CSC case been about "civil unions," as opposed to "marriage?"

Imo, it still would have been on the ballot, only the opposition would be far less. This issue is one of language, as much as anything.

They already had civil unions here and nobody gave a fuck. And unless the majotity of Kali voters are members of the evil 'religious right', it has nothing to do with them either.

Ana Ng wrote: Call it what you will. It's the wishes of the "religious right", which is the driving force behind this proposition.

Since when did Californication become Alabama in drag? The reliably ultra liberal is influenced by the "religious right" in offering up constitutional amendments? Har...

Ya' know, if the Cali voters approve this measure, it'll renew my faith in your God forsaken state.

Not that I ever had much to begin with.

California voters, you're on the clock.

I must've forgot to wipe my ass, cause you're right up in it again.

Stay in your room, Wags.

Ana Ng wrote:I must've forgot to wipe my ass, cause you're right up in it again.

Stay in your room, Wags.

This is my room, girlfriend.

I love chicks who like to talk dirty w/o even having to get them drunk.

That's special.

War Wagon wrote:Since when did Californication become Alabama in drag? The reliably ultra liberal is influenced by the "religious right" in offering up constitutional amendments? Har...

Probably since about the time they made it ridiculously easy to put any fucking initiative on the ballot if you've got enough cash.

I think the 12 state-wide initiatives are the fewest in a while. They're generally poorly constructed bullshit just waiting to be declared unconstitutional. On the bright side it tends to upset folks like Rasputin, so I guess it's not all bad.

War Wagon wrote:I love chicks who like to talk dirty talk to me w/o even having to get them drunk.

That's special.

Yes.

It is.

Disappointing, Angie.

Truly.

At least have something to back up your bullshit with something other than one liner "pull my finger" pablum.

Maybe that and awesome tits gets you a free pass elsewhere, but it only goes so far with me.

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

Yet.

huh? wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Since when did Californication become Alabama in drag? The reliably ultra liberal is influenced by the "religious right" in offering up constitutional amendments? Har...

Probably since about the time they made it ridiculously easy to put any fucking initiative on the ballot if you've got enough cash.

I think the 12 state-wide initiatives are the fewest in a while. They're generally poorly constructed bullshit just waiting to be declared unconstitutional. On the bright side it tends to upset folks like Rasputin, so I guess it's not all bad.

Why would I bother to be upset? I expect general idiocy from the local yokels.

War Wagon wrote:Disappointing, Angie.

Truly.

At least have something to back up your bullshit with something other than one liner "pull my finger" pablum.

Maybe that and awesome tits gets you a free pass elsewhere, but it only goes so far with me.

You just don't inspire me anymore.

I've got nothing.

I may as well be your boxer shorts, your life, your opinions, your daughter's attraction to the opposite sex........etc.

Ana Ng wrote: I've got nothing.

Pretty much what I ascertained from day one.

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

Yet.

If it doesn't pass nothing changes. So how is it that traditional marriage will be abolished if it doesn't pass?

Goober McTuber wrote:

Cuda wrote:how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg, jsc?

It won't matter after jsc runs him over.

LOL!!!!!!!!