Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Seriously though, quit being a prick. You know damned well what right you have that they do not. Why do you play these childish game, Catholic Scientist? Then why DOMA? If they were already prevented from marrying, and if marriage was already defined as between one man and one women...why DOMA?
Was it perhaps because it was feared that gays did indeed have the right to marry...so a bunch of homophobic bigots decided to amend State Constitutions and/or write Federal Legislature making sure that two individuals of the same sex could not get married? What you supplied was some info regarding DOMA where they (the Conservative, homophobic Legislatures) mentioned that their definition was based primarily on a single case from 1974 where a lower court decided that banning members of the same sex from marrying was not a violation of their rights. How nice that they ignored other case studies that concluded the complete opposite (Andersen v. Sims; Castle v. Washington, just name a couple).And for the Legislature to simply claim that it was "implied" that marriage has been between one man and one women does not make it so, Catholic Scientist. Hell, I could state basically any fucking thing I wanted to in a proposed Bill and get it passed if enough asshole agreed with it.You know, it may very well have been "assumed" that marriage was between one man and one women, but that does not mean it was ever implied. There's a difference there.But none of that matters. We can only hope that eventually, DOMA will make its way to the SCOTUS and let them decide. I cannot see how any Justice could not see the DOMA violates the Constitution. That case was one looking at bigamy and polygamy and how it affects voter registration, not homosexual marriage...so I'm not really sure that it legally qualifies as the definition of "marriage" prior to DOMA. Besides, times change Catholic Scientist...or are you suggesting that we should still allow slavery and prevent inter-race marriages?And it also states "...in the holy estate of matrimony", so if we follow your argument, anyone not married in a religious ceremony (or some sort of "Holy" service), by your stupid logic would not actually be married. You wanna run with that horse, Catholic Scientist? Seriously, if you're gonna make the claim that this case defines marriage as between one man and one women, you also have to claim that it further states that the marriage needs to be in "Holy" matrimony. Wow, a lot of U.S. Citizens are gonna be in a shit load of trouble.

OK...let's try to take this a bit more slowly. It's not the "right" to get married we're necessarily talking about. It's the "rights" that come "with" getting married. But you fucking know this already. And instead of admitting what we both know to be true, you'd rather just act like an ass. So look, just drop this line of defense...because we both know it's stupid.But I'll play this game with you. We will ignore, for the time being, the whole aspect of love and spending the rest of your life with the one you do love, as opposed to marrying someone because they're the only one the Law allows you to marry.This social contract called marriage has numerous benefits to it. Your spouse is awarded certain rights that a non-spouse does not get. Health coverage is just one of many. Others include hospital visitations, inheritances, and important medical decisions. However, if you have no spouse, basically, your closest living relative may be awarded some of these rights...and this non-spousal relative may do things against the wishes of the "affected" individual despite this individual having a "partner" with whom they have shared a life for decades. The partner may be kicked out of their home. This partner may not be given items that a married spouse would be given without hesitation. The relative may make medical decisions that directly contradict what the two partners wanted. And all this occurs because homophobic bigots like yourself have a problem with two men or two women getting married to each other.So you see, Catholic Scientist, you are wrong. Homosexuals are indeed denied rights awarded to to those who get to marry whom the chose. It's quite simple really.The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states:
"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (bold mine)Does this help you see how homosexuals are being treated differently under the law? And some of those limitations are recent events designed solely to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Hence the problem...and hence the Constitutional violation. Bwa ha ha ha ha! Good One...Gads you're funny. Ha...another good one. Let's see...a bunch of homophobic Republicans passed a law but didn't come right out and say that they did it because they're homophobic Republicans, so therefore we can all safely conclude that they are not...cuz...well...you know...golly gee...they said they weren't. Spare me, Catholic Scientist.I mean, on the one side, you claim that DOMA was not passed to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex, and then on the other side you say that DOMA prevents members of the same sex from getting married. It would be rather funny if it didn't totally screw (pun intended) so many American citizens out of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to "Life, Liberty and Property" as well as "equal protection" under the law. To be honest, I again have a headache and really don't feel like going back and trying to find where this was implied and not just assumed. Was it the 1885 Bigamy case? The one that had absolutely nothing to do with defining marriage? I mean, for fucks sake, Catholic Scientist...it was from 1885. A lot has happened since then. Lots of definitions have changed. Can you find a more recent case? I supplied two that completely disagree with your premise. Yes...you supplied a single Supreme Court case that dealt with Bigamy, polygamy and how those affect voter registration and in that opinion, they used the sentence you supplied. So what, this is not 1885.And what about the whole "holy matrimony" aspect of your quote? Do you not agree that any marriage not preformed via some sort of religious service would, according to the definition you supplied, now have to be considered as null and void...as having never taken place...that the two people can no longer considered as legally married. Your Supreme Court case apparently does not apply as "simply" as you seem to think it does. Or are you going to only selectively interpret the meaning of the Opinion? Yeah...boy...you sure got me here with this one. I'm so completely full of crap. You're practically a God and pretty much have it down pat...well...except for that whole "Constitution" and that pesky, annoying, "14th Amendment" thing. But other than that...wow...you knocked it right out of the park...oh...and well... except for that whole "why DOMA was passed" thing. You know...how you stated it wasn't written to prevent two guys from getting married, but yet it was written to prevent two guys from getting married. But other than those two things...wow...watch out...you nailed it buddy...nailed it! Blah, blah, blah. Let's see...since I'm the one fighting for equal treatment of homosexuals and you're the one all freaked out about two guys getting married, I'll sleep just fine tonight knowing who is and who is not acting like a true bigot.Edited by FliesOnly, : To fix a couple of typos

Wow! I can't figure out if you're being serious, or attempting some sort of satirical post. I'm hoping for the latter, but leaning towards the former.

Your asking me to seriously believe that after over 270 posts, you had no idea what we're talking about when it comes to the "rights" of gays as they relate to marriage. All this crappola from you and Hoot Mon about how "they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want" and "I can't marry someone of the same sex either" wasn't your way of avoiding the obvious issue? Forgive me if I don't believe you. Does this not reek of circular reasoning to you? Where did these stupid fucking "Laws" come from Catholic Scientist? No need to answer CS, it's a rhetorical question because we both know the answer is that they are the result of homophobic bigots getting all fussy because they find the idea of two guys getting married icky. Or...and this makes it completely Unconstitutional...because of their religious beliefs.There were no laws against homosexual marriages until such time that States (and now the Feds) started writing and passing them. Not until DOMA (on the fed level) and other State laws were passed. How so? Honestly, how is it possible that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gay people. They are citizens of this Country...are they not. For the love of God CS...stop already with this pathetic, insulting, stupid, dumb-ass line of reasoning. Enough is enough. I mean, you just went though explaining to me that you had no idea what "rights" I was talking about...and that you were confused between what Granny was saying and what I was saying...and now you go right back to saying this same ole garbage. So I guess we all now know that your first paragraph is bullshit...and that you knew exactly what I was taking about the whole time. But you're the one creating this sub-group. You're the one that wants to deny a certain group of individuals their Constitutional rights. Not me...Catholic Scientist...you. You're the one that wants to come up with multiple definitions of a marriage so that each little group of people you dislike can have their own type of marriage with their own little set of special laws.Me...well...I just want everyone to be treated equally under the Law. Marriage didn't need to be re-defined until homophobic bigots decided to discriminate against homosexuals. That's just it though Catholic Scientist...there were no problems until homophobic bigots decided to define marriage in such a way as to discriminate against homosexuals. The Libs didn't fucking do anything CS...it was conservative homophobic bigots that changed the laws. Libs did nothing, except actually read and fucking understand the Constitution. Here we go with the "Libs" bullshit. Liberal judges making laws...liberal media won't leave "W" alone...Liberals twisting the Constitution.Piss off, Catholic Scientist. Either present some evidence of this vast liberal conspiracy bullshit, or save it for the gullible morons at your local homophobe meeting. This sorta crap doesn't fly here. I can only thank god that you were not one of the writers. What a completely dumb-ass argument, Catholic Scientist. Are you sure you want to use this line of reasoning? Do you not know anything, at all, whatsoever, about the framers of our Constitution and why they wrote it the way they did? Please oh please oh please, do tell, Catholic Scientist, please do tell us all what the original framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. This should be a hoot (not a Hoot Mon...just a "hoot").Look...the Constitution was written to be fluid, to be dynamic...not static, Catholic Scientist. It was purposefully written with broad terminology just so this very sort of thing wouldn't happen. The Rights and Amendments were purposefully broadly defined...to prevent the majority from ruling the minority. I'm really surprised you didn't know this.Believe me, Catholic Scientist, I am fully confident that the framers of our Constitution would be 100% on my side in this particular discussion. No doubt about it...none. No shit, Sherlock...that's the whole fucking problem. Bull and shit. Why else is this happening then, if not for the "new" laws and "new" definitions that deny homosexuals the same rights and protections that heterosexuals get? Explain to me how our Constitution doesn't apply to homosexuals.

You really need to learn what the word "bigot" means. It's like you're a little child that has heard the word "fuck" for the first time, and then goes around repeating it over and over and over at inappropriate times because he likes the way it sounds.

You keep saying that I am unwilling to respect your opinion...and I keep telling you that while I may vehemently disagree with your opinion, I do respect that you have one. Hell, I think it's wonderful that you and I can have differing opinions and that we have the right to express those opinions. Disagreeing is not bigotry.But there's something you conveniently keep forgetting about our "two" opinions. Your view point denies a certain group of people (based solely on their sexual orientation) some of the same protections and privileges that you get. That's what makes you a bigot. You want laws passed and definitions written (and/or re-written) that will result in homosexuals not getting the same Constitutional protections that you, as a heterosexual, get. That's why you are a bigot.How can I be a bigot when I do not want homosexuals to be treated any differently that I myself am treated? Ya know, simply calling me a bigot because I completely disagree with you does not, ipso facto, make me a bigot. If my actions somehow denied to others (you...since you claim I am bigoted against you) some of the rights, privileges, and protections afforded me, by our Constitution as a U.S. citizen , then I would be as you...a classic example of a bigot.

Yes... I am respectful of the fact that you can, and do, have a differing opinion than do I. Is that more clear for you?Respect:
"deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.I do not, however, respect your opinion. But...and here's the important part...I am not intolerant towards that opinion. You have every right to your opinion. I may have to tolerate it, but I sure as fuck do not have to agree or respect it. And doing neither of those does not make someone a bigot. Bigotry requires a level of intolerance or the word becomes meaningless. To disagree is not bigotry.Bigot:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."My opinion, as it relates to homosexuals, is one of tolerance and acceptance. Your opinion of homosexuals is one of intolerance and discrimination. See the difference? Are you doing anything to change the recent laws, or to over turn the new legislation(s) that discriminate towards homosexuals? I rather doubt it. Do you support, in any way, their cause as it relates to marriage. I rather doubt it. Hell, if anything, I get the impression from your writings that you like and agree with the new laws, definitions and legislation(s) because you do not want homosexuals to be treated equally when it comes to issues like marriage.So spare me the "how can my viewpoint deny someone their right" BS. Why do you insist on playing "dumb" like this? It's just like your "I can't marry someone of the same sex either" argument.

Do you even bother to fucking read anything that people post? Go back and look at the numerous postings that inform you about the legal ramifications of denying gays the right to marry the person they love. Hint...it's not necessarily about the "love"...it's about the benefits that spouses are awarded as a result of the civil union called "marriage". Read...Hoot Mon...read.And try reading for context. If you do these two things, you'll find that we have repeatedly addressed this stupid argument (as put forth by you and Catholic Scientist). And please note that we have addressed it, not with our "opinions"...but rather with the legal, and Unconstitutional ramifications of deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. Yeah...and then after that them uppity Negros are gonna wanna move into my neighborhood...and maybe even begin to think that they deserve a vote. Stupid Negros...why can't they just stay with their own "kind"?And I find it disturbing to know that you're paranoid about shit that hasn't even happened yet.

Read the next fucking sentence from my post and tell me what it says. Here, I'll even provide it for you: Christ Hoot Mon, apparently you are not reading.I mean, are you purposely being stupid? Yeah...cuz we all know that the Constitution applies only to non-homosexuals. Get it, Hoot Mon..it's a not a comparison of the plight of African Americans to homosexuals...it's about equal protection under the law, as per the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.So let me make this suggestion to you again. Go back and read all the post that address this stupid issue (comparing Blacks to homosexuals), as well as your stupid "but I can't marry someone of the same sex either" argument.Seriously, Hoot Mon, you should give reading a try, it's a pretty neat thing.

Because I knew you were going to bring up your ridiculous argument about how the Constitution doesn't guarantee us the "right" to marry someone we love...so I thought I'd use a preemptive strike. I see it failed. No...which is why so many of us see no reason to add all sorts of definitions for marriage either. Remember, until homophobes started making laws and/or amending State Constitutions, and until the homophobic republican party passed DOMA, there were no definitions of marriage that excluded homosexual marriage. You guys are the ones that want to add layers of definitions, not us. And I find it sadly hilarious that you have no apparent concept of our Constitution. We're not comparing the plight of Blacks in this Country with the plight of homosexuals. We're pointing out to you and yours that you are using the exact same argument to deny homosexual marriage as was once used to deny inter-racial marriages. Why is that so difficult for you to see? Been covered ad nauseum. Go back and READ the posts. And pay special attention to those sections that explain the whole concept of "separate but equal". Maybe you'd have a point...if only it weren't for that pesky Constitution thingie and all those decisions handed down by the Courts.

You're only further exposing your ignorance when you make claims such as this. Go learn a little biology. Homosexual behavior is most certainly NOT uncommon in the animal kingdom.

Photos of what...two bears giving each other blow jobs? None probably exist. So what? Seriously, Hoot Mon, does someone pay you to be a smart ass, or do you do it all on your own for free? If you want to stop being a smart ass, and want to learn a bit about how common homosexuality is in the animal kingdom...Google it. You'll find that by no means is your quote of ignorance even remotely accurate.

Duplicate postEdited by FliesOnly, : Duplicate post..sorry

No, Hoot Mon, I did not put forth a self contradictory statement. I am not comparing the plight of blacks and this Country to the plight of homosexuals.I'm going to go slowly here, so maybe you can keep up. What I (and others) are telling you is that you (and Catholic Scientist) are using the very same arguments to prevent homosexuals from marrying members of the same sex, as were once used by people to prevent blacks from marrying whites. I am not, nor have I ever, stated that homosexuals face the same problems in this society as blacks once did and often still do. I'm simply pointing out that your rather weak argument against homosexual marriage ("but golly gee, they can marry someone...just so long as that someone is a member of the opposite sex") has already been addressed by the Courts (via laws preventing inter-racial marriage) and has been determined to violate our Constitution. Man, you have some serious issues. I'll give you credit though...as far as I know you are the first person here to compare homosexuality to "tinkle listeners" Why do you hate homosexuals so much? As much as I hate to do this...I have to ask. How in the fuck will allowing gay marriage in any way affect the number of abortions in this Country?Man, the complete and utterly preposterous bull shit you come up with as a means of justifying your homophobic bigotry is nothing short of amazing.

Which is why in this Country we have the Constitution.