946 replies to this topic

[Rim Job]

Miss Nevada had her crown taken away from her a couple years ago for similar photos, albeit a tad more revealing. Is Trump playing favorites because he loves the conservative agenda?

[Mr. Roboto]

Trump hated Bush and has been more than vocal about it. I don't really care about her stupid views on gay marriage, but if she broke the rules of the pageant, then she should be 86'd.

[cousin it]

^^Ulterior motives at work. If he canned her, there would be no reason for the really good photos to surface, and he likes looking at a hot body as much as the next guy.

[Timothy]

he did can another girl a few years ago for the same shit.

[Mr. Roboto]

California high court upholds gay marriage ban SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed. The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval. The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution. "In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said. The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest. Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8. The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage. "It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day." The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters. That was the issue justices decided Tuesday. "After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

[Bandita]

^^^ I opened up Faux News to look for some GOP reaction on the Obama Nomination but this was on the front page instead. BOY, are they proud, eh?

[Mr. Roboto]

Think of the issues at hand: Health care, National Security, infrastructure, energy sources. two wars and so on. Yet the right seem obsessed with gays, or what people do with their dinks in general. Enough so that it's front page news. That is FUCKED UP.

[PERM BANNED]

Hold on here, let's take a step back. You're all saying the right is focused on "gays" with so much more to worry about. But who might I ask are the one's that pushed this issue into the spot light? It's the liberal, Propostion 8 supporters who could give a fuck about the law and cried foul when they lost. We have a thread about gay marriage that is now 5 pages long, created and continued by self described liberals and democrats, and we're now going to say it's the Republicans? This was/is a major issue (the court ruling that is) as it showed that there are people still willing to stick to the constitution even if they personally disagree with it. That is a major issue. You seem to be upset that 24 hour news stations reference an important issue to the largest state. I can link you to articles on this from MSNBC and CNN if you'd like to show this isn't just a Fox News thing. When we have major breakthroughs in "Health care, National Security, infrastructure, energy sources. two wars and so on" then maybe they'll make front page news for that day. Let's try to be a little objective here folks.

[cousin it]

Goddamnit! I'm starting to look like a rightwing idealogue. While I support Gay Rights, I think that it is an issue for the individual states to determine(Freedom, you can clue me in on the due process). If an amendment was passed, why should it not be valid? Isn't that what Republican form of government is all about? Don't get me wrong, in some cases, I guess I could be considered a Relativist, but if that is the case, shouldn't a new constitution be written?

[Mr. Roboto]

Hold on here, let's take a step back.

You're all saying the right is focused on "gays" with so much more to worry about. But who might I ask are the one's that pushed this issue into the spot light? It's the liberal, Propostion 8 supporters who could give a fuck about the law and cried foul when they lost. We have a thread about gay marriage that is now 5 pages long, created and continued by self described liberals and democrats, and we're now going to say it's the Republicans?

Maybe because a particular group of people (ie homosexuals) feel the "conservative" movement to poke their nose into their personal lives is worthy of a fight? The length of this topic on a message board is irrelevant as we are not running the government, we are merely spectators.

Sorry, but the GOP media sees this as some sort of moral battle in eyes of the Lord and reports from that angle. There is no place for the Bible in our government, the Bill of Rights or the COTUS. The left leaning media sees this as one group of people excluding another from equal rights.

The only militant gay "agenda" here is that these people receive equal treatment. We won't even get started on the contradictory nature of a group of people who claim to be conservative yet ask government to follow us home and dictate how our lives should be lived.

[Bandita]

You mean the Bible doesn't really say that the Lord hates gays?

[Mr. Roboto]

It says all kinds of stupid shit, but is irrelevant as it should not be intertwined with our government.

[freedom78]

Goddamnit! I'm starting to look like a rightwing idealogue.

While I support Gay Rights, I think that it is an issue for the individual states to determine(Freedom, you can clue me in on the due process). If an amendment was passed, why should it not be valid? Isn't that what Republican form of government is all about?

Don't get me wrong, in some cases, I guess I could be considered a Relativist, but if that is the case, shouldn't a new constitution be written?

It's a tricky issue, so I hope you're not looking for a black/white answer. Here are the issues at play:

1.) Incorporation --- meaning that any right you have that protects you from the federal government is also applied to the states

2.) Supremacy --- meaning that the federal court system can overrule the California state Constitution, any state laws, or any referendum. So, if the will of the people is to do away with, say, free speech, they cannot do so, save by amending the US Constitution.

3.) Full Faith and Credit --- meaning that my marriage in Indiana is recognized in all other states/territories in the union

4.) Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) --- specifically, a law that says gay marriage doesn't fall under the Full Faith and Credit clause of our Constitution...whether this, in itself, is Constitutional is unclear

5.) Due Process --- Rights are being denied. I wouldn't say that this is really a due process issue, though, as it's being done through a legal process.

6.) Equal Protection --- this, to my mind, is the real issue here. The laws are meant to apply equally. If we create marriages for straight people and "civil unions" for gays, we're essentially advocating a "separate but equal" status, just as we were with segregation. If we entirely deny gays this right, then we are granting a right to some but not all of our citizens, which is a civil rights violation. The argument you'll hear from gay rights opponents is that this isn't a denial of rights, as gays can still marry...they just can't GAY marry. Fair enough, though this parallels the old argument against interracial marraige, saying that blacks weren't being denied the right to marriage, as they could still marry blacks. It's the same argument, reapplied.

[cousin it]

^^Clear, concise, and to the point. Thanks

[Mr. Roboto]

86 Year old WWII vet's remarks for Gay Marriage