Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    Ho hum, another activist Judge (who happens to be gay) wants to be a progressive hero, so he trashes the voters' Prop. 8, and  says the federal Constitution mandates Gay Marriage.

    The United States Constitution, that is..not the State Constitution, like Massachusetts did it.
    On to the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    Ho hum, another activist Judge (who happens to be gay) wants to be a progressive hero, so he trashes the voters' Prop. 8, and  says the federal Constitution mandates Gay Marriage. The United States Constitution, that is..not the State Constitution, like Massachusetts did it. On to the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals...
    Posted by BobinVa


    Shouldn't you be cheering the judgement?  Now repubs can use the fear of "The Gay" along side the fear or Black Power to scare voters into voting Republican.

    Are you really surprised by the ruling?  It was a no-brainer.

    The Government (state, local, or federal) shouldn't be involved in the business of people getting married.  People should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

    They shouldn't be telling people who they can and cannot marry.  They shouldn't be issueing marriage licenses at all.  The Government should ONLY be giving out licenses for Civil Unions.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    Ho hum, another activist Judge (who happens to be gay) wants to be a progressive hero, so he trashes the voters' Prop. 8, and  says the federal Constitution mandates Gay Marriage. The United States Constitution, that is..not the State Constitution, like Massachusetts did it. On to the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals...
    Posted by BobinVa


    Prop 8 was clearly unconstitutional. The judge did the right thing. Gays have a right to marry who they want. you are inserting a religious interpretation of marriage into the government realm. People are just fed up with the bigotry on this issue.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    Ho hum, another activist Judge (who happens to be gay) wants to be a progressive hero, so he trashes the voters' Prop. 8, and  says the federal Constitution mandates Gay Marriage. The United States Constitution, that is..not the State Constitution, like Massachusetts did it. On to the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals...
    Posted by BobinVa


       Conservatives really don't like the Constitution much. It's the obvious ruling.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    Ho hum, another activist Judge (who happens to be gay) wants to be a progressive hero, so he trashes the voters' Prop. 8, and  says the federal Constitution mandates Gay Marriage. The United States Constitution, that is..not the State Constitution, like Massachusetts did it. On to the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals...
    Posted by BobinVa


    Bobin doesn't like gay people, so when a federal judge exercises his constitutional power to...interpret the constitution...  that's being an "activist Judge."  Of course, if he upheld the ban, that would not be "activist." 

    When are you morons going to realize that any judicial decision creates new law.  It's an application of old law to new facts.  There is no non-"activist" decision.

    You just use the term "activist" to mean "I don't like the decision"
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

       From the decision.

      "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

       The Judge was appointed by George HW Bush. Must be an "activist".

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    Who cares. Let them marry. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kmatthew68. Show kmatthew68's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : Dems own DOMA.  Fix that and we'll talk
    Posted by GreginMeffa


      We're working on it. Besides DOMA was a bi-partisan effort. Liberals in the Senate and House stood up against it, but that pretty much it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from fractals. Show fractals's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    Ho hum, another activist Judge (who happens to be gay) wants to be a progressive hero, so he trashes the voters' Prop. 8, and  says the federal Constitution mandates Gay Marriage. The United States Constitution, that is..not the State Constitution, like Massachusetts did it. On to the Ninth Circus Court Of Appeals...
    Posted by BobinVa


    I wonder if you would have put in (who happens to be straight), as if it mattered.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    If you cannot find a rational basis for a law, the law cannot stand.  Basic.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : Dems own DOMA.  Fix that and we'll talk
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    DOMA and DADT are faiiled, unconstitutional programs.  Now they're trying to repeal them both and who's fighting the repeal?  Repubs led by McCain.  So I guess it's THEIRS now.  Tell them to fix it.

    I still don't know how anyone could feel threatened by gay marriages.  McCain's even talking about repealing the 14th ammendment over immigration laws.  Well if that one goes, so does the "equal treatment under the law" part.  He could kill two birds with one stone.  What is this - Animal Farm? 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    "The Government (state, local, or federal) shouldn't be involved in the business of people getting married.  People should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
    "The Government should ONLY be giving out licenses for Civil Unions. "

    OK, then, that is a valid point of view. .
    So when 15 people arrive and want a Civil Union license for polygamy, what do you say? First Cousins?
    Son-in-law and mother-in-law?
    Regulating marriage and/or civil unions obviously does have a rational basis.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : DOMA and DADT are faiiled, unconstitutional programs.  Now they're trying to repeal them both and who's fighting the repeal?  Repubs led by McCain.  So I guess it's THEIRS now.  Tell them to fix it. I still don't know how anyone could feel threatened by gay marriages.  McCain's even talking about repealing the 14th ammendment over immigration laws.  Well if that one goes, so does the "equal treatment under the law" part.  He could kill two birds with one stone.  What is this - Animal Farm? 
    Posted by wraughn

    So Rebublicans led by MCain agree with the POTUS...so much for that "party of no" crap

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    "Where I was born in ALabama  you change wives ever four yrs. "

    I'm movin' to Alabama.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from JaySev2010. Show JaySev2010's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    Regulating marriage and/or civil unions obviously does have a rational basis.
    Posted by BobinVa


    Yes, but it shouldn't have a religious one. All the arguments against gay marriage are religious or sentimental. People should be allowed to marry whoever, and how every many people, they want. As long as no one is getting hurt, it is none of our business who people marry.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ltown1. Show Ltown1's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    "The Government (state, local, or federal) shouldn't be involved in the business of people getting married.  People should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people. "The Government should ONLY be giving out licenses for Civil Unions. " OK, then, that is a valid point of view. . So when 15 people arrive and want a Civil Union license for polygamy, what do you say? First Cousins? Son-in-law and mother-in-law? Regulating marriage and/or civil unions obviously does have a rational basis.
    Posted by BobinVa



    Bob,
    Polygamy and incest are illegal.  They don't descriminate.  They simply say it's illegal to marry a relative and it's illegal to have more than one wife and or husband.

    Making it illegal for gays to marry, descriminated against homosexuals.   For example, if you're a gay man(I don't believe that's too much of a stretch), and you want to marry your brother, that's still illegal.   If you're a gay man and you want to have 3 husbands, that's illegal.    The state cannot however, deny any natural born American citizen his or her rights under the constitution.   If straight people can marry, gays can too.  

    It's that simple.

    It's the American way.   Why do you hate America Bob?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : Bob, Polygamy and incest are illegal.  They don't descriminate.  They simply say it's illegal to marry a relative and it's illegal to have more than one wife and or husband. Making it illegal for gays to marry, descriminated against homosexuals.   For example, if you're a gay man(I don't believe that's too much of a stretch), and you want to marry your brother, that's still illegal.   If you're a gay man and you want to have 3 husbands, that's illegal.    The state cannot however, deny any natural born American citizen his or her rights under the constitution.   If straight people can marry, gays can too.   It's that simple. It's the American way.   Why do you hate America Bob?
    Posted by Ltown1



    For example, if you're a gay man(I don't believe that's too much of a stretch)


    What does that have to do with anything? What are you twelve? Did you giggle like a little child when you wrote that?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from taxmeintooblivion. Show taxmeintooblivion's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : Bob, Polygamy and incest are illegal.  They don't descriminate.  They simply say it's illegal to marry a relative and it's illegal to have more than one wife and or husband. Making it illegal for gays to marry, descriminated against homosexuals.   For example, if you're a gay man(I don't believe that's too much of a stretch), and you want to marry your brother, that's still illegal.   If you're a gay man and you want to have 3 husbands, that's illegal.    The state cannot however, deny any natural born American citizen his or her rights under the constitution.   If straight people can marry, gays can too.   It's that simple. It's the American way.   Why do you hate America Bob?
    Posted by Ltown1


    Narrow minded people can't see this as just another step down the path. What's next.. trannys, marrying your dog, children. Yes, surprisingly there are some (and dwindling) perverse unions left but you can be assured, they are planning to leverage this bit of theartre to make their move. 

    Let the gays marry and give them special rights. It does not impact the lives of my family right now. Let them 'think' they are normal and accepted. Let them flaunt their deviant lifestyles in front of children. Teach that 'it's all right' in the schools. Sell it and promote it. Let it grow and morph.  

    Perhaps more significantly, another example of how morals and values have disappeared in this country AND that the will of the people (no matter how common sense based they may be) means nothing. Time and again, whether through the courts or legislatures at all levels, the intent of majorities means nothing.  Health care, gay rights (what did they NOT have), amnesty all run in the face of the majority. This is not political anymore, it's social. 

    So I wish congrats to Butch and Dickie.. celebrate! Wave American flags flags as though the symbol still stands for something good.  Spread your perversions through the country and the world. Today is your day.  

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    "The Government (state, local, or federal) shouldn't be involved in the business of people getting married.  People should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people. "The Government should ONLY be giving out licenses for Civil Unions. " OK, then, that is a valid point of view. . So when 15 people arrive and want a Civil Union license for polygamy, what do you say? First Cousins? Son-in-law and mother-in-law? Regulating marriage and/or civil unions obviously does have a rational basis.
    Posted by BobinVa


    I actually have no problem with the basic concept of polygamy.  It's the marrying of young girls against their will that I find abhorrent.

    So keep polygamy against the law.  Does that really stop a person from living with multiple husbands/wives even if only one is legal?  Does preventing Gay marriage really prevent gays from living as a married couple?  All it really does is allow one partner to be covered under insurance, inheritance, etc.

    If a religious group doesn't wnt to allow certain people to be married - that's OK with me.  But it's not OK for the religious group or any other civic organization to impose their views on everyone.

    And regarding polygamy and cousins getting married - I agree that it should be illegal for Gays to be married to their cousins or to more than one person at a time as long as long as the law applies to heterosexuals.




     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : Prop 8 was clearly unconstitutional. The judge did the right thing. Gays have a right to marry who they want. you are inserting a religious interpretation of marriage into the government realm. People are just fed up with the bigotry on this issue.
    Posted by JaySev2010


    Do gays have the right to marry two people?  How about one person and a sheep?

    There is no moral imperative here.  Progressives are just moving the boundary lines to suit their own workd view.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California : Yes, but it shouldn't have a religious one. All the arguments against gay marriage are religious or sentimental. People should be allowed to marry whoever, and how every many people, they want. As long as no one is getting hurt, it is none of our business who people marry.
    Posted by JaySev2010


    I agree.  The thing with polygamy would have to set some rules, though.  Example - survivor Social Security benefits would have to be limited so that all 3 wives split up one wife's share.  If there are 16 children, they couldn't all recieve full benefits either.

    This argument that a judge is IMPOSING gay marriage is stupid.  I think he's just imposing the constitution on people who don't respect it.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California

    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California:
    In Response to Re: Another moonbat federal judge imposes gay marriage on California :  This argument that a judge is IMPOSING gay marriage is stupid.  I think he's just imposing the constitution on people who don't respect it.
    Posted by wraughn


    You project that the founding fathers had deviant sexual preferences as a cornerstone of basic rights? I'm sure you are most correct.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share