View Full Version : The Conservative Case FOR Gar Marriage
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 9, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws."
Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.
Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.
No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.
Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.
Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are "ready" to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients—two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is "right" and the populace is "ready" to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.
Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to "wait their turn" and to "be patient." Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are "ready" for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.
These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, "[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.
California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.
So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.
Find this article at The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage - Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957)
© 2010
Admittedly, when I first heard Ted Olson was taking on the Prop H8 case, I was very suspicious of his motives, due to his past history with the BCE. But the above article makes it very clear that he's in this for real.
So is it the old "even a broken clock is right twice a day" rule, or did the guy get saved or something? Who knows??
Blackflag
01-14-2010, 04:36 AM
Admittedly, when I first heard Ted Olson was taking on the Prop H8 case, I was very suspicious of his motives, due to his past history with the BCE. But the above article makes it very clear that he's in this for real.
So is it the old "even a broken clock is right twice a day" rule, or did the guy get saved or something? Who knows??
Your problem (or one of) is that you believe what people tell you. Or maybe you believe what you want to hear. He's a lawyer, and a good one. He could argue for the death penalty one day, then tell you why the death penalty is amoral the next. That's what a good lawyer does, it's not personal.
But at least you know where a lawyer stands - they represent the person paying them. Unlike a lying politician.
ZahZoo
01-14-2010, 09:37 AM
He presents a compelling arguement... I'd have to agree with him fully.
If we're going stand by the basis of equality as a foundation of this country... it should be applied across the board.
It's important to be reminded of the principals this country was founded on periodically and to uphold them as well.
Seshmeister
01-14-2010, 10:47 AM
He has no chance until the churches catch up morally.
He presents a compelling arguement... I'd have to agree with him fully.
Where? He says homo marriage upholds principals of the Constitution but doesn't answer the question "why" - only because he's a liar which leads one to discard anything else he says. Like the way we treat you here, on this board. Stupid BEIOUYATCH.
If we're going stand by the basis of equality as a foundation of this country... it should be applied across the board.
It's important to be reminded of the principals this country was founded on periodically and to uphold them as well.
Great, so you're opposed to the Ass Bandit Brigade getting all the protections normal, healthy families get.. that's what you're saying - because that's why families get breaks and incentives: so that they support the younger generation of families and so they stick together rather than fall apart, forcing the Government to be the Daddy and picking up the support bill..
We should have special Disincentives for homosexuals on taxes and in the law, so they stop fucking each other in the ass, spreading AIDS and molesting little boys.
So is it the old "even a broken clock is right twice a day" rule
blah
bluh-blah, blah fucking blah
STFU you're falling back into that circular "FORD is replying to himself making no sense" rut again.
Please cut it. Gets old after wha, dozen years now?
Oh poor GAyR is still so heartbroken over Jizzy dumping him for a "fish", that he wants all gay couples to be as miserable as he is. :(
Aw, afraid to call evil "evil"? What the fuck!
Aw, afraid to call evil "evil"? What the fuck!
Obviously you haven't read any of my threads about the BCE.
Homosexuality is evil: yes or no?
I don't have any idea what the BCE have to do with morals, principles and the discernment between good and evil.
No it's not. Nor is heterosexuality.
I don't have any idea what the BCE have to do with morals, principles and the discernment between good and evil.
Exactly. They have NOTHING to do with morals or principles. Which is why they're evil. But let's not get off the subject.
Blackflag
01-15-2010, 02:26 AM
Does anybody even know what BCE stands for?
No it's not. Nor is heterosexuality.
Either you're flawed, lost, or both according to the Scriptures your faith claims adherence to.
Blackflag
01-15-2010, 02:35 AM
I think the "B" stands for "Barack"....
Does anybody even know what BCE stands for?
"Blimpy Chimp Excelsious"
"Bad Company Enterprises"
"Bilged Coldvalve Excrementor"
"Budget Crisis Enumerator"
"Barf Cack Extruder"
"Big Cock Esophagageur"
"Bald Cunt Encroacher"
"Boy Chasing Ejaculator"
Does anybody even know what BCE stands for?
http://blatanttruth.org/BushGang.jpg
Bush Criminal Empire
Blackflag
01-15-2010, 02:49 AM
Is that Bruce Campbell on the left? Are you sure it's not "Bruce Campbell Empire?"
http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/f8179d40f5c20480
He does kinda look a little like Jeb. Especially on "Burn Notice". But that show's about ex-CIA agents, so that figures.
ZahZoo
01-15-2010, 08:31 AM
Where? He says homo marriage upholds principals of the Constitution but doesn't answer the question "why" - only because he's a liar which leads one to discard anything else he says. Like the way we treat you here, on this board. Stupid BEIOUYATCH.
Fuckin dumbass... try to pay attention!!
The "why" is if our laws are applied with the context that all men (read people) are created equal then we should uphold the principals of the constitution and apply the same laws of marriage to gays & lesbians.
In other words denying the laws of marriage to this group is unconstitutional because it goes against the equality foundation of the constitution.
Great, so you're opposed to the Ass Bandit Brigade getting all the protections normal, healthy families get.. that's what you're saying - because that's why families get breaks and incentives: so that they support the younger generation of families and so they stick together rather than fall apart, forcing the Government to be the Daddy and picking up the support bill..
No, quite the opposite... I support the brigade getting the same application of law.
Even if gays and lesbians were granted the same marital rights as hetros it would have no effect what so ever on procreation nor families staying together. The laws aren't keeping any families together today with gays/lesbians not allowed to marry... why would allowing it change divorce or un-wed pregnancy in any way?
We should have special Disincentives for homosexuals on taxes and in the law, so they stop fucking each other in the ass, spreading AIDS and molesting little boys.
I see... extending your racist idiocy to more complex levels. Funny thing how fears and self-truths intermix in the minds of psychopaths. Nice inner-mirror statement Gar...
Seshmeister
01-15-2010, 08:34 AM
GAR's post is up there with the guy I saw interviewed on TV the other day who was against gay marriage because 'it would increase abortions'. :)
Sgt Schultz
01-15-2010, 11:23 AM
Ted Olson is a smart man.
thome
01-15-2010, 11:42 AM
I just don't think legislation should be drafted for anyone anywhere on the premis of the need for, seperated rights recognition equality, based on who crams what up what cram hole.
JJ Hobson
01-15-2010, 12:54 PM
First of all, don't gays already have the right to marry? ... If you don't believe me, I present the following as Exhibit "A" (LOL! :biggrin: ) ...
Metal Sludge: "20 Questions With Zakk Wylde"
...
10. Finish this sentence, "The biggest misconception about ___________ is?" For example, "The biggest misconception about MTV is that they play videos." You get the idea.
Ozzy is the GodFather of my son
Pro wrestling is kick ass
Pearl Jam is a bunch of candy ass motherfuckers
Anal Sex is awesome when I get the wife drunk
Axl Rose is my friend and the Real Deal!
Kiss is nothing without Ace!
Pantera is beyond fucking Heavy!
Cocaine is for Candy Ass Motherfuckers!
Paul Gargano is an awesome alcoholic!
Touring is beer, beer beer.
Furthermore, I'm thinking of giving up Tae-Kwan-Do as my preferred method of self-defense, and adopting a coming-out-of-the-closet master-of-self-defense strategy instead! I present the following as Exhibit "B" ...
Hypothetical Conversation ...
250-pound "mo-fo": Hey dude, you suck!
Me: Buzz off, d----head!!!
250-pound "mo-fo": I'm gon'na kick your a--!!!!!
Me: Just a second there, tough guy! ... You can't kick my a--, I'm gay--and PROUD of it!!!!! ... Unless, of course, you want to spend the next 25-years in a maximum-security Federal prison getting your sorry a-- raped after getting prosecuted and convicted under Federal Hate Crime Statutes!!!
Talk about "equal protection under the law", LOL!!! :biggrin: ... Gays ALREADY HAVE more protection under the law than do heterosexuals ... I present the following as Exhibit "C" ...
Hypothetical Conversation ...
250-pound "mo-fo": Nice a--, man!
Me: F--- off, you stupid g-- p----!!!
250-pound "mo-fo": I'm gon'na kick your a--!!!!
Me: Yeeeeoooowwww!!! ... What can I do?--If I kick YOUR stupid, g-- a--, I'll spend the next 25-years in a maximum-security Federal prison getting my sorry a-- raped after getting prosecuted and convicted under Federal Hate Crime Statutes!!!
And finally, shoouldn't this thread be labeled, "The GAY Conservative Case FOR Gay Marriage"? ... LOL!!! :biggrin:
Guitar Shark
01-15-2010, 01:05 PM
Where? He says homo marriage upholds principals of the Constitution but doesn't answer the question "why" - only because he's a liar which leads one to discard anything else he says. Like the way we treat you here, on this board. Stupid BEIOUYATCH.
Great, so you're opposed to the Ass Bandit Brigade getting all the protections normal, healthy families get.. that's what you're saying - because that's why families get breaks and incentives: so that they support the younger generation of families and so they stick together rather than fall apart, forcing the Government to be the Daddy and picking up the support bill..
We should have special Disincentives for homosexuals on taxes and in the law, so they stop fucking each other in the ass, spreading AIDS and molesting little boys.
Thou doth protest too much, methinks...
PETE'S BROTHER
01-15-2010, 01:11 PM
"Blimpy Chimp Excelsious"
"Bad Company Enterprises"
"Bilged Coldvalve Excrementor"
"Budget Crisis Enumerator"
"Barf Cack Extruder"
"Big Cock Esophagageur"
"Bald Cunt Encroacher"
"Boy Chasing Ejaculator"
are those all your aliases?
And finally, shoouldn't this thread be labeled, "The GAY Conservative Case FOR Gay Marriage"? ... LOL!!! :biggrin:
xlnt
hello zahzoo! read please so sumple even me see point here
Thou doth protest too much, methinks...
u take that back
or ur buyin the drinks
bueno bob
01-16-2010, 02:25 AM
Ted Olson is a smart man.
Sgt Schultz is in the closet.
.. so is he who started this thread.
Only in your most depraved fantasies, GAyR.... and seriously, the shit creeps me out. :barf:
bueno bob
01-16-2010, 02:40 PM
.. so is he who started this thread.
Witmaster General strikes again, hunh?
Where's your YouTube that nobody's going to watch?
.... and seriously, the shit creeps me out. :barf:
Do you mean "man-mud" on you, creeps you out?
Rule out Homosexual on FORD, then.
Still open options:
[ ] Spiritually Lost [ ] Intellectually Clueless [ ] Gay-Curious
kwame k
01-19-2010, 11:50 PM
Do you mean "man-mud" on you, creeps you out?
Rule out Homosexual on FORD, then.
Still open options:
[ ] Spiritually Lost [ ] Intellectually Clueless [ ] Gay-Curious
Rule in for you, Clay.....pisses on children.....shoves toy cars up his ass.....racist homophobic who's in denial about being gay.
Do you mean "man-mud" on you, creeps you out?
No, I mean YOUR obsessive gay crush on me creeps me out. :barf:
I have no problem with gay guys, and I'm not offended when they hit on me. Though I politely turn them down. No different than ugly women in that respect.
Looks like Ted Olson pulled it off. Guess this is the first time in history that a card carrying member of the BCE actually did something good.
Statement from Governor Gropenator......
08/04/2010 GAAS:493:10 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:
“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.
“For the hundreds of thousands of Collieforneeans in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Collieforneeans to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.
“Today's decision is by no means Collieforneea's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”
Guitar Shark
08-04-2010, 07:34 PM
This will be appealed.
ELVIS
08-04-2010, 07:35 PM
So, when are you and your new man tying the knot, FORD ??
So, when are you and your new man tying the knot, FORD ??
I don't live in Collieforneea. And I doubt I'll ever get married. To anyone.
Unchainme
08-04-2010, 11:08 PM
Can I say something..
While I support Gay rights and am rather liberal on the issue, I felt that the judge ruling on the issue had some bias, as he himself is gay. I would say the same thing of say, someone having stock with a bank or something of that nature.
I just feel it's sort of a dirty way of doing thing.
Mind you, I'm not against the Prop (No homo), just the way it was handled seems a bit...scummy.
ZahZoo
08-07-2010, 09:39 AM
This will be appealed.
All ready in the works... you could see that comin like sun rising in the east every day.
Once it works it's way thru the appeal process I'm sure it's heading for the Supreme Court. Makes me wonder if Olsen's piece was a premptive strike knowing this issue would perculate it's way to the highest court in the near term..?
Seshmeister
08-07-2010, 11:27 AM
http://pleatedjeans.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/why-do-you-love-the-devil.png?w=451&h=602
Whoever made that poster is going to burn in Hell for their criminal misuse of apostrophes.
jhale667
08-07-2010, 11:43 AM
Whoever made that poster is going to burn in Hell for their criminal misuse of apostrophes.
They're only allowed to read the bible...which kinda makes contemporary English difficult... :umm:
knuckleboner
08-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Can I say something..
While I support Gay rights and am rather liberal on the issue, I felt that the judge ruling on the issue had some bias, as he himself is gay. I would say the same thing of say, someone having stock with a bank or something of that nature.
I just feel it's sort of a dirty way of doing thing.
Mind you, I'm not against the Prop (No homo), just the way it was handled seems a bit...scummy.
that's like saying that a white judge couldn't hear a reverse racism workplace discrimination suit. either the judge has valid reasoning and the ruling stands, or the judge has poor reason and it's overturned.
in this case, the reasoning is fairly solid.
there shouldn't be much argument that a secular right created by a secular government for 2 consenting single adults shouldn't apply to any 2 consenting single adults. in the knuckleboner's opinion, it's a pretty straightforward reading of the 14th amendment.
unless, of course, one believes that religous concerns should be enshrined in law. in which case, i'm awaiting the anti-divorce amendment...
You know, the judge who ruled on this case was named Walker, and he was a Poppy Bush appointee. Furthermore, he might be more than just a BCE appointee.
Prescott Bush Sr. was married to Dorothy Walker. Her father, George Herbert Walker is the guy that Poppy and Chimpy were both named after. Judge Walker might literally be a member of the Bush Crime Family.
Which would mean I would have to amend my previous statement regarding Ted Olson to say this was the first time in history that TWO members of the BCE did something right.
Unchainme
08-07-2010, 02:55 PM
You know, the judge who ruled on this case was named Walker, and he was a Poppy Bush appointee. Furthermore, he might be more than just a BCE appointee.
Prescott Bush Sr. was married to Dorothy Walker. Her father, George Herbert Walker is the guy that Poppy and Chimpy were both named after. Judge Walker might literally be a member of the Bush Crime Family.
Which would mean I would have to amend my previous statement regarding Ted Olson to say this was the first time in history that TWO members of the BCE did something right.
Well and I read it over, and really my argument against the judge looking over the case was rather weak.
Again, glad to see the Gays get rights like us straights.
Perhaps now GAR can get married now?
Seshmeister
08-07-2010, 03:00 PM
Whoever made that poster is going to burn in Hell for their criminal misuse of apostrophes.
What's a Bahi and why is it so high up in his list?
Google tells me it's a Syrian importer of BMW cars???
hambon4lif
08-07-2010, 04:29 PM
http://pleatedjeans.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/why-do-you-love-the-devil.png?w=451&h=602"Loud-Mouthed Women"???:lmao:
That's quite a list!
Druggie's
Drunkard's
Adulterer's
Fornicator's
Gambler's
Pervert's
.......well, it looks like these people have decided my fate for me...I'm going to Hell's
Seshmeister
08-07-2010, 04:46 PM
You probably also count as a 'high fullutent sophisticated swine'.
I think most people are compared to this guy. :)
Unchainme
08-07-2010, 04:48 PM
http://pleatedjeans.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/why-do-you-love-the-devil.png?w=451&h=602
damn..had no idea I was worshipping satan when I watched football on the weekend.
Nitro Express
08-07-2010, 05:03 PM
Your religion is always the true religion, the other guy's religion is a cult. Welcome to human reasoning 101.
Nitro Express
08-07-2010, 05:10 PM
This whole Prop 8 thing just shows the courts have become more powerful than the ballot. The state voted on the issue, the majority didn't want it. The state's constitution defines marriage as between and man and a woman which means you have to amend the California state constitution to change anything. It's a big deal and the voters don't want to change the amendment. Historically marriage has been between two opposite sexes and that is the historical reality of it. I think it's just too much change, too quick for the majority of the population even in California. Of course the lawyers are going to love debating it so they can make money off of it.
Seshmeister
08-07-2010, 05:12 PM
It's all a bit silly. The sensible answer is to come up with another word and let gay people do that. Over here it's called a civil partnership with the same legal consequences as marriage but because it has a different name the superstition people found it much more difficult to complain.
What's a Bahi and why is it so high up in his list?
Google tells me it's a Syrian importer of BMW cars???
I'm assuming it was a misspelling of "Baha'i".
http://www.bahai.org/faq/facts/bahai_faith
Basically it's a Persian based group who don't think Mohammed had the Last Word from God. It started up in the 19th century, so I guess you might say they are to the East what the Mormon church is to Christianity.
bueno bob
08-07-2010, 07:41 PM
Your religion is always the true religion, the other guy's religion is a cult. Welcome to human reasoning 101.
ALL religions are cults.
That's enlightened thinking.
bueno bob
08-07-2010, 07:44 PM
Realistically, if somebody can make me an argument against gay marriage that is NOT based on religion, I'd be happy to listen to it.
I haven't met one person against gay marriage that has ever been able to do that.
knuckleboner
08-07-2010, 07:47 PM
This whole Prop 8 thing just shows the courts have become more powerful than the ballot.
not it doesn't. it shows that, as was supposed to be the case in the constitution, the courts decide if laws are constitutional.
california is a majority-minority state. in other words, there are more minorities than there are white people. if they passed a referrendum stating that white people could no longer own property in california, do you think the courts should simply let this stand because it was on the ballot? or should they say, "uh...that's not constitutional. you can't do that."
which is exactly what happened here. the court ruled on the law's constitutionality. you don't like the system, blame the framers.
knuckleboner
08-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Realistically, if somebody can make me an argument against gay marriage that is NOT based on religion, I'd be happy to listen to it.
I haven't met one person against gay marriage that has ever been able to do that.
i think it goes like this: "i think gay people are icky. (unless i'm a male, in which case i just think that gay men and those dyke-y looking women are icky.)"
Nickdfresh
08-07-2010, 07:57 PM
The concept of the "tyranny of the majority" was something acknowledged by the framers of the Constitution...
bueno bob
08-07-2010, 09:08 PM
i think it goes like this: "i think gay people are icky. (unless i'm a male, in which case i just think that gay men and those dyke-y looking women are icky.)"
Sounds about right...of course, it's neither a rational nor legitimate argument, so...
jhale667
08-07-2010, 09:22 PM
Realistically, if somebody can make me an argument against gay marriage that is NOT based on religion, I'd be happy to listen to it.
I haven't met one person against gay marriage that has ever been able to do that.
Exactly. That's what I want someone to tell me without the religious diatribe, or "the children" or whatever, and tell me why I'm supposed to be against it.
bueno bob
08-07-2010, 09:59 PM
Exactly. That's what I want someone to tell me without the religious diatribe, or "the children" or whatever, and tell me why I'm supposed to be against it.
Well, the whole notion of marriage has it's origin in religion, anyway, and it was adapted over the years to fit in with those who didn't subscribe to a particular religion, which is where non-denominational marriages by a county clerk came on the scene. Those are called "MARRIAGES" and they're just as legally binding (pro and con) as a religious marriage, so taking religion out of the mix, by default there's no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
None.
I mean, unless you're going to subscribe to that "It'll lead to incestual marriage and people marrying furniture and animals!!!" hysteria, than nobody has a rational argument against 'what it'll lead to' either. It's not exactly a gateway drug or some shit...
ZahZoo
08-08-2010, 08:46 AM
Well, the whole notion of marriage has it's origin in religion, anyway, and it was adapted over the years to fit in with those who didn't subscribe to a particular religion, which is where non-denominational marriages by a county clerk came on the scene. Those are called "MARRIAGES" and they're just as legally binding (pro and con) as a religious marriage, so taking religion out of the mix, by default there's no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
None
You're on the right track but marriage stems from something that even predates western religion... it's roots have little to do with love between two people, making babies and setting up camp together. It stems from the rules which evolved into laws concerning property rights with this union of people. Remember it wasn't too long ago that a wife was considered "the property" of the husband, plus the wife would assume inheritance from her new family and give up rights to her birth family. Along with this came dawries and even for certain periods marriage was treated more like corporate mergers among wealthy or powerful entities.
The thing was a lot of all this evolved from cultures that also made up religion to suit their needs and it got mixed up in all that crap. From a western perspective... the various churches in play the last couple thousands of years also acted as the primary legal systems ruling the masses.
While everyone focuses on the ceremonies, rituals and human elements... most people don't even realize that 15 minutes trip to the county clerk to fill out some forms... they are entering into one of the most complex legal contracts they'll ever imagine. Plus whoever presides over the ceremony... priest, rabi, minister, etc... they have to have a license too... they are acting as an agent of the state to finalize the Contract.
The argument here isn't about homo's it's about the equal application of law under the US constitution. In that context... I haven't heard a viable argument against it...
Seshmeister
08-08-2010, 10:04 AM
It's not just money though. If say you have a homo couple and one gets sick and is in hospital his partner even if they have lived together for 30 years has no rights to visit them or give consent to procedures and so on. Now there are more of these couples getting old they want the security of knowing that someone has their back... so to speak. :)
knuckleboner
08-08-2010, 12:26 PM
Sounds about right...of course, it's neither a rational nor legitimate argument, so...
hey now, you never asked for a logical reason.
but i believe i can supply that one, too: some people are prejudiced...
jhale667
08-09-2010, 03:12 PM
Interesting article on the judge's so-called "bias"
Would a Black Judge Have Been Biased in Brown v. Board of Education?
by Cenk Uygur
US District Judge Vaughn Walker is the judge who issued the ruling that Prop 8, which bans same sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional. Conservatives are now claiming that he is gay (which is unconfirmed at this point) and that his gayness presents an obvious bias. Furthermore, he should have recused himself from the case because as a gay man he would have a conflict of interest in deciding a case on gay rights.
The obvious question is - would a straight man not have a bias? Prop 8 would maintain straight people's monopoly on marriage. Wouldn't a straight person have a conflict of interest in deciding a case about whether they get to have more rights than other people in society? Presumably a lot of straight people voted in California to take away the right of gay people to get married - wouldn't they be biased in favor of protecting their own rights and taking away the rights of gays in California?
How about a devoutly religious judge? If that person believes it is an abomination against God to have gay people get married, wouldn't that create an obvious bias? Should we look into how religious each judge is before we let them decide cases like this? How about Antonin Scalia, who has on many occasions talked about how deeply religious he is? Should he be recused if this case reaches the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito? How many justices will be left to decide this case?
Now, let's think about it a different way. What if there was a black justice on the Supreme Court when they were deciding Brown v. Board of Education? Would he be biased in favor of having the same rights as white Americans? Should he have stepped down from the case because he would obviously want the same constitutional rights as any other American? Bias!!
Of course, there was a black man in the courtroom at the time. The man who was the winning attorney on Brown v. Board of Education and would later become the first ever African-American justice on the Supreme Court - Thurgood Marshall. Should the court have told him that he couldn't litigate the case because it would be biased of him to want the same rights as white people?
Should Marshall have also recused himself from every case that involved race when he was on the Supreme Court? If so, why did the white justices get to rule on those cases?
As you can see, although the bias argument might seem appealing at first blush to some, it is quite absurd when you break it down. If you're not already convinced, let me give you one last example. What if California decided to take away women's right to vote - could a female justice not rule on that case because they would be biased in favor of keeping their own constitutional rights?
But you don't have to worry about these absurd right-wing arguments for much longer because conservatives will lose this battle, as they have lost every right civil rights battle they have ever fought in this country. As I explain here:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQBrAtwVq0w&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x006699&color2=0 x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQBrAtwVq0w&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x006699&color2=0 x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
And as far as whether being gay is an abomination and ruins the institution of marriage, I want you to think about this:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6yCWVnQ_u84&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x006699&color2=0 x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6yCWVnQ_u84&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x006699&color2=0 x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
As Judge Walker meticulously explained, there are no rational arguments in favor of denying gay Americans the same rights that straight Americans enjoy. Only irrational ones, like the one that says that it is biased for a gay man in this country to ask for equal protection under the law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/would-a-black-judge-have_b_675152.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=080910&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry
BigBadBrian
08-12-2010, 09:56 AM
Exactly. That's what I want someone to tell me without the religious diatribe, or "the children" or whatever, and tell me why I'm supposed to be against it.
Just look at how you and your butt-buddy DumbAsARock69 turned out, that's why.
Also NicktheDick always following DoucheMmachine around and giving him a reacharound.
Those are two prime examples right there!
Judge Walker may or may not be gay. He also might be a literal member of the BCE. Prescott Bush was married to Dorothy Walker, and her father, George Herbert Walker, is whom Poppy and Chimpy were both named after. So this judge, appointed by Poppy himself, was most probably one of his cousins.
And Ted Olson's resume with the BCE is well known.
Face it right wingers, even your own kind are waking up to the reality that civil rights should apply to all people. (though some other right wingers are still trying to exclude Muslims and Mexicans, but that's another discussion entirely.)
Dr. Love
08-12-2010, 01:01 PM
"Loud-Mouthed Women"???:lmao:
That's quite a list!
Druggie's
Drunkard's
Adulterer's
Fornicator's
Gambler's
Pervert's
.......well, it looks like these people have decided my fate for me...I'm going to Hell's
They left "retard's" off the list, so you should be safe.
Face it right wingers, even your own kind are waking up to the reality that civil rights should apply to all people.
Why give extra-civil rights to some, but not to all>? Don't the pedophiles have a claim of damage here, by not recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to happiness by stalking playgrounds? Don't the serial killers have a right to the happiness they obtain from a good night bathing themselves in blood?
Don't the animal friendly have a right to marry say, a horse, a goat, a SheepPen Person or any other living creature?
Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.
jhale667
08-12-2010, 02:21 PM
Just look at how you and your butt-buddy DumbAsARock69 turned out, that's why.
Also NicktheDick always following DoucheMmachine around and giving him a reacharound.
Those are two prime examples right there!
Oh, looked the closeted hater shows up to put in his .02 for (self) hate....dude, quit projecting and COME OUT OF THE CLOSET ALREADY...
Filed under the "wishing it won't make it so" department...FOR THE LAST TIME, we don't play that way...your advances were flattering at first but now you're just being a queen-bitch... you probably DO have a shot with GAyR though, FYI.
No, keep telling yourself you're straight (you may even convince yourself with that lie someday, but no one here's buying it...LOL) , and that you don't post like a maladjusted, self-hate-filled peabrain... :biggrin:
Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.
It still REALLY gets to you that the love of your life (Jizzy) dumped you and had a child with a woman, doesn't it? :(
**Breaking News** - Judge Walker has denied the homophobes request for a "stay" on the Prop H8 decision, which means marriage equality once again officially exists in Collieforneea.
So go find a new man, GAyR, and get over that broken heart you got from Jizzy.
How can a faggot marriage be equal to a real one?
Going back 5000 years such a statement has no precedent.
The only reason a homo wants to be recognized as such in public is for public benefits of any kind they can get. And until they brought the AIDS epidemic into the world, all they could go on about was being their own society = not a part of normal society.
FORD runs the typical Hillaryspeak game of tearing down the opposite viewpoint when backed into a corner.
I expect no less from him.
jhale667
08-12-2010, 04:40 PM
FORD runs the typical Hillaryspeak game of tearing down the opposite viewpoint when backed into a corner.
I expect no less from him.
Just like we expect no less than hate-filled, pea-brained DOUCHEBAGGERY from you. You should be happy about this...oh, wait - that's right, Jizzystool won't take you back... :lmao: Hence the bitterness.
So your point is what Jay, that society should not call the mental illness known as homosexuality a neurosis, but reward them with public assistence and benefits once their knobpartner croaks from AIDS?
Hmm.. Jay, male: single, unmarried
FORD, also male, unmarried..
HEY I got an idea! Jay - meet FORD!
Ford, I'd like to introduce my very great pal Jay.. I'll just run along here now, you girls talk amongst yourselves...
jhale667
08-12-2010, 04:45 PM
The only one with a mental illness is YOU, scumbag. Eat a gun. By that, I do not mean perform oral on some Jizzy substitute, either.
You share similar views, why are you upset?
You'll get used to him. And he'll get used to you too.
jhale667
08-12-2010, 04:49 PM
Hmm.. Jay, male: single, unmarried
FORD, also male, unmarried..
Betting in both our cases it's by design...not because, like you, NO ONE will have us... :lmao:
Your sorry ass can't get any action at a MORGUE. Or a women's prison.
However, you WERE somebody's bitch when you were in JAIL though, weren't you, CONVICT? :hee:
I did vomit and piss all over the MCJ bus going to court once.. fortunately, it wasn't a four-man chain because that one doesn't give you one hand free to do so!
Nickdfresh
08-12-2010, 10:35 PM
Just look at how you and your butt-buddy DumbAsARock69 turned out, that's why.
Also NicktheDick always following DoucheMmachine around and giving him a reacharound.
Those are two prime examples right there!
I'm amazed you can post this well with one hand while jerking-off to your creepy fantasies...
But if gays can get married (and I think they should be able too), heterosexual men can be single. So don't fret too much Brianne if your son doesn't have a girlfriend...
Nickdfresh
08-12-2010, 10:43 PM
How can a faggot marriage be equal to a real one?
Going back 5000 years such a statement has no precedent.
I think a better question is: why am I bothering with these trolling fuckbag posts of GAyR's repressed-faggotry?
Most things in modern society "have no precedent" to what happened in the Iron Age, Google-fuckwit! Marriage had never been about love nor was monogamy expected (of males at least) and bisexuality was almost a universal norm depending on the society...
The only reason a homo wants to be recognized as such in public is for public benefits of any kind they can get.
Like what "benefits?" The rights to set up their estate as they wish? To have their long term companions recognized officially with a status that affords them social, economic, and legal protections? Why would those benefits be "special" when compared to heterosexual relationships? I think you're actually making the case FOR gay marriage...
And until they brought the AIDS epidemic into the world, all they could go on about was being their own society = not a part of normal society.
"They" brought the AIDS epidemic into the world? What world? It was their own community? And actually the biggest spreader of AIDS in the world are heterosexual Africans that may have other STDs (like your mother)...
bueno bob
08-12-2010, 10:50 PM
Why give extra-civil rights to some, but not to all>? Don't the pedophiles have a claim of damage here, by not recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to happiness by stalking playgrounds? Don't the serial killers have a right to the happiness they obtain from a good night bathing themselves in blood?
Don't the animal friendly have a right to marry say, a horse, a goat, a SheepPen Person or any other living creature?
Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.
You're a dumbshit. You might as well argue that masturbation is a gateway to homosexuality too because you touch your own genetalia and that's gay.
If you have a sensible argument to make, present it. Don't be an idiot.
knuckleboner
08-12-2010, 10:53 PM
Why give extra-civil rights to some, but not to all>?
it’s not. it’s equalizing the rights.
Don't the pedophiles have a claim of damage here, by not recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to happiness by stalking playgrounds?
no. because their attacks harm the rights of the child. allowing 2 gay adult to marry is simply saying that, currently, in the eyes of the government, a marriage is simply a set of legal agreements committed to by 2 consenting adults. religions might treat it differently, but as far as governments are concerned, the right isn’t changed at all if the 2 consenting adults are same sex or not.
Don't the serial killers have a right to the happiness they obtain from a good night bathing themselves in blood?
nope. once again, you’re confusing things. just because YOU think one action (homosexuality) is immoral, doesn’t mean that it’s the same as every other officially illegal act. again, to spell this out for you: serial killer: clearly the victim’s rights are attacked. consenting gays: nobody’s rights are harmed.
Don't the animal friendly have a right to marry say, a horse, a goat, a SheepPen Person or any other living creature?
man, you really don’t get these things. ok. once again: legally, marriage is between 2 consenting adults. a horse, goat, or hagar fan are not consenting adults. get it? completely different.
Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.
dude, quick tip: never close with your weakest argument.
bueno bob
08-12-2010, 10:56 PM
it’s not. it’s equalizing the rights.
no. because their attacks harm the rights of the child. allowing 2 gay adult to marry is simply saying that, currently, in the eyes of the government, a marriage is simply a set of legal agreements committed to by 2 consenting adults. religions might treat it differently, but as far as governments are concerned, the right isn’t changed at all if the 2 consenting adults are same sex or not.
nope. once again, you’re confusing things. just because YOU think one action (homosexuality) is immoral, doesn’t mean that it’s the same as every other officially illegal act. again, to spell this out for you: serial killer: clearly the victim’s rights are attacked. consenting gays: nobody’s rights are harmed.
man, you really don’t get these things. ok. once again: legally, marriage is between 2 consenting adults. a horse, goat, or hagar fan are not consenting adults. get it? completely different.
dude, quick tip: never close with your weakest argument.
A well thought out, clear, coherent, rational and intelligent response. Unfortunately, this dickwad isn't interested in any of the above - he's only worried about how to stop the oncoming rush of gay man making him marriage proposals.
He's such a catch, I can certainly see why.... :barf:
Big Troubles
08-12-2010, 11:03 PM
You're a dumbshit. You might as well argue that masturbation is a gateway to homosexuality too because you touch your own genetalia and that's gay.
Only if you're looking in the mirror I think? I dunno...
Nickdfresh
08-12-2010, 11:09 PM
Why give extra-civil rights to some, but not to all>? Don't the pedophiles have a claim of damage here, by not recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to happiness by stalking playgrounds? Don't the serial killers have a right to the happiness they obtain from a good night bathing themselves in blood?
Don't the animal friendly have a right to marry say, a horse, a goat, a SheepPen Person or any other living creature?
Originally you make a home for children. The only children the Gays get to birth is a turd-gurglette.. which needs only a toilet not a crib.
GAR, aren't you the one that seems to enjoy farting into young boys' faces and claims to have inserted a toy car into your anus before leaving it out for a small a child to play with? You're really going to play the pedo card? I mean, really?
LoungeMachine
08-12-2010, 11:28 PM
Hmm.. Jay, male: single, unmarried
FORD, also male, unmarried..
HEY I got an idea! Jay - meet FORD!
Ford, I'd like to introduce my very great pal Jay.. I'll just run along here now, you girls talk amongst yourselves...
So the whole "gont be an asshole on the boards, because we have all these newbies coming onboard" is off the table now?
Cool.
:gulp:
Perma-ban of Gar countdown starts now....
Meanwhile, your posts in this thread will be DUMPED
Little Texan
08-12-2010, 11:44 PM
Please tell me again why this fuckhead was let out of lockup (unbanned)?
hambon4lif
08-12-2010, 11:48 PM
So the whole "gont be an asshole on the boards, because we have all these newbies coming onboard" is off the table now?
Cool.
:gulp:
Perma-ban of Gar countdown starts now....
Meanwhile, your posts in this thread will be DUMPEDThank You!
I hate to be the "I told you so" kind of motherfucker, but I saw this coming...right down to the letter.
This skell cunt of a human being has spent every single fucking day of the last 12 years being an antagonist to the entire board......his history speaks for itself. And a 7-day banning is supposed to make him realize the err of his ways??!? What a fucking joke! I'm convinced now more than ever that somebody took a bribe, or he's got connections on the inside.
Look at all the shit he's pulled, and the list of people who've been banned permanently for far less, and try telling me that I'm wrong.
This feminine slap on the ass of a mere 7-days only gave this fuckwad a chance to re-load, and now he's doing just what I thought he would do, what history has shown he would do, and make everyone regret that this wasn't a permanent banning.
This turned out to be one of the very few times I ended up absolutely right.
sometimes that happens!
jhale667
08-12-2010, 11:58 PM
Perma-ban of Gar countdown starts now....
Meanwhile, your posts in this thread will be DUMPED
That should be the general rule regarding his posts.
it’s not. it’s equalizing the rights.
Extra-civil rights means: you must be homosexual to enjoy them.
What about that? Nobody wants to address this> I spent the last 5 hours browsing any historical precedent in 5000 years of recorded historical perversions being legalized, and the only one I find is Sodom and Gomorrah's demise.
Not even the Egyptians nor the Greeks after them equated two fags the same respect as a married man and woman: they just left 'em alone.
Meanwhile, your posts in this thread will be DUMPED
Really? You value your modseat that much do you. Go ahead, make it personal.
You don't tell the truth about anything, and 70 percent of the time YOU are the disruption.
jhale667
08-13-2010, 12:11 AM
You don't tell the truth about anything, and 70 percent of the time YOU are the disruption.
Projecting - again.
STFU,
GAR
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
Steve Savicki
08-13-2010, 12:15 AM
a 7-day banning is supposed to make him realize the err of his ways??!? What a fucking joke!
Perhaps about as much as Vince Neil learning not to drink and drive?
hambon4lif
08-13-2010, 12:25 AM
Extra-civil rights means: you must be homosexual to enjoy them.Don't buy into this stack of horse-shit!
Currently, the female/male ratio is 8:1.....that's eight females for every male. If two males decide they want to enjoy the pleasure of one anothers company, that ratio just increases.
I haven't figured in the lesbian factor into the equation, but it can't make that much of a difference.
That means there are up to 6 females in this world that are so fucking easy that they would even give you some pussy!
The fact that you have such a problem with this tells everyone here more than they need to know about you....
....it certainly tells me more than I need to know.
Blaze
08-13-2010, 12:25 AM
Gayr a papered marriage does not have to be consummated to be legal.
Blaze
08-13-2010, 12:31 AM
For that matter neither does a spiritual marriage as long as both persons agree to those conditions.
If I recall my research, only certain western religions require consummation.
And that was only in place to cover legal issues of isolated people.
Poor GAyR.... since Jizzy dumped him, his box of condoms has passed its expiration date....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBVQ0_OVJ2E
Hope springs eternal
But boys spring infernal
Had high hopes
It lasted just a couple of gropes
Scraps and crumbs
Are all that's been on my plate
My box of condoms
Is past it's expiration date
Macho men and catty queens
And precious little in between
Cute guy I got to meet
Another drug tragedy
I'm a reliable guy
In a city of flakes
My box of condoms
Is past it's expiratios date
Trying to find my own niche
Accomplishing nearly zilch
Do I give in and condom?
Suck up to the norm?
I can't relate
This box of condoms
Is past it's expiration date
Currently, the female/male ratio is 8:1.....that's eight females for every male.
Where did you invent those figures? I mean, I know automatically that's wrong, but how could you be 800 percent wrong?
hambon4lif
08-13-2010, 12:45 AM
Perhaps about as much as Vince Neil learning not to drink and drive?Hey Steve, I learned a new Spanish word today....."Chotta".
I'll even use it in a sentence....... "CHOTTA FUCK UP!"
pretty impressive, no?
Poor GAyR.... since Jizzy dumped him, his box of condoms has passed its expiration date....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBVQ0_OVJ2E
Hope springs eternal
But boys spring infernal
Had high hopes
It lasted just a couple of gropes
Scraps and crumbs
Are all that's been on my plate
My box of condoms
Is past it's expiration date
Macho men and catty queens
And precious little in between
Cute guy I got to meet
Another drug tragedy
I'm a reliable guy
In a city of flakes
My box of condoms
Is past it's expiratios date
Trying to find my own niche
Accomplishing nearly zilch
Do I give in and condom?
Suck up to the norm?
I can't relate
This box of condoms
Is past it's expiration date
Can I get an Ignore Mod function on this fucking queer?
It's highly unusual to be a Van Halen fan, on a DLR board, posting Homo Rock clips like Pansy Division unless you're a David Lee Roth fan for the wrong reasons.
That's got to be it.. admit it FORD, all you do all day long is project homosexuality on any different opinions, you didn't just find out about Pansy Division, and you're fond of DLR in a very special way none of the rest of us can quite comprehend.
Unchainme
08-13-2010, 01:43 AM
fucking amazes me what just came out of gar's mouth in regards to the aids virus.
What's next GAR, a post discussing how nazi germany was a good system but somebody set Hitler up?
idiot.
So you dispute how since 1981 the effect AIDS has had in uniting the gays together throughout, until now, where not only the disease they brought in from Africa is costing the nation in the billions on healthcare, but that in gaining family status they'll realize the survivor's benefit as well.
I think this has more to do with inheritance issues and tax credits than anything else. Most gays I've met, they still want to fuck other men behind their "partners" back.. and would prefer to have nothing to do with the question of marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJqROHxjDA
Most gays I've met, they still want to fuck other men behind their "partners" back.. and would prefer to have nothing to do with the question of marriage.
So Jizzy's not the only guy who cheated on you? No wonder you have issues!
knuckleboner
08-13-2010, 07:54 AM
Extra-civil rights means: you must be homosexual to enjoy them.
What about that? Nobody wants to address this> I spent the last 5 hours browsing any historical precedent in 5000 years of recorded historical perversions being legalized, and the only one I find is Sodom and Gomorrah's demise.
Not even the Egyptians nor the Greeks after them equated two fags the same respect as a married man and woman: they just left 'em alone.
what extra rights? the ruling says if you are one of 2 consenting adults you can get civilly married. how is that an extra right? what right does that give someone that 2 consenting heterosexual adultss don't already have?
bueno bob
08-13-2010, 12:40 PM
Extra-civil rights means: you must be homosexual to enjoy them.
Really? It's funny you should say that, because I know of all sorts of straight people who get married all the time. Since when do you now have to be gay to get married?
You should think before you post, seriously.
What about that? Nobody wants to address this> I spent the last 5 hours browsing any historical precedent in 5000 years of recorded historical perversions being legalized, and the only one I find is Sodom and Gomorrah's demise.
Now is that a scientific accuracy you can back up or did you just research with a bible?
I get the feeling that a lot of white men felt the same way when blacks got the right to vote and segregation ended, too. I also get the feeling they used the EXACT same arguments you do.
There's 7 million voters in California who voted Yes on Prop 8 because they're pushing back the faggot agenda.
Married people can have children to raise and pass property to, we should protect that from a minority contingent of mentally-ill people.
Society used to innoculate this type of cancer, now we tolerate it - and what do we get in exchange? A perspective that society's kindness equates weaknesses within it, so it's okay to tear its' values down so long as pursuit of one's own perversions is met. And that's wrong.
The Buttfuckers got it wrong that way, and they're gonna find out in the higher courts why cuz they refuse to empathize the trouble they load on society.
Unchainme
08-13-2010, 02:07 PM
There's 7 million voters in California who voted Yes on Prop 8 because they're pushing back the faggot agenda.
Married people can have children to raise and pass property to, we should protect that from a minority contingent of mentally-ill people.
Society used to innoculate this type of cancer, now we tolerate it - and what do we get in exchange? A perspective that society's kindness equates weaknesses within it, so it's okay to tear its' values down so long as pursuit of one's own perversions is met. And that's wrong.
The Buttfuckers got it wrong that way, and they're gonna find out in the higher courts why cuz they refuse to empathize the trouble they load on society.
don't be upset GAR, I'm sure you'll find someone else to give reach arounds too, theres more gays in this world than jizzystool.
Don't be upset I let Jesterstar in the mod room to complete his ownings with his STAR Agenda, dumbass.
The Voices told me to do it. I had to obey.
Unchainme
08-13-2010, 02:12 PM
Don't be upset I let Jesterstar in the mod room to complete his ownings with his STAR Agenda, dumbass.
The Voices told me to do it. I had to obey.
then dr. love owned his ass for all eternity.
Unchainme
08-13-2010, 02:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg
I found GAR.
LoungeMachine
08-13-2010, 02:45 PM
Really? You value your modseat that much do you. Go ahead, make it personal.
You don't tell the truth about anything, and 70 percent of the time YOU are the disruption.
:lmao:
If you really think I'm worried about being fired over dumping your off-topic trolling in here, then you've mis-judged JUST HOW THIN the ice is you're on here, fuckwit.
:gulp:
Want to test the water?
I love the taste of cock!
bueno bob
08-13-2010, 05:05 PM
There's 7 million voters in California who voted Yes on Prop 8 because they're pushing back the faggot agenda.
Seven million people bought Britney Spears' first album, too. And, LIKE IT OR NOT, there's no "agenda" other than EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
You know, I considered responding to the rest of the bullshit you spewed out of your fingertips, but the bottom line is that you're a contemptable, disgusting, out of your mind pile of human shit. And honestly, NOTHING you post is worth responding to, you piece of shit.
Yes, Gar, you are a pile of human shit. You're not even vaguely recognizable as human. You are a completely, utterly worthless scumbag with not one single redeeming quality to you. Normally, I'd just call you an "asshat" or some other random internet insult, but Gar...you're just simply a bad person. You're a worthless person. You have nothing positive to offer anybody. Anybody associated with you, friend or family, is worse off for it, and frankly man, I just fucking pity them. I really, really do.
The good news is, Gar, that people like you are completely and utterly INEFFECTUAL when it comes to the progress of civil rights. You may be loud, you may be obnoxious, you may be hateful, and spiteful and full of petty insecurities that you feel the need to push onto others, but in the end...you'll fall.
You always do.
You can't stop the onset of progress towards equality between and among ALL PEOPLE, Gar. Contrary to your best efforts.
Your morality compass is your own - it doesn't belong to anybody else.
Your religion is your own - you cannot force it down somebody elses throat.
Morality and religion? Well, in the public arena, they'll fail. Sooner or later, they always do. Equality is a right guaranteed by law and God to all men. You won't stop it. Not now, not ever. You've tried for thousands of years, Gar, and with every day you fail just a little bit more.
In conclusion, although I don't often say this (in fact, I don't think I've ever said it, other than maybe for Diamond Den), you really, really need to be banned. I'm completely open to the concept of freedom of speech, but when it comes to spewing vitriol for no reason other than deep seated, emotional hatred that you feel the need to express, I really think those sorts of people need to have their podium taken away from them.
Honestly, there's just no place for it.
Nickdfresh
08-13-2010, 09:37 PM
Extra-civil rights means: you must be homosexual to enjoy them.
....
Oh GAR, they're not really "extra" rights as any heterosexual enjoys them. But you're obviously not getting laid in either category which is why you are so worried about the homos, you fucking bag-lady eunuch...
Blaze
08-13-2010, 09:50 PM
Thank You!
I hate to be the "I told you so" kind of motherfucker, but I saw this coming...right down to the letter.
This skell cunt of a human being has spent every single fucking day of the last 12 years being an antagonist to the entire board......his history speaks for itself. And a 7-day banning is supposed to make him realize the err of his ways??!? What a fucking joke! I'm convinced now more than ever that somebody took a bribe, or he's got connections on the inside.
Look at all the shit he's pulled, and the list of people who've been banned permanently for far less, and try telling me that I'm wrong.
This feminine slap on the ass of a mere 7-days only gave this fuckwad a chance to re-load, and now he's doing just what I thought he would do, what history has shown he would do, and make everyone regret that this wasn't a permanent banning.
This turned out to be one of the very few times I ended up absolutely right.
sometimes that happens!
Bribe?
Try extortion and someone or persons are embarrassed or afraid to speak up.
No one would willingly associate with the likes of Gar
Well, this thread's really run it's course - hasn't it?
As usual, and predictably so - here's how:
1. Page ones in these things, he starts off okay with a typically provocative title that is so wrong, you know it's a Troll for Attention right off the bat.
2. Checking the story by clicking, you see he's taken something out-of-context as usual, but this one never had any steam to it because he provides no support. In this case, I'd have to look for the story!
3. Pages 2 thru 4 degrade to insult contests and tear-downs in nature because that is his limit.
4. Final stage analysis: FORDparrot Nick drops in with something homotropical as they both backslap and finger each other for further insults.
Any further comment brings no gain, no clarity or rationale from either of them.
Have at it , girls! ENJOY
jhale667
08-13-2010, 10:03 PM
Seven million people bought Britney Spears' first album, too. And, LIKE IT OR NOT, there's no "agenda" other than EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
You know, I considered responding to the rest of the bullshit you spewed out of your fingertips, but the bottom line is that you're a contemptable, disgusting, out of your mind pile of human shit. And honestly, NOTHING you post is worth responding to, you piece of shit.
Yes, Gar, you are a pile of human shit. You're not even vaguely recognizable as human. You are a completely, utterly worthless scumbag with not one single redeeming quality to you. Normally, I'd just call you an "asshat" or some other random internet insult, but Gar...you're just simply a bad person. You're a worthless person. You have nothing positive to offer anybody. Anybody associated with you, friend or family, is worse off for it, and frankly man, I just fucking pity them. I really, really do.
The good news is, Gar, that people like you are completely and utterly INEFFECTUAL when it comes to the progress of civil rights. You may be loud, you may be obnoxious, you may be hateful, and spiteful and full of petty insecurities that you feel the need to push onto others, but in the end...you'll fall.
You always do.
You can't stop the onset of progress towards equality between and among ALL PEOPLE, Gar. Contrary to your best efforts.
Your morality compass is your own - it doesn't belong to anybody else.
Your religion is your own - you cannot force it down somebody elses throat.
Morality and religion? Well, in the public arena, they'll fail. Sooner or later, they always do. Equality is a right guaranteed by law and God to all men. You won't stop it. Not now, not ever. You've tried for thousands of years, Gar, and with every day you fail just a little bit more.
In conclusion, although I don't often say this (in fact, I don't think I've ever said it, other than maybe for Diamond Den), you really, really need to be banned. I'm completely open to the concept of freedom of speech, but when it comes to spewing vitriol for no reason other than deep seated, emotional hatred that you feel the need to express, I really think those sorts of people need to have their podium taken away from them.
Honestly, there's just no place for it.
:appl:
Let's just re-post this in response to ANYTHING turd-burp posts going forward.
Oh GAR, they're not really "extra" rights
Well if you really think so, go ahead and indulge in them - don't let my blatherings stop you sweetheart!
Let's just re-post this in response to ANYTHING turd-burp posts going forward.
'Spose this means in ripping other folks' posts that your intellect is out of steam again?
Enjoy your Top Ramen tonite alone.. that's why you're alone!
Nickdfresh
08-13-2010, 10:07 PM
Well if you really think so, go ahead and indulge in them - don't let my blatherings stop you sweetheart!
No one's ever let your ignorant blatherings stop them from anything, especially not giving you their loose change...
Never said they were ignorant, my Frigidaire-foreheaded counterpart!
Nickdfresh
08-13-2010, 10:12 PM
Never said they were ignorant, my Frigidaire-foreheaded counterpart!
I never said they were either. I said you were, oh Captain Pronoun-Oblivious....
jhale667
08-13-2010, 10:13 PM
'Spose this means in ripping other folks' posts that your intellect is out of steam again?
Enjoy your Top Ramen tonite alone.. that's why you're alone!
Please. Like you honestly expect us to believe you're going to dig anything better out of the dumpster...:lmao:
Nickdfresh
08-15-2010, 03:29 AM
....
3. Pages 2 thru 4 degrade to insult contests and tear-downs in nature because that is his limit.
...
http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2007/11/crybaby.jpg
Igosplut
08-15-2010, 06:40 AM
Seven million people bought Britney Spears' first album, too. And, LIKE IT OR NOT, there's no "agenda" other than EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
You know, I considered responding to the rest of the bullshit you spewed out of your fingertips, but the bottom line is that you're a contemptable, disgusting, out of your mind pile of human shit. And honestly, NOTHING you post is worth responding to, you piece of shit.
Yes, Gar, you are a pile of human shit. You're not even vaguely recognizable as human. You are a completely, utterly worthless scumbag with not one single redeeming quality to you. Normally, I'd just call you an "asshat" or some other random internet insult, but Gar...you're just simply a bad person. You're a worthless person. You have nothing positive to offer anybody. Anybody associated with you, friend or family, is worse off for it, and frankly man, I just fucking pity them. I really, really do.
The good news is, Gar, that people like you are completely and utterly INEFFECTUAL when it comes to the progress of civil rights. You may be loud, you may be obnoxious, you may be hateful, and spiteful and full of petty insecurities that you feel the need to push onto others, but in the end...you'll fall.
You always do.
You can't stop the onset of progress towards equality between and among ALL PEOPLE, Gar. Contrary to your best efforts.
Your morality compass is your own - it doesn't belong to anybody else.
Your religion is your own - you cannot force it down somebody elses throat.
Morality and religion? Well, in the public arena, they'll fail. Sooner or later, they always do. Equality is a right guaranteed by law and God to all men. You won't stop it. Not now, not ever. You've tried for thousands of years, Gar, and with every day you fail just a little bit more.
In conclusion, although I don't often say this (in fact, I don't think I've ever said it, other than maybe for Diamond Den), you really, really need to be banned. I'm completely open to the concept of freedom of speech, but when it comes to spewing vitriol for no reason other than deep seated, emotional hatred that you feel the need to express, I really think those sorts of people need to have their podium taken away from them.
Honestly, there's just no place for it.
Out-Fucking-Standing and best worded post about him ever.....
"It doesn't always HAVE to be about me, but it should." - Hugh Hefner: Playboy
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/Advance_101/Owned%20Pics/moshowned7md8dx2bc.jpg
jhale667
08-15-2010, 05:52 PM
http://memegenerator.net/Crazy-Ex-Girlfriend-/ImageMacro/855113/Crazy-Ex-Girlfriend-go-fuck-yourself-DO-IT.jpg
:fufu:
bueno bob
08-16-2010, 05:01 PM
Must say I do approve of the thread retitle... ;)
jhale667
08-16-2010, 05:05 PM
Must say I do approve of the thread retitle... ;)
Yeah, I thought it was a nice touch, too. :cool:
Um, GAR never married and is currently looking for a nonsmoking gal who can cook and enjoys romantic three-legged walks on the beach.
kwame k
08-16-2010, 06:01 PM
There's a shocker..........never married!
kwame k
08-16-2010, 06:18 PM
No regrets? Come on, Clay..........aren't you even a little but curious about what it would be like to sleep with a woman?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.