Federal judge overturns gay marriage ban in Calif.

ap ^ | Aug 4 | LISA LEFF

[JoeProBono]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A person close to the case says a federal judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

[drew]

The gay community celebrated by dressing in lavish costumes, parading in the streets, dancing, singing Broadway songs, and having orgies.
Then they responded to the court's decision.

[WOBBLY BOB]

read my mind.

[manc]

the fact is that this was a homosexual judge who could benefit from his own decision and he should have recused himself.

If a judge had more than one wife or wanted more than one wife and then took the case of having more than one wife it would have been wrong.

These homosexuals are making people more pissed off with them and instead of the weak minded saying well I know a couple and they are nice is not helping them .
The homosexuals need to be told that they need mental help

[Sandy01]

I think we are losing perspective here. For me, this is more about judicial activism. They are to interpret laws instituted by the people etc. Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, this judge went against the will of the people and that, to me, is tyranny. It is far worse to me than all of these creative visuals of two guys “doing it” together presented here!
If they can do this on a social issue, what can’t they do?

[Clock King]

Gay supporters are being used by the NWO to further their goals of destroying the family, and they don’t know it. Even in societies where homosexuality was practiced openly and accepted, pairings of same sex couples was NEVER considered marriage. That term was always reserved for male/female pairings.

[Filo]

Again, they do have the same benefits, that the rest of us do, to marry a person of the opposite. If we merely base the definition of "marriage" of being with the one you love, again, that opens it up to polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, or any other abnormal arrangement you can think of.

Typical nonsense.

I truly wish y'all could escape from spouting these canards. It would make intelligent discourse far more probable.

[Millers Cave]

Do we dioscriminate against those who want more than one wife?

Lots of people have had more than one wife-- Reagan, Rush, Newt come to mind.

[Coronal]

The Supremes went against the will of a lot of people when they struck down segregation. Was that tyranny? And before you say anything, I am not trying to make any comparisons between race and sexuality.

[Filo]

I’m not “into” murder or rape as well, should we also consider this defiant behavior to be a lifestyle choice as well?

In my mind it is the same.

This isn’t about values....it is about wrongdoing. And yes, unnatural is correct as well.

Nonsense. It's about your visceral (and unthinking) reactions to the lifestyle and nothing else.

The fact that you compare violent crimes to a voluntary and victimless situation proves your utter lack of rationality or perspective on the matter.

[agooga]

I don’t know about you, but it’s sometimes really hard being caught between two warring tribes. Getting shot at by both sides! Well, such is life!

[aimhigh]

but you're not welcome to force people to live by your values.

Hey liberal, perhaps you can explain all the deductions on my last paycheck. Liberals have no problem forcing their values on everyone.

[manc]

didn’t think I had to say it to be clear but here goes for you

more than one wife at the same time?

Now seeing as you replied to me could you answer that question?

[Filo]

The founders wrote a constitution that lays out the methods by which we govern ourselves. We have it within our power to amend that constitution. And that amendment will be binding on everyone who lives in this country.

IF the citizens of this country decide that the judges aren’t listening, we can pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

Absolutely. The problem is that you cannot do it without gutting the basic premise of The Constitution. The whole "Blessings of Liberty" goes south if you select a group or characteristic that you don't like a persecute it.

It's all fine and dandy until you're in the group in question but y'all just don't get that.

[ExTexasRedhead]

This human waste ruled against the will of the people just like any other dictators we now have in office.

[Filo]

did you get lost as this is a place where we do not approve of someone thinking they are in the right state of mind by poking each other up the ass or a woman wearing a strap on and then thinking she is a man?

I didn't get lost, I just don't care.

Don’t believe me then contact JR who has said many times on here that this is not a place to spread the homosexual agenda

Wherein lies your confusion. The only agenda I am "promoting" is that of our Founding Fathers: Freedom and Liberty.

It's sad that supposed "Conservatives" here don't get that but it's not altogether surprising.

[verity]

I imagine this will not please the Muslim population. ;-)

[Filo]

Hey liberal, perhaps you can explain all the deductions on my last paycheck. Liberals have no problem forcing their values on everyone.

No doubt, and apparently neither do "Conservatives."

And in spite of your attempted slight above, I'm clearly far more Conservative than you are by any real definition.

[Filo]

I don’t know about you, but it’s sometimes really hard being caught between two warring tribes. Getting shot at by both sides! Well, such is life!

No doubt. It is funny what happens sometimes, though, ain't it?

[ViLaLuz]

He sits like his butt is sore.

[freekitty]

A real shame. God created man and woman.