|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 10:45:16 AM | BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 16 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
So I guess my question is why can't these issues be put to the populace instead of a court?
So I guess my answer would be that even though our modern societies are accepting of just about anything any more, time and time again state votes by the populace of a state considering gay marriage has shown when most get inside that cloaked area, all by themselves, the majority of people vote no for gay marriages.
This is why the small minorities of anything that want rights for something side step a populace vote and use the laws of that state to get what they want that the populace will show they don't want by taking their minority to the supreme court to get what the people feel should not exist.
I am for what ever should be well and right. But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority whether the case be gay marriages or the extinction of animals. Let the people have the information to digest and let the people vote the matter out. That is how it should be in issues that will affect the populace as a whole.
 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 11:35:11 AM | If the people had to vote on every topic that affected the populace as a whole, I'm guessing that's all we'd be doing all day.
And your idea is all well and good when you're in the majority, but when you're not it kinda sucks - so wiser men than you and I long ago decided on a more equitable way of doing things that ultimately makes society better for everyone...and reflects that noble part of the Declaration of Independence that mentions self evident truths.
And anyway the majority has had their say. In some jurisdictions in the States judges are directly elected, by the people. In others, like CA, the people vote for a governor, and the governor appoints Supreme Court justices, who are then subject to a retention vote at the next general election...yup...by the people.
And besides, how does legalising the marriage of a gay or lesbian couple affect the populace as a whole? Or you, for that matter? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 11:44:40 AM | The judges are stretching the definition of marriage. Actually the goverment shouldn't even be responsible for marriages. It was originally a RELIGIOUS ceremony. Why is the government regulating a religious ceremony. EVERYbody should have a civil union, and you can get Married at a church. Leave it up to the churches as to who they marry.
Also, since the definition is being changed by a few judges. It's now time to expand it from Any 2 People, to 2 or More people.
If your not going to define it as a union between a Male and Female, you might as well let people marry more than one person.
It's the next step, and hey, why not...
And we don't need to have a majority of the population vote on it. You just need a handful of activist judges to redefine marriage again, from any 2 or 2 or more.
 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 11:48:33 AM |
This is why the small minorities of anything that want rights for something side step a populace vote and use the laws of that state to get what they want that the populace will show they don't want by taking their minority to the supreme court to get what the people feel should not exist.
Since the beginning of America, the "small minorities" have been ignored, marginalized and hurt on levels of power, equality, freedoms and rights. The majority doesn't often give up it's privileges that hurt minorities until more extreme measures are taken. This has been proved in our past in areas of race, gender, classicism and now sexual orientation/marital rights.
Gay people want and deserve the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual married couples enjoy. They have a right to make end of life and medical crises decisions just as married couples do. They have a right to put their partner on their health insurance policies and have estates revert to their partners when there's death, just as happens for married couples.
Marriage for homosexual couples does not threaten traditional marriage or make people gay. I'm thrilled for California's decision and believe it's just a matter of time before other states follow suite.  | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:05:31 PM |
Most people are superstitious, uninformed, not well read, and self centered. I have little faith that the populace would do anything else than bring their own fears and superstition to law.
I guess you don't really go for the whole "democracy" thing, then. People really aren't so bad. Most would, if presented with a convincing case and some leadership, stand behind good decisions. Ramming through the agenda of a small elite without giving the people a voice may seem convenient in the short term, but in the long term, this sort of dictatorial action only feeds intolerance and an erosion of support for the very principles it is supposed to uphold. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:32:00 PM | | IMO this is great news. It's a progressive decision, clearly, and CA, being the home of San Francisco and all, is going to have to come to terms with this issue probably quicker than the rest of the states do. By the way the OP's talking, it sounds like he might also be against the electoral college / court system that essentially put Bush into office in 2000; what is that besides a minority deciding something for the majority? Or were you in favor of that because he was the conservative and "Christian" candidate? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:33:42 PM | | The fact that majority of people are influenced by their superstitious religious views is all the example needed. The debate about gay marriage stems from this. Religion poisons everything, and the fact that religious minded people hunt down homosexuals for no other reason other than the 'good' book told them homosexuality is 'sinful.' | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:46:30 PM | | ^^ Yes. I talked about this religious aspect of it with some others in another thread one time. A piece in the Torah (actually the Hebrew Bible) tells them it's an "abomination" , etc. And yet Xians casually disregard nearly all the rest, if not ALL the rest, of Levitical law (because presumably they feel belief in Jesus's life and death removed them from having to pay attention to it -- as Paul basically said). In the Xian Bible / NT, there were 3 references to homosexuality (possibly) or at least sexually "immoral" behavior, and those were in letters by Paul / Saul -- who was a woman-hater and who some speculate MAY have had homosexual tendencies himself. Jesus himself , in the Gospels, never mentions much less condemns it. In fact he seems to make a point of associating himself with pariahs and outcasts ,etc; so what makes Xians think he'd be so quick to embrace ancient (and it was ancient even when he was alive) Levitical law regarding sexual behaviors. Clearly he was a quite unorthodox Jew. What the Western world has basically been subjected to regarding homosexuality and "sexually immoral" behavior, and what it is only now just starting to come out of, has been the yoke of ancient Jewish sexual prohibitions -- which wasn't even "intended" for non-Jews in the first place. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:40:06 PM | | The idea of this country is that people are born with rights, and that government is how people work together to protect those rights. One of the main ways people's rights are transgressed is by majority prejudice. It is in all of our best interest to protect each person's rights against what the majority of people want. Gays have the right to be who they are, which includes marriage, the same as straights. To pass a law that denies gays their rights is unconstitutional. If some religions disapprove of gay marriage, then gay people of those religions are free to choose not to marry. But nobody has any business extending their beliefs out beyond their own personal lives in a way that infringes on the rights of others, if there is no harm being done, which none is in the case of a marriage. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:59:04 PM | our constitution was formulated to protect minority "rights" to equal availablity/access to civil institutions and services--funded by taxpayers. if those against gay marriages are the vast majority, then you have nothing to worry about, right? there will be so few gay marriages you will hardly notice it. furthermore, this argument can be swung the other way. maybe we should stop heterosexuals from marrying a second time--after all they've failed the first time. maybe we should put an age or ethnic limit on who should be married, depending upon the majority age or ethnicity in question. or maybe even those who pay no taxes, gay or straight, should not be able to marry, eh? after all, who pays for the civil bureacracy to uphold and record these marriages? taxpayers! of all sexual persuasions!
in my "opinion" marriage is a spiritual union, but it does allow someone to visit their dying spouse in a hospital w/0 a barrier, hand over assets w/o penalty etc. in CA, there are partner laws which also provide such benefits. in fact, partner laws are also beneficial to heterosexuals. it is the employers who resist, because they now have expanded health benefits costs.
but the spiritual union is often the issue moreso. so, who says the "majority" is to interfere with right to religion and those sacraments. are you saying only those of a certain religion can have legal marriages and others not? because a number of legal religions support gay marriages. so you are saying only those in the majority religion can decide upon this issue? what about those who are not religious as well?
be careful as religious preferences change, your words may come back to haunt you. you too may be a minority on some matters. clearly the courts have legal opinions to come up with this decision. the law is not perfect, but it helps to keep our personal passions and self interests at bay. it does not segment out certain parts of society just to suit us. if you won't have gays marrying, then where do you stop? maybe you don't want them working? or using public transportation? or anything else that is open for the general populace?
remember that most sexual crimes against children are not incurred by gays, but by heterosexuals. so get clear headed about this all and whatever fears you may harbor. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:05:05 PM | Get Mad said...."As for having the populace vote, Most people are superstitious, uninformed, not well read, and self centered. I have little faith that the populace would do anything else than bring their own fears and superstition to law."
Actually for most of the populace I would agree with what you said. But, for the small minority that actually votes when votes are being required, that small voting minority has been shown by statistics to be very well read, educated and is usually aware of the various issues happening within their cities, states and country and abroad.
The Artful Codger said..."...so wiser men than you and I long ago decided on a more equitable way of doing things that ultimately makes society better for everyone....."
This has been proved to not always be the case. These wise men made a decision once they thought was the best for us and at their feet lay the dead cells, embryos and fetuses of many millions of humans to be.
"And anyway the majority has had their say. In some jurisdictions in the States judges are directly elected, by the people. In others, like CA, the people vote for a governor, and the governor appoints Supreme Court justices, who are then subject to a retention vote at the next general election...yup...by the people."
The minority that elect the officials, they don't always agree with the thoughts and policies of those officials. So when the officials are in office, they can pretty much agree with other officials about what is well and right in their view point and get those views put down as laws and statutes whether the people are in agreement or not.
"And besides, how does legalising the marriage of a gay or lesbian couple affect the populace as a whole? Or you, for that matter?"
It doesn't matter to me. Homosexual marriages do not affect me any more then hetrosexual marriages affect me. But how will it affect us as a society? That remains to be seen. There has never been a recorded society with long term recorded data to show what it is about to have hetrosexual, homosexual relationships all given free legal precedence as equal to one another in all areas of the law. But many are anticipating how the legalization of homosexual marriages will set prescedent for bisexual marriages which would encompass three or more individuals, bigamy and
polygamy. And later then sooner, beastality will find a way to get it's day in court. Those that do it are having a sexual realationship even if it is with an animal. The only thing they will have to prove is that they can have a sexual relationship and not hurt the animal. Think I jest? Google beastiality one time. It grows in numbers of participants with every year passing by. It is where homosexuality use to be; in the closet, hidden away, because their are laws against it and society for the most part frowns on it.
The point being is as it stands, hetrosexuals are the legal deal. Once homosexual marriages are legalized by most of the states, other forms of relationships that have been fighting for their chance to exist (like polygamy and bigamy) are going to ride on the case merits of the laws that gave homosexuals their day all the way to supreme courts.
So the question is back in your court....."And besides, how does legalising the marriage of polygamy and bigamy and bisexuals and beastality affect the populace as a whole? Or you, for that matter?" | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:15:22 PM | [ quote ] our constitution was formulated to protect minority "rights" to equal availablity/access to civil institutions and services--funded by taxpayers
I got questions...How is it that gays a considered a minority? For instance..Since I am a white male and there are more women does that make me a minority? If not, and I for some reason decide I'm gay does that automatically make me eligible to have minority status? What if I decide I'm a trans-sexual gay male does that make me even more of a minority? Then if I, for some unknown reason, figure out that I'm not gay or trans-sexual do I lose my minority status? Would a male...gay or straight be able to say we are oppressed by the female majority? You might think I'm just funning around here, but I have trouble understanding all the minority stuff...I'm just concerned that I might not have equality under the law. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:59:52 PM |
I am for what ever should be well and right. But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority... **Who is pushing something on you?
**Just because it will be legal for gays to marry, are you afraid a gay will try to make you marry him?
**What difference does it make to you what their personal life is or what they do together behind closed doors?
**Are they doing something to physically hurt you?
**If they do get married, is that going to make marriage between a man and woman less valuable to that man and woman?
**Would you want someone to dictate to you if you can marry someone or not?
**What if it was turned around? What if the majority of people were gay and you were not and you just wanted to be married to your "non-homosexual" (female) partner? Wouldn't you want to be allowed to do that?
Let the people have the information to digest and let the people vote the matter out. **Someone else knows what's better for me than I do?
**What if they start putting it up for vote that singles can only eat at certain restaurants?
**What if they put it up for vote that singles can only work at certain jobs?
**What if they put it up for vote that singles can only sjop at certain markets, department stores?
It's not so outrageous to think that could happen.
Marrieds everywhere feel a certain threat towards singles. When we're out socializing, the other ladies don't want us single ladies to talk to their husbands and vice versa. They feel some sort of threat if all we "singles" do is say, "Hi." They don't get it that we don't really want their partner ... we were just being cordial.
So it's conceivable that the marrieds might get together and start voting things that would dictate how we singles are allowed to live our lives. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:09:46 PM |
This has been proved to not always be the case. These wise men made a decision once they thought was the best for us and at their feet lay the dead cells, embryos and fetuses of many millions of humans to be. Ya, I agree with you there, they should never have banned stem cell research.
There has never been a recorded society with long term recorded data to show what it is about to have hetrosexual, homosexual relationships all given free legal precedence as equal to one another in all areas of the law. But many are anticipating how the legalization of homosexual marriages will set prescedent for bisexual marriages which would encompass three or more individuals, bigamy and polygamy.
And later then sooner, beastality will find a way to get it's day in court. Those that do it are having a sexual realationship even if it is with an animal. The only thing they will have to prove is that they can have a sexual relationship and not hurt the animal. It hasn't happened in Denmark, where same sex civil unions have been legal since 1989...and homosexuality openly tolerated for longer than that. That's a longer trial period than most antidepressants have.
(By the way, how could you forget to mention all the people who will be lining up for incestuous marriages, isn't that in the slippery slope handbook?) | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:20:20 PM |
And later then sooner, beastality will find a way to get it's day in court. Those that do it are having a sexual realationship even if it is with an animal. The only thing they will have to prove is that they can have a sexual relationship and not hurt the animal. Think I jest?
The purpose of the push behind gay marriage is giving gays access to the government benefits which straight spouses have. None of these would apply to animals, which don't pay taxes, make medical decisions, collect benefits, or receive inheritance. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 4:42:12 PM | If two men or women are in love and want to symbolize the union with a marriage, why shouldn't they? They should also be able to have spousal benefits, at work etc. Hell I know enough Hetro people that shouldn't be married.
They probably don't care what I do in my bedroom, why should I care what they do in theirs. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 5:57:12 PM | Now that any 2 people can get married, it's time to expand that to any group of people.
Whats the difference. If someone can love and marry a person of the same or opposite sex.
Why can't people love and marry MORE than one person???
Forget animals, they are not people.
But if we can marry what ever sex we want, we should also be able to marry more then one person.
That will be next, and I hope that it goes to vote. Oh, and it should work both ways. A woman should be able to be married to more then one man, just as a man should be able to marry more then one woman.
THIS would be equal and fair. Who is to say that you can't love more than one person???
If I can love and marry anyone of any sex, I should also be able to marry multiple people as long as we are all in love and all want to marry.
Time for a Vote!!!
 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:25:25 PM | The dictionary defines marriage as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
The people of California voted to allow civil unions between gay people but said that they could not marry. People in a civil union have all the rights and privileges of a married couple. The court split 4 to 3 in the decision. One of the dissenting judges said essentially that unless the peoples’ vote was unconstitutional, the courts had no judicial authority to change the law. She is correct. She is also correct that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that this law violated. Incidentally, this judge felt personally that it should be allowed but she knew that she was required as a judge to only intrepid the law and not allowed to make it. What happened in that court room in California is known as “legislation from the bench” and that is forbidden under the US Constitution.
It becomes a dangerous world when one allows a hierarchy to dictate law. That's known as a totalitarian state and without any single exception that has always proven by history to eventually oppress the population in a horribly tyrannical way. Even though most of you feel that this decision is correct and these judges are “smarter” than the people, history will prove differently.
A Constitutional amendment of the California Constitution can override the judges ruling so this is not over yet. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:42:13 PM | In the country that is the United States, we have a system of government in place that is not democracy. We have a system that is known as a Republic. We elect officials to the government to make decisions for us. Why? Because we place our trust in them that they are able to see the big picture and can remove themselves from personal decisions. Why is it do you think that we allow the government to be the punitive actor and not the injured party? Because they know better and aren't driven by their own personal biases. That is why we allow them to run such things as highways, police and fire, education ,and several other aspects of our lives. It's because we trust that they see the big picture and aren't run by their own personal biases.
I have no problem with this. It is a great decision. Government needs to get out of peoples lives, and this is one area where the government, sa well as the Religious Right were running rampant. When the our founding documents say "all men are created equal" we aren't talking about only if you are a white able bodied heterosexual male. We are talking about everyone.
If you want to use the slippery slope argument, go ahead. But as another poster pointed out, it is ludacrious and has been proven wrong. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:06:39 PM |
It becomes a dangerous world when one allows a hierarchy to dictate law. That's known as a totalitarian state and without any single exception that has always proven by history to eventually oppress the population in a horribly tyrannical way. I disagree with you...
"All bans on interracial marriage were lifted only after an interracial couple from Virginia, Richard and Mildred Loving, began a legal battle in 1963 for the repeal of the anti-miscegenation law which prevented them from living as a couple in their home state of Virginia. The Lovings were supported by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Japanese American Citizens League and a coalition of Catholic bishops.
In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving had married in Washington, D.C. to evade Virginia's anti-miscegenation law (the Racial Integrity Act). Having returned to Virginia, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. In 1963, the Lovings, who had moved to Washington, D.C, decided to appeal this judgment. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:
'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.'
The Lovings then took their case to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which invalidated the original sentence but upheld the state's Racial Integrity Act. Finally, the Lovings turned to the U.S Supreme Court. The court, which had previously avoided taking miscegenation cases, agreed to hear an appeal. In 1967, 84 years after Pace v. Alabama in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that:
'Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.'
The Supreme Court condemned Virginia's anti-miscegenation law as "designed to maintain White supremacy".
In 1967, 17 Southern states (all the former slave states plus Oklahoma) still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Maryland repealed its law in response to the start of the proceedings at the Supreme Court. After the ruling of the Supreme Court, the remaining laws were no longer in effect. Nonetheless, it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially remove defunct anti-miscegenation laws from their law books. In the respective referendums, 62% of voters in South Carolina and 59% of voters in Alabama voted to remove these laws."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:29:04 PM | Geez people, get into this century. Equal rights for ALL men (and women). Everyone should have the right to a legal marriage. We in Canada are way ahead of you, all
marriages are legal here in every province. Some of our red neck politicians tried to outlaw same sex marriages in their province but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against them. I'm very proud of my federal government upholding a fundamental human right. Remember, someone else's sexual orientation is not your business, just because you don't agree does not make it wrong. The world would be a happier place if everyone just lived and let live. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:30:45 PM | **Who is pushing something on you?
Any minority that side steps a vote of the people in something that will affect the people in one or more ways by going to the courts to get a ruling by constitutional rights and not by what the general populace endorses.....that is pushing an agenda of a minority upon the majority IF the majority has shown they are against it. People in the majority have always felt and still feel a legal marriage certificate should be reserved for hetrosexual couples because after that union children usually follow and the legality of the marriage also encompasses them. The majority has never felt a single parent or a divirced parent should have some sort of a special marriage certificate nor has it felt un-married people in a relationship choosing not to be married who have kids should have some special "marriage" or "union" certificate to show they are together. So it follows that there are is a large majority that don't sit well that a minority has steped up and wants what was originally intended and meant for hetros only and no other type of relationship. If the populace as a whole wants to change that idealism....well and fine! Lets change it! But the majority of the people of every state of the USA have shown they are not ready to give a license of marriage to any couple but a hetro couple.
**Just because it will be legal for gays to marry, are you afraid a gay will try to make you marry him?
I've been down both sides so I have no fear of anyone, hetro-gay or bi pushing their wants on me. I do have a problem with people legally pushing their wants and needs on the populace as a whole which does not endorse that agenda.
**What difference does it make to you what their personal life is or what they do together behind closed doors?
It makes no difference to me.
**Are they doing something to physically hurt you?
I hope not! :)
**If they do get married, is that going to make marriage between a man and woman less valuable to that man and woman?
No, but it will take away from what has always been held as a right and privledge for two people who usually get married so to have children. That is a traditional aspect I will be the first to admit to being. And with age traditions fade away. Right now, many do not want that tradition to disapear just yet. They don't want the traditional sanctity of marriage to be turned over to same sex couples, those entertaining bigamy or those entertaining polygamy.
**Would you want someone to dictate to you if you can marry someone or not?
No and neither would anyone else. But I would also have respect to go with the laws till they are changed by the populace and not changed by a few of partner relationships.
**What if it was turned around? What if the majority of people were gay and you were not and you just wanted to be married to your "non-homosexual" (female) partner? Wouldn't you want to be allowed to do that?
Yes. But again I would not push for a community to accept what it most certainly has always rejected concerning partner relationships.
Let the people have the information to digest and let the people vote the matter out.
**Someone else knows what's better for me than I do?
Those seeking same sex marriages to be recognized as equal to hetro marriages.....they do claim they know what is better whether you agree or not. They are out to get what they want and they do not care what others think. They believe how they believe is right and correct and if you disagree.....YOU WILL BE TERMED a HOMOPHOBIC, ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL, A GAY BASHER and some other not so nice terms because you might only disagree. So yes, The Gay Agenda does state it knows what's better for you then you do and you better not get caught disagreeing!
**What if they start putting it up for vote that singles can only eat at certain restaurants?
This is extreme though a Missouri or Missippi politician did try to get fat people barred from resturants for their health!
**What if they put it up for vote that singles can only work at certain jobs?
Give it time....
**What if they put it up for vote that singles can only sjop at certain markets, department stores?
Already been happening for decades in a different aspect....ever seen a singles function mostly being attended by married couples? Ever seen a bunch of straight couples in a gay bar? People in our society have already been making those differences for a long time for who should be in attendence and who should not be for various civic functions. It will be extended one day to encompass other areas.
**Marrieds everywhere feel a certain threat towards singles.
They have good reason to. A person who is single and likes it that way has better chances with a married person in remaining single because the person who is married they are messing with is usually not looking for someone else to get married to. But a single messing with another single, the odds are increased you could fall in love and they to.
When we're out socializing, the other ladies don't want us single ladies to talk to their husbands and vice versa. They feel some sort of threat if all we "singles" do is say, "Hi." They don't get it that we don't really want their partner ... we were just being cordial.
It is a statistical fact that most single women are more attracted to a married guy then a single guy cause most married guys got money and material wealth to some degree to spend on them that most single guys won't spend on them. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:30:45 PM | The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not just a republic. Huge difference sweetie. The leaders that we vote into office are required to uphold the Constitution. Four of these judges failed to do that.
I personally don't really care about what was decided. The deviation from following the Constitution is the important issue in this whole thing, not the gay marriage part at all. If this were a law allowing gays to marry and the judges decided in the same way to strike it down, I'd be just as concerned.
Think of it this way. If you allow the judges to vote like they feel and not follow the Constitution, then what happens when the courts get packed with judges that are totally apposed to your beliefs and values? You get horrible decisions that affect you personally and those that you love around you. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 1 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
