A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals has ruled that California's Proposition 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians, and is therefore unconstitutional. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Supporters of gay marriage are celebrating a big victory today. A federal appeals court has declared California's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 today that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
The measure, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008, outlawed same-sex unions just five months after they became legal in the state.
The ruling has already prompted chatter on the presidential campaign trail. While all five major presidential candidates say they oppose gay marriage, their enthusiasm for a ban varies widely.
Newt Gingrich, himself married three times, tweeted that today's ruling is "another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy."
This should surprise no one was Gingrich has stated many times that, if elected president, he would ignore certain Supreme Court rulings on national security and ask Congress to summon for questioning judges who rule against his wishes.
During a recent GOP presidential debate (Dec. 15, 2011 in Sioux City, Iowa), Gingrich declared that he would work to abolish federal judges if he didn’t agree with their "anti-American" or "dictatorial” rulings."
Gingrich had called for abolishing the 9th Circuit because it had ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. (The 9th Circuit ruled again on the case in 2010 and found the phrase to be constitutional.)
And In 2010, Gingrich donated to an effort to defeat the judges who legalized gay marriage there.
Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign shares his thoughts on the decision.
Rick Santorum may be the most outspoken opponent of redefining marriage, saying the American public and their elected officials should decide on these "incredibly important moral issues," rather than the Supreme Court, which consists of "nine unelected, unaccountable judges."
Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage, but hasn't issued a statement on today's decision. He probably just wants it to go away given the role of the Mormon church (which he donates boat loads of money to) in helping Prop 8 it in the first place.
Even the libertarian Ron Paul opposes gay marriage. When the Obama administration announced it would stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against legal challenges, Paul said, "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected." However, unlike Gingrich, Santorum and Romney, he has not signed a pledge to a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
And President Barack Obama also opposes gay marriage, but has backed other gay-rights legal concerns and has signaled he is “evolving on the issue.”
Ed will talk about today's ruling tonight on "The Ed Show" at 8pmET on MSNBC with Iraq war veteran Lt. Dan Choi, discharged from the Army under the now defunct Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and MSNBC host Melissa Perry-Harris.
Leave a Comment:
My God; These gop-re-bagged Goofballs Will Stop At Absolutely Nothing To Toss A Wrench Into The Works Of AMERICA Moving Forward = They ALL Need To Be Placed In A Firing Squad Line-UP !!!!!! For Homeland Terrorism Charges = Send Them ALL To Guantanimo !!!!!! GOMERS !!!!
Duck and Dodge - Avoid and Evade = What About Jobs-Jobs-Jobs ?????? These gop-re-bagged GOMERS Will Do Anything To Skirt Around - Everything That Will Help OUR Country Move FORWARD !!!!!! Such A JOKE THEY ARE !!!!!! OH YEAH - We Need These Goofballs Running The U.S.A. - OH YEAH !!!!!! Its Their Way Or The Highway !!!!! SOS !!!!!! OH - I Know Its ALL Lincolns Fault - Well Prez. Obama's Toooo !!! ???? Ha Haaa !!!!!!
Churches that openly oppose gay marriage must have their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for violating the prohibition on political activity.
In my church, we have several couples who have children who have never married. It is none of my business.....as a Christian my only business is their soul and their well being. This goes for the gay and the straight. Live and let live.....enjoy their company. Damn I wish Government would take care of the law and what is important and leave people who are not hurting any one to live their lives.
Hey = TM = IS Religion Overthrowing OUR Constitution And Government ?? Sure Appears That Way = At Least From The 4th REICH Side !!!!!!!! Butt - Hey - Its ALL Rite If THEY DO IT - Butt No-One Else Can !!!!????????? Ha Haaa - THOSE CRAZY Lunatics !!!!!!
This one thing I feel about and will no doubt ruffle some feathers. I do not think gay people should not be able to adopt or have their own children, Unless its from a relative and no other relative is wanting or available. As it is their choice to be gay and its not naturally possible to have them. If some ones bisexual does open a whole new can of worms though.
I grew up in the foster system here in this country XXXOOO where my brother and sisters and I were raped, molested and beaten by almost all of the Christian, ' straight ' couples that took us in . . . but somehow people who are BORN gay should not be given a chance to raise children that are not their own because they are living openly in gay, married relationships ? Please tell me how this makes any sense at all.
Being gay or straight is no guarantee for a child. Knowing the gays I know. They have no interest in harming children. They are not perverts as a hole group. Anymore than so call straight people are perverts as a whole group. Of course there will be a few exceptions.
My stepson who is gay, is one of the most wonderful men I know. He would not harm any one. People love him, he just naturally attracks all kinds of people because he is outgoing and friendly.
Felons can not. Children are highly impressionable and I FEEL as it is not good for their upbringing. When they are adults they can make that choice but should be given the chance to be raised in a conventional setting. Sorry to hear about you and your siblings plight. Its all to common.http://askville.amazon.com/ex-felon-adopt/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=32716595
I have alot of respect for you and your blog entries usually XXXOOO . . . but you missed the points I was making almost totally. Gays are no more or less great parents than straight people are. And nobody who reads or pays attention to the news in present times refers to gays as " choosing " who they are . . . they are born. And you missed the point about how violent and abusive straight parents can be. There is NO credible information out there that says that Gay couples should not raise children.
So when you have natural parents that are terrible, and they raise you. That is better? I respect what you are saying, but I think it is naive. There is no guarantee who will be the best parent. I have friends who have adopted, Korean, black, and Chinese Children and they were both white. Some people think that is wrong. These aren't felons.
I raised my child from birth until I remarried 14 years latter. I was a single parent. I don't think I deprived my son of anything except other brothers and sisters. We did well. I had brother and his grandfathers who served as his male role models. A child knows what he knows.
This is something I'm having trouble with and its hard to change ones feelings, That's why I made the post. for the vine does do a good job of making points. Its food for thought. And its not about how good or bad they may be but just its not natural and they can not have them physically. I hope you understand and do not hold it against me. If someone's gay they forfeit that option of having children.
Absolutely not dear. You have a right to your opinions and you usually express them very well ! This is a subject that is very dear to my heart.
TMom did you give the link about felons not being able to adopt? I had gay neighbours two young collage kids, I had talked to a guest of theirs and he told me that he didn't want to be gay any more and that they the gay community threatened him that they would hound him and make his life miserable, Its not the picture that you see that's made them into a peaceful and harmless bunch is it! I did not interfere with their lifestyle but they were the most inconsiderate and rude neighbours I have ever had!
@xxx ooo,
The world is not simple enough to pass laws about this issue.
About 10% of the population is born transgender and do not satisfy the definition of male or female at the moment of birth.
Your gay friend was B and not G in the LGBT moniker. Bisexuals have two options but gays cannot enjoy an opposite sex relationship. A significant number of "straight" individuals are actually bisexual.
The issue is not whether someone has a right to be LGBT, but whether government elections can be used to disenfranchise a minority.
One end of the spectrum is to deny adoption and marriage rights. The other end of the spectrum is to apply the death penalty to anyone found guilty of LGBT.
That whole spectrum is flawed.
It is wrong to vote to deny the rights of a minority simply because the majority has "feelings" about the minority.
xxx ooo ...
As you know, I believe in karma, reincarnation and 'past lives'. Everyone alive has been here before, all races, all colours, all creeds... We carry partial memories of these lives imprinted in our subconcious memories, unable to access them conciously, but partially guiding our actions... We program these behaviours constantly, but almost unconciously. I say 'almost', as intentional reprogramming is possible through hypnosis, self-hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming...
In this context, natural homosexuality is bound to exist, through subconcious memories of past lives while you happened to be of the opposite sex! If your sex life in a recent past life with someone the same sex you are now was ecstatic, your subconcious mind will direct you to the same sex to return to that state of ecstasy...
Becoming aware of our past lives and how we 'program' our subconcious minds can alleviate a lot of unnecessary fears and guilts. If everyone realized that, at any moment, we could be living in someone else's shoes, it would increase empathy and ensure that we 'do unto others'...
Like I said, xxx, there are exceptions straight or gay that act badly. They are not the gay people I know and are my friends. We don't love you any less because you can't bring yourself to accept this. I don't know anything about your background or what you are exposed to. To me it is a case of accepting people, because they are people. Until they show themselves not to be deserving. I'm a mom. I think people are sons and daughters of someone. I respect other people, and I respect their things. I do not go around committing crimes against them. To deprive them of a right or something for me would be a crime for me. If my church deprived me of my rights, I'd be looking for an other church.
xxx ooo,
being gay IS NOT A CHOICE!
people are born either gay, straight, or bisexual.
even IF IT IS A CHOICE, they still deserve all the rights that the rest of us take for granted.
i know lots of "straight" people who have kids, and they are horrible parents. what makes you think that straight people have dibs on how to treat children? what is it that you do not understand, or what are feelings about gays that would make you say they should not be able to adopt (i think that is what you are saying in your post above #2.3) with all due respect, you sound a little judgemental.
being gay is not a choice.
That's true. No one would choose to be gay if it was just a matter of choice...
Ostracized throughout school... Shunned by family... Harder to find a job... Difficult to find a partner... Once you find a partner, not being able to introduce him/her to family/friends/co-workers... No kids of your own, EVER!... If you do manage to adopt, only the adopting parent of record gets parental rights... If your partner gets sick, you can't carry them on your health insurance or visit them in the hospital...
Would anyone choose to have their life SUCK?
Actually, come to think of it, it IS a matter of choice...
You can either be who you are... or hide who you are and pretend to be who you are not FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE...
Easy choice, huh?
David,
look at how gays and lesbians are portrayed by the religious/extreme right. they say outLOUD that gays and lesbians do not deserve the same civil rights that the rest of us take for granted. they want gays and lesbians to go back in the closet.
where they can seek forgiveness for their sinful lives.
this is why gay and lesbian teenagers hang themselves or jump off bridges.
it is still a very difficult choice, one that we hope will get easier.
When people start treating people right. Gays are born they don't choose. this people say they are Religious they are not, the truth they are evil. God will punish these so call Religious people. God created all human everybody is born the why they are.
Our constitution grants equal protection to all persons regardless of sexual orientation and I support that 100%. However, marriage is the union of a man to a woman. Why is the use of the phrase "marriage" so important to same-sex couples? Why can't the term civil union be used to describe their relationship...assuming that laws are passed which protect the rights of same-sex couples similar to those of heterosexual couples?
Yeah youre right lets go ahead back in time when interracial marriage were illegal and have those marriages called "Colored Marriages". Equality for all means everyone is treated equal not debased or treated abnormally because some people believe in irrational ideas.
wow, what a surprise...a liberal immediately goes to playing some form of the race card. In my suggestion, everyone is being treated equally...what is wrong with that? If the rights are the same, why does the terminology make a difference to same-sex couples?
Interesting question, the answer is that when you create this "civil union" status even if you grant the same rights you've none the less created a separate status which then can be changed and altered in the future. This other class status will not remain the same.....if the rights are the same why not use the same name??
Better question why is it so important for neo-cons to declare a marriage as being between a man and a woman?
Separate is never equal.
I felt my analogy was perfectly clear as there are parallels between the 1970s interracial marriage fight and todays gay marriage fight. Liberty and equality mean full inclusion for everybody into marriage. You are not free to exclude a group and deny them equal rights even if its just a matter of calling it civil unions to appease the religious who for some reason feel they own the trademark to Marriage.
If the rights are the same why use the term civil union instead of marriage? If the rights are the same why use different terminology?
CA...so you are in favor of a pedophile being able to marry one of their victims? What about brother and sister marrying? Are there any situations that are off limits to you?
How about we change the term to civil union for everybody? Then everybody's equal.
TRC....yeah..that makes a lot of sense. Lets do away with centuries of tradition in order to accommodate a small group.. That sounds like a good liberal idea.
Storm you red herring pedophile instance is well....not likely but lets say that did happen which could happen as well....legally no nothing can be done even today under current law. So legalizing gay marriage would in no change that.
Who out there is going to marry one of their siblings? The government's job is not to be a bastion of moral clarity. Government can not and only wastes its time trying to protect people from themselves.
So now that we've debunked your attempt to change the subject why use different terminology if they will have the same rights. You still have yet to address this.
now on tradition remind how many years slavery was legal in the US...."centuries of tradition"=desperate baloney......did Mitt Romney send you some
The humorous thing is, all these horrible possibilities you envisage are going on any way. What you call it isn't going to change anything.
I am glad to hear that you liberal hacks are in favor of giving tax breaks to pedophiles and incestuous freaks. There is something that prevents my situations from happening in todays society...its against the law.
Really, government's job is not to be the bastion of moral clarity? Under whose definition? Is murder not a moral issue? Isn't rape a moral issue? It is governments job...under the direction of the people...to institute and enforce laws. It is the moral direction of the people that establish the laws.
CC...reverse the question...why not use different terminology?
Using different terminology leaves room for someone to come in later and redefine this status under the law and thus make marriage and civil unions unequal. When wiggle room in the law someone has the tendency to always come along and use it.
That is a lie. Remember the that female teacher from a decades back Maru Kay some or other..she is now legally married to the boy she was charged with molestion. So which statutes in reality make an alleged adult pedophile incapable of marrying an alleged victim if they are also now an adult? In reality there are none. Once again who out wants the right to marry their sister or brother? Anyone? I can factually with certainty that this is not a significant fraction of the population.
If heroin was made legal tommorrow how many people would go out and do heroin just because it was legal? Anybody...anybody with half a brain....if they do I hope we get to hear about all the terrible consequences so society can laugh at them. Neo cons seem fixated around this "license" that if the government does not make it illegal then people will be instantly to do it for no established reason....what's stopping from going and drinking a cup of bleach? Any law there? No...so clearly people do not NEED government to make life choices for them.
A true conservative would understand, but clearly you are not. If you need government to be your moral instructor that's your problem, the rest of us don't. Government is best when it governs least. If don't understand that find an American who does and ask them to explain it to you. Government need not pass or enforce any laws save for those that are fundemental to the existence of society. Clearly since we have seen societies that have not collapsed because of gay marriage this can not be one of those laws of which murder in fact is.
Im a firm believer in standing up for minority rights and not mandating government intervention in our personal lives. If there is consent between the couple and there is no harm being done why have this bigoted crusade to intervene in people's lives who you have never even met. What harm is being done?
Im not assuming you're Christian but if you are I will stand up for your rights when you are a minority as well. Its called being a good person and a citizen that understands the constitution. There have been too many attempts in this country for the majority to try and impose its will, but the great thing about our country is that we welcome everyone no matter what.
Ah come on guys you left him off the hook about marriage being a centuries old tradition. When in fact free will marriage only started after women got the right to vote. Most marriages before then were arranged by the fathers of the bride and groom usually done for land expansion of the families or some type of bride price where the groom bought the bride from her father. Then theres royal families who only allowed marriage between blood lines of other royal family members. So his lie about marriage being a centuries old tradition is actually less then a century old. But he is just repeating what his betters told him to repeat.
CA...can you please show me anyplace where I said anything about denying anyone their rights? You libs love to throw out wild accusations with no basis in fact. As I said from the beginning...I want all couple to have all rights. However, being "married" is not a right.
Whom...I see you are back to your old trick of personal attacks. Too bad.
Even if your statements were true...which they aren;t...the marriage was between a man and a woman.
the supreme court disagrees....lots.....the court has establisged that legally marriage is a fundemental right. They have actually said this many times....so there's that.....
I suspect what you mean to say is that using the word "marriage" is not a right
having said that, why so adamant about not calling it marriage? If the rights and privelages would be the same why use different terminology to begin with? I suppose this is a way of appeasing the far right fans however this is a foolish quest because the far right can't be persuaded no matter what, they will never be happy with gay marriage no matter what it's called
I don't care whether the far right is happy with it...I am not part of the far right.
But we're all Libs. Right?
Poor little guy has no clue about the history of marriage can't defend his centuries of marriage tradition when the marriage he supports is less then 100 years old so decides to call personal attack on someone who just stated a fact, he is just repeating what the party told him to repeat.
You still dont get that if they label it Civil unions it makes it that much easier for Right Wing Legislators to come in later and make a law stating Civil Unions cannot have the same rights. There is also btw several proposed laws in states in the south that deny non married couples to adopt. So there is a denial of rights right there as they wouldnt be considered married. There is no logical or rational reason to give them a different title. It would be the same as me marrying an atheist and the state labeling it a "godless union"
Whom: Read up on the history of marriage yourself. It goes back much further than you said and your "fact" that most marriages were pre-arranged is laughable...some yes...most, no way.
CA...What does godless union have to do with anything? I will be the first in line to protest any removal of rights from any person or couple...heterosexual or homosexual. If your fear is the dreaded "right wing legislators" are going to change the law, trust me, they can do that regardless of the classification. Just like the "left wing" legislators can come in and force the Catholic Church to offer coverage for birth control which goes against the foundations of the church. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state that the left is always so concerned about?
I am not aware of the adoption laws to which you refer, so I will reserve any comment on them.
Poor little guy grasping at straws hoping that he says something that doesn't sound like foolish nonsense and like the party he supports he FAILS.
Whom..you are so predictable ...when all else fails, try to demean the opposition. Too bad you can't win a discussion on the merits of your views. But thats okay...I am sure you are part of the 47% of the country which is not paying taxes anyway and you can continue to suck off the public teat for a while longer.
Wow...I dropped down to your level...I need to watch out. Being around you is detrimental to my well being.
So let me get straight you don't care whether they're happy or not yet you are still adamant about using the term "civil union".......why?
Yes but "civil union" makes it much easier, so benefits of the term....still none. Now on the godless union thing it's pretty clear what he's trying to say is that there is no need to label it as anything different, a marriage is a marriage, there is never separate but equal in reality.
Now on history you are incorrect women in previous ages did play the field...not all totally preordained but a women did have the right to say no if the head of household decided it was going to happen. Considering the fact that women in most societies gained the right to vote in the fifty years it's hardly a stretch......marriages in past most often were arranged and not about love
Im not sure if I should make anymore analogies for you as you seem to totally miss the point. If you are for 100% equal rights then you dont need to label them by anything else otherwise they are not equal! Inclusion for all or inclusion for none is the way of the constitution
CC...believe it or not, unlike the left, I can have my own opinion about something without having to receive directions from an outside agency. In your opinion a same sex relationship is the same thing as a heterosexual relationship, in mine it is not. Once again, I will reiterate...I think both relationships deserve full protection under the law, but I simply believe they should not be called the same thing. Believe it or not, people are allowed to have their own opinion about topics.
WRONG I said under the law they would be equal and thus in terms of law when give them two different names then no they not equal. Legally you can't call them tow different things, you can't give them two different legal distinctions and expect to be and to remain the same thing. Like I said earlier in the legal system when you allow wiggle someone will always come along and try to well wiggle.
So under law marriage is marriage and if same sex marriage is to be legally equal as you claim it should be then it must legally also be called marriage not civil union. I don't give a damn what you or anyone else wants to call this in not opinon this legal analysis.
you can call it whatever you like but in order for them to be equal the law must call them the same thing. But I suspect the difference is being lost on you.........
Oh...so I guess we can't call some people African-American and others Caucasian and expect them to have the same rights. I guess we can't call some people women and other people men and expect them to have the same rights.
I guess the difference is being lost on you....
Someone doesn't live in reality I see.
no because there are no african americans under the law there are just citizens
lets take that example we have residents, people here on visas and citizens are residents granted the same rights as citizens? No. If they did they would be citizens not just residents.
What you are failing to understand is the difference between colloquial speak and legal jargon. Colloquially it has no matter, no importance but the law and the way the legal system works is different under the law all citizens are just citizens there is black class status, nor is there any asia status citizens or any other not today. We had that at one point and guess what there was not equallity.
You seem stuck on this belief that we can legally have marriage status(not called, not named but a legal status) and civil union status and that we can have these two categories be separate and still equal. Well separate is never equal.
Again I don't give a damn what to refer to it as but the law of which you and I are not, our opinions don't factor in, can only refer to them with one name. Just like how the law does not have black citizens separate from white citizens or asian citizens.....the law regards them all as just citizens.
but clearly this is in fact lost on you because you don't realize the difference between how we can talk and refer to things and how the cut and dry business of the law refers to things
Don't be too hard on him WHOM...its not his fault that he had gotten swept up into your leftist mantra.
I was talking about your deranged posts. I never seen anyone who had his head so badly buried in the sand. Funny how you think you can pull the same stuff here that you pull over on Fox where no one questions your lack of reality.
Whomitmay don't mock Stormy because he can't realize that everyone here agrees with the position he claims to believe that gay marriage should legally be the same as straight marriage but that under law you can't have one status called two separate names. That you can't have a civil union and marriage category otherwise you two statuses...there is just a marriage category.......such a simple concept
stormguy,
your post #3.28-
do you REALLY believe that both relationships deserve full protection under the law?
i have read many times on this blog from repubs who say, "why did THEY have to take our 'word'? why did THEY have to use the word "marriage"?
do you get that if gays and lesbians used a different word for marraige, they would still be viewed (by many) as "other"? this would be hypocritical and it would say to the gay and lesbian community, "you are still not good enough, you do not deserve the same rights, you do not even deserve to call your union "marriage".
you do see that this would still keep them as "other" if they could not use the same word.
many people like you still see them as "other", and have gotten their direction from people who feel the same way.
the fact that you feel that gays and lesbians should use a word other than "marriage" tells me that you think "they" are not good enough.
tell me where i am wrong.
Suzette...IMHO, a marriage is a legal and/or religious relationship between a man and a woman. by my definition...and millions of other people as well...a same-sex couple does not meet the criteria for a marriage. Here is the definition from dictionary.com
the social institution under which a man and womanestablish their decision to live as husband and wife bylegal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
there is a secondary definition which does refer to "gay marriage" but that in itself differentiates one from the other.
It has nothing to do with whether they are "good enough", it has to do with whether they fit the definition.
I have said it from my first post...both relationships deserve full protection under the law and should receive every benefit available to them.
Why is it that the left refuses to give any person credit for being able to have their own opinion about a matter and that just because we disagree with your thought, that we had to get our opinion from some ultra right wing group?
As I've been trying to explain this entire time that if they are indeed equal then the law will regard them with one legal status or name. If they're equal then legally a civil union is a marriage under the law....why you seem to be continually trying to say that this would not be the case I have no idea
There are those of us who believe our government's purpose and its laws are to foster progress and protect the rights of all.
There are those of us who believe there is not much need for government and laws. . . except where it applies to forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else.
There are those of us who believe that our Declaration and Constitution are there to protect the life, liberty and happiness of all.
There are those of us who believe that our Declaration and Constitution are there to protect the life, liberty and happiness of those who look, believe and act like them and no one else.
Those in the right-wing of our society cannot have it both ways . . .
They cannot say they deserve Religious Freedom and then use the law to shove their religion down the throats of everyone else.
They cannot say they are for the Constitution of our country and then stand against the constitutional rights of people they do not agree with or approve of.
Hey MsT +== Perfect !!!!!
Hey MD/MI . . . yep . . . Right-wingers cannot have it both ways any more . . . what is good for the goose is good for the gander as our grandmas used to say !
Thats Rite - Butt According To THEM - Who Gooses A Gander - or Who Ganders A Goose - Is Entirely Up The 4th Reich - And NO-ONE ELSE !!!!! Ha Haaaaa !!! GOMERS !!! DI(KTATORS !!
The constitution has been amended to adapted to be current with the changing times I think if they could would change it to fit their agenda.
Depends on which religions you are talking about. I'm not an evangelical, or one of these Christians who thinks we are not all sinners. I don't mix my politics and my religion. So far, they both agree with each other. We don't teach government from the pulpit. We live with charity in our hearts toward others and we assume you make your own decisions. You can't make people religious, they must be called to it. All things in moderation. Sins that from human nature. Not stealing, lies and killing. You don't do harm to other people.
I can't wait for the supreme court to say the circus court 9th was right because then i can marry my dog, screw him in the ass,just because it's ok to say Ilove him.
RD = YOU -R- A Sick Puppy !!!!!! Unless Of Coarse; This Is What You Admit To Doing ???????? Well Then; We Have An Entirely Different Story Here - By YOUR OWN WORDS !!!!!!
you are a I dot it
plane and simple heck you couldn't even make it to a troll.
Thanks for sharing.
Can we all come to the wedding? Or are you just going to live in sin, like you do now?
All users who care about civil discussion should click the small exclamation mark in the corner near the reply button and report Russell's comments to the moderators as I just did.
But to answer the disgusting, juvenille and pathetic Santorum arguement no you would not have to legalize beastiality, polygamy or pedophilia or any of the other sick bile in your head.
What you do is you make a marriage between two consenting adults. And that blows all those arguement straight out the water.
Fear, the Hookerstra ad about the evil Chinese thanking Debbie helping them buy the US, smear, make up stuff that is either a straight up lie or half truth such as Obama's bailouts had nothing to do with the big 3 come back, queer, more right wing false concern about marriage being attacked by guys marrying guys while ignoring the fact one of the candidates in the GOP hasn't married a mistress after throwing a sick spouse out of bed, remember threw sickness and health? The GOP bigotry on parade, never fails.
I think the young lady just ended her acting career. What a portfolio......I hope she doesn't need work. Tokyo Rose doesn't work here anymore.
"another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy." says Newt Gingrich(may he be exiled to space)
Translation:lets rip up the constitution
The GOP hates the constitution as you just heard they want to go around it just as much as the democrats if not more.
The GOP hate religion unless it is their own. All others they believe must be wiped out it's pervasive in their words and actions. This is about inspiring Americans to attack other Americans and say that our countrymen are out enemies. It's about dividing the country.
The brave men who came together to write the greatest document we have did not pick and choose who it would serve. The words equality and justice for all are simple words . If we lived by them hate would be a word in the dictionary. The over turn of prop 8 has been along time coming. The Constitution represents everyone !!
The Far Left tries to use issues like this to portray conservatives as intolerant, when in fact many "Gay" people DO NOT support changeing the definition of marriage !
This and the RACE CARD are their favorites....I just read an interesting article from a Duke Univ professor which said that in S. Carolina there were actually MORE blacks who owned slaves then whites.....why is it we never learn about that in out History books ???
This proves what exactly? Blacks owned slaves so whites weren't racist? Only in the mind of a tea bagging republican does that make sense. Here is what you left out, it wasn't those blacks that created a slave economy nor did the free blacks who owned slaves have equal rights as whites. In fact free blacks were paid less then whites for the products they sold so to counter balance their wealth they invested in slaves. In fact it was so hard for blacks to make a living as free men they often found themselves selling themselves back into slavery because it was either slavery or starvation. So all your doing is grasping at straws to try to pretend you are not a racist when in fact you are a racist when you try to deceive others into believing slavery was just fine and dandy because blacks owned slaves. Why isn't it in the history books? Ask the people in Texas why as it is those people who decide what gets in books and what gets left out of books, oh and btw they are republican supporters who are on that committee.
Ed, could you please remind the American people the involvement of the Mormon Church on Prop 8. Perhaps Mitt Romney's donations to his church have gone to take away the rights of our gay brothers and sisters. Also how the Mormons are baptizing non-christians ex: jewish holocost victims and disrespecting their memory by making them Christians in the eyes of the Morman church, a total disrespect and shameful practice for any faith.