Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Can you smoke crack in "the privacy of your own bedroom?"

I try not to fuck so fast that she gets smoke in the crack of her ass. I'm more of a soul man that way.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

My point is, the law cares. Where is polygamy legal?

California.

 

[RoryN]

Someone please have vetteman explain how smoking crack, incest, and polygamy are equal to gay marriage. I need a laugh.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Can you smoke crack in "the privacy of your own bedroom?"

Crack harms society. You can't say the same about gay marriage.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wrong Element]

If you had a brain, you would realize that Lawrence v Texas lays the ground work for gay marriage by outlawing laws against Sodomy, after all you cannot have gay marriage if the result of it is illegal can you?

Not all gay men, and zero gay women, engage in "sodomy" as that word is commonly understood.

I know the history. I did read the case. The judge made a political decision. This is the frist time a judge has ever made this argument in regard to gay marriage. Maybe he should have disclosed his gayness and recused himself, but that is another subject.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with sex, gay rights, gay marriage. This judge, like none other before him, has decided there is a penumbra there for gay marriage. he's decided the federal government is going to manage marriage.

I say he's wrong. Is there a penumbra in the 14th Amendment equal protection clause that protects rich people from being treated differently than everyone else, from higher taxes for example? If not why not? Is there one protecting incest? If not why not? Is there one in there protecting polygamy? How about bestiality?

What we are seeing is the dis-assembly of state sovereignty, a democratic majority dispossessed by a single federal judge, and the complete centralization of power in the hands of the federal judiciary.

I think there's a state interest in laws preventing incest, polygamy, and bestiality--not everyone agrees with me--but not regarding gays and lesbians from marrying. In fact, society has traditionally encouraged the establishment of stable monogamous adult relationships. Homosexuals can only have such relationships with members of the same sex.

As far as the judge recusing himself because he's allegedly gay, that I don't get at all. You're really going to say that only heterosexuals can "objectively" rule on issues regarding gay rights? I guess for straight white Christian males, such a recusal policy would be fine and dandy, but for everyone else, not so much.

Then tell me dear why is this federal judge the very first judge in history to take this stance?

Up until a few weeks ago, no federal judge had ever said that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Just sayin'. In fact, the Heller decision explicitly overturned the vote of the people of the District of Columbia regarding handgun possession. Since you appear to believe that a majority vote has the power to overturn a constitutional right, how about that one?

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Incest in California is illegal regardless of age:

California Penal (Criminal) Code 285.

Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which
marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who
intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older,
commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison.

And DOMA would super cede that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Who decides? How do you know? Does one man decide or does society decide?

So what harm does gay marriage present to society?
And how does crack not harm society?

 

[overthebow]

Crack harms society. You can't say the same about gay marriage.

It does too harm society.

Can't you see the danger here?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/10/31/amd_gay_couple_son.jpg

Or here?

http://likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/israeli-gay-couple.jpg

Or here?

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//e6/c/e6cdf100ba3acbc821777b4c483fc59a.jpg

Or here?

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_9UzMAzB7hpc/SRHtwPfQMOI/AAAAAAAAATM/NY2eAKkN_Gk/lesbian%20family%20of%20color_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg

Or here?

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12/LesbianQuadsNORTH_450x300.jpg

http://www.therainbowbabies.com/i/lesbian-parents-child.jpg

The harm to society is enormous!

 

[overthebow]

On page 39-40 of the decision, Blankenhorn gets taken down. Love it.

The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved
the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s
opinions. Tr 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that
Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony
that should be given essentially no weight.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a witness may
be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education.” The testimony may only be admitted if it
“is based upon sufficient facts or data” and “is the product of reliable principles and methods.” Id. Expert testimony must be
both relevant and reliable, with a “basis in the knowledge and
experience of [the relevant] discipline.” Kumho Tire Co v
Carmichael, 526 US 137, 147, 149 (1999) (citing Daubert v Merrell
Dow Pharm, 509 US 579, 589, 592 (1993)).

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Personally, I oppose gay marriage. All these dudes getting married, walking around looking sharp all the time, I'm going to have to step my game up. And getting to the point that I don't freak out the woman in the McDonalds drive through takes a long time. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to get to the level that I can compete with all the gay guys who hang out down at the park with their kids. The mothers are there and these guys just shine. I'm there and don't get a second look.

It's not fair. I refuse to give in to manscaping.

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/garth/2006_03_02_manscaping.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

you're this desperate for approval by GB fuckwads like yourself that you flat out make shit up
ask yourself why ~

You already quoted this post I made, why do it again? And you failed to answer the question if you think it's okay for a brother to fuck his sister. Why not answer the question?

It's funny how you can just throw your pathetic morals clause out the window when it involves a hot chick. Kinda like Chevette does when watching lesbian porn or ass-fucking porn made in Chatsworth, CA, his home state where he hates gays.

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Answer my questions. Ask the government how crack harms society, they are the ones who decided that it's illegal in "the privacy of your own bedroom." Or did you miss the whole point of my posts? Everyone says get the government out of my bedroom, but don't ask why they can't smoke crack, commit incest, or adultery, or fuck their dog, in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The government has no laws regarding adultery, and likely never will.

I never mind answering questions, but I did ask mine first, and you have a documented habit of not answering questions or providing any links to back up your claim.

Further, you are the one who claimed that you don't care what people do in their bedroom.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

I am actually frightened for my state (CA) because if this ruling. I am scared when Chevette's head finally explodes, there will be casualties from the shrapnel.

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

The government has no laws regarding adultery, and likely never will.

I never mind answering questions, but I did ask mine first, and you have a documented habit of not answering questions or providing any links to back up your claim.

Further, you are the one who claimed that you don't care what people do in their bedroom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan),[47] to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin).[48] In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense.[15] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States is unclear following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults.[49] However, occasional prosecutions do occur.[50]

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Love me some findings of fact.

47. California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to
change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of
gays and lesbians in California.

 

[overthebow]

More findings of fact.

55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the
number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,
have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.