PDA

View Full Version : Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage


Pages : [1] 2

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 05:40 PM
And the discriminatory laws shall come tumbling down

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.


Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.


The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.


The opinion had been eagerly awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground.


Gay marriage supporters hailed the ruling as a historic development akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.


"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.


Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.


"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.


Last winter, nearly 4,000 gay couples got married after Newsom instructed the city to issue them licenses, in defiance of state law. The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void, saying the mayor overstepped his authority. But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage violates the California Constitution.


At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."


The state maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Lockyer also cited the state's domestic-partners law as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.


But Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision that struck down segregated schools.


"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal," the judge wrote.


It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if ever.


Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.


Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.


The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.





In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.

Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the city.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.

California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to do so by court order.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_11

Rausch
03-14-2005, 05:50 PM
I've got a feeling the Govern-ator is going to avoid this issue like the plague, leaving it in limbo and litigation for years...

SBK
03-14-2005, 05:55 PM
Judge says that will of the people doesn't matter. Good thing he makes the law from his bench.........

Detoxing
03-14-2005, 05:59 PM
i dont understand what the big deal is about this? if they are gay and wanna get married, let em get married? who is it hurting?

Detoxing
03-14-2005, 06:00 PM
[ let em get married? who is it hurting?[/QUOTE]
errr...let em get married. no ?

beavis
03-14-2005, 06:00 PM
i dont understand what the big deal is about this? if they are gay and wanna get married, let em get married? who is it hurting?
Everyone.

jspchief
03-14-2005, 08:58 PM
Judge says that will of the people doesn't matter. Good thing he makes the law from his bench.........

That door swings both ways. Currently gay marriage is not against the law in California, so the California Supreme Court that initially put a stop to gay marriage was "making law from the bench" just as much (actually more so) than this judge.

That's why states are scrambling to pass these bans into law.

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 09:01 PM
That door swings both ways. Currently gay marriage is not against the law in California, so the California Supreme Court that initially put a stop to gay marriage was "making law from the bench" just as much (actually more so) than this judge.

That's why states are scrambling to pass these bans into law.
This post has to much common sense. jsp should be banned right now.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 09:23 PM
And the discriminatory laws shall come tumbling down

You realize he just hurt your cause...right?

jspchief
03-14-2005, 09:26 PM
You realize he just hurt your cause...right?

How?

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 09:33 PM
You realize he just hurt your cause...right?
Is the Michigan case set around the idea that it is a right when this one seemed to conceed it wasn't? :hmmm:

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 09:33 PM
How?

Judicial activism angers Conservatives and the Evangelical Christians.

They’ll now drive even harder to put this on the ballot in November.

They’ll probably win.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 09:36 PM
People who use terms like "Judicial Activism" are scary individuals. It's as if they don't understand how the system works at all.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 09:37 PM
Judicial activism angers Conservatives and the Evangelical Christians.

They’ll now drive even harder to put this on the ballot in November.

They’ll probably win.

The fact that the measures pass in every state I'm sure doesn't help.

alanm
03-14-2005, 09:39 PM
Civil Unions in front of a judge..ok Marriage in a Church... No And if that's the case then it opens the door for the whole polygomy-sp thing. Who's to say it's illegal to have more than one wife. Marry your sister ect. ect. ect. That's discriminatory. Another thing.. This was voted down by the people of California. You can't have Judges intrepret the law as THEY see fit. Or they need to start having Judges on term limits. Or as it looks like these days Judges have become a hunted species and someone could save the State of Kalifornia a whole lot of time and trouble and take him out. God forbid, but it could happen. :shake:

Taco John
03-14-2005, 09:44 PM
Civil Unions in front of a judge..ok Marriage in a Church... No And if that's the case then it opens the door for the whole polygomy-sp thing. Who's to say it's illegal to have more than one wife. Marry your sister ect. ect. ect. That's discriminatory. Another thing.. This was voted down by the people of California. You can't have Judges intrepret the law as THEY see fit. Or they need to start having Judges on term limits. Or as it looks like these days Judges have become a hunted species and someone could save the State of Kalifornia a whole lot of time and trouble and take him out. God forbid, but it could happen. :shake:



http://www.pourtoi.net/gifs/looney-tunes/looney-tunes-013.gif

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 09:46 PM
People who use terms like "Judicial Activism" are scary individuals. It's as if they don't understand how the system works at all.

I use that term all the time and I understand it quite well.

But you are right to be afraid.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 09:53 PM
I use that term all the time and I understand it quite well.

But you are right to be afraid.


Well based on this comment, it's clear you at least know 50% of it:


Judicial activism angers Conservatives and the Evangelical Christians.

They’ll now drive even harder to put this on the ballot in November.

They’ll probably win.



I'm damned right to be afraid. People like you who don't understand the Constitution want to crack it open and tinker. Scary.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 09:54 PM
I'm damned right to be afraid. People like you who don't understand the Constitution want to crack it open and tinker. Scary.

What makes you think I don't understand the Consitution?

Taco John
03-14-2005, 09:56 PM
The fact that you didn't follow that thought through past the ballot measure.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 10:01 PM
The fact that you didn't follow that thought through past the ballot measure.

:spock:

Ballot measures are unconstitutional?

Taco John
03-14-2005, 10:08 PM
Terrified.

patteeu
03-14-2005, 10:10 PM
People who use terms like "Judicial Activism" are scary individuals. It's as if they don't understand how the system works at all.


Are the Libertarians in favor of a maleable Constitution these days? Jeez, I leave the fold for a few months and the whole party goes to hell.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 10:16 PM
Are the Libertarians in favor of a maleable Constitution these days? Jeez, I leave the fold for a few months and the whole party goes to hell.



No idea what you're talking about. Where did I advocate a maleable Constitution?

patteeu
03-14-2005, 10:18 PM
I assume the judges I appoint will recognize that the Roe v. Wade decision was an example of judicial activism at its worst. I expect the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling someday, so that the federal government no longer will set all the rules. - Harry Browne, Libertarian Candidate for POTUS, 1996 & 2000

That Harry Browne guy sure is scary.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 10:18 PM
Are the Libertarians in favor of a maleable Constitution these days? Jeez, I leave the fold for a few months and the whole party goes to hell.


ROFL

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 10:18 PM
That Harry Browne guy sure is scary.

Uh-oh.

patteeu
03-14-2005, 10:23 PM
No idea what you're talking about. Where did I advocate a maleable Constitution?

In the context of this thread, judicial activism = maleable constitution. In another context, it could also be associated with the concept of a maleable statute.

You criticized the use of the term "judicial activism." I jumped to the conclusion that you have no problem with a maleable constitution. You can correct me if I've drawn an unfair inference.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 10:53 PM
"judicial activism" != maleable constitution

"Judicial Activism" is a knee jerk term for whatever ruling comes down that a group of individuals do not like.

I never voted for Harry Browne. I did vote for this guy. (http://badnarik.org/plans_gayrights.php)

beavis
03-14-2005, 11:00 PM
"judicial activism" != maleable constitution

"Judicial Activism" is a knee jerk term for whatever ruling comes down that a group of individuals do not like.

I never voted for Harry Browne. I did vote for this guy. (http://badnarik.org/plans_gayrights.php)
Nice to see you know the party line.

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 11:04 PM
Nice to see you know the party line.
Maybe you should join the support group of heterosexuals around here whose lives are somehow being changed by consenting adults spending their lives together.

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 11:09 PM
Now this is interesting...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/14/state/n162642S50.DTL

Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee

Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally Monday in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer — a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of gay marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that. "The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

Kramer had made a name for himself in the legal world in 1992, when he successfully defended Bank of America in a class-action lawsuit in which the bank was accused of illegally freezing credit-card interest rates around 20 percent between 1982 and 1986. First Interstate and Wells Fargo, also plaintiffs in that case, had settled for a combined $55 million, but Kramer the lawyer took the case to trial and prevailed.

Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Judge Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh, whose plaintiffs sued Imperial Premium Finance. The Sherman Oaks insurer agreed to provide 30,000 customers with $35 coupons to be used to pay their premiums after Kramer ruled the company was illegally holding onto customer refunds.

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."

The case is Marriage Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, 4364.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:14 PM
Now this is interesting...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/14/state/n162642S50.DTL

Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee




ROFL

I'm sure nobody here thinks that they have egg on their face arguing against this "activist" judge.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:15 PM
ROFL

I'm sure nobody here thinks that they have egg on their face arguing against this "activist" judge.

How so?

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:17 PM
From the story:

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."



I would ask him, if I could, "When do you think it is (if ever) appropriate for a judge to overturn the will of the people?"

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:19 PM
Nice to see you know the party line.



Absolutely, I know the Libertarian party line.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:20 PM
How so?



Nailed it.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:20 PM
Absolutely, I know the Libertarian party line.


Irrelevance?

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:21 PM
Nailed it.

Nailed what?

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 11:26 PM
MM and TJ never ever talk in a linear fashion.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:38 PM
MM and TJ never ever talk in a linear fashion.

I'm succinct, TJ just rips me off.

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 11:40 PM
Judicial activism angers Conservatives and the Evangelical Christians.

They’ll now drive even harder to put this on the ballot in November.

They’ll probably win.


They don't have the power to get a federal amendment passed and this will all come down to the US Supreme Court...bet your panties on that

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 11:51 PM
I'm succinct, TJ just rips me off.
I don't know bud...you usually just throw around one line blurbs like you graduated from the stevieray school of posting.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:51 PM
They don't have the power to get a federal amendment passed and this will all come down to the US Supreme Court...bet your panties on that


How did you know I was wearing panties?

;)

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:51 PM
I'm succinct, TJ just rips me off.



Translation: "I'm too much of a coward to say anything that would put me on the defensive. TJ knows it too."

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 11:53 PM
How did you know I was wearing panties?

;)
http://oraculo.blog.pt/media/1/img00019.jpg

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:54 PM
I don't know bud...you usually just throw around one line blurbs like you graduated from the stevieray school of posting.

Listen!

We ain't partners, we ain't [buds], and we ain't friends. I'm putting you down and keeping you till Ganz is locked up or dead. If Ganz gets away you'll be sorry you ever met me.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:55 PM
http://oraculo.blog.pt/media/1/img00019.jpg

I should have shot that damn bird.

DenverChief
03-14-2005, 11:56 PM
I should have shot that damn bird.
:LOL:

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 11:58 PM
Translation: "I'm too much of a coward to say anything that would put me on the defensive. TJ knows it too."

Coward?

You'll never beat me in a debate.

But don't be ashamed, better men than you have tried.

patteeu
03-15-2005, 12:13 AM
"judicial activism" != maleable constitution

Then you don't understand the phrase.

"Judicial Activism" is a knee jerk term for whatever ruling comes down that a group of individuals do not like.

Like I said...

I never voted for Harry Browne. I did vote for this guy. (http://badnarik.org/plans_gayrights.php)

LOL, I didn't say you voted for Browne. I said the Libertarian Party must have really gone downhill since I left the fold if they've embraced the concept of a maleable Constitution. I abandoned the Libertarians during the 2004 election cycle so the contrast between Harry Browne and a Libertarian noob like yourself is on point.

patteeu
03-15-2005, 12:15 AM
ROFL

I'm sure nobody here thinks that they have egg on their face arguing against this "activist" judge.

You are embarassing yourself.

Taco John
03-15-2005, 12:15 AM
Coward?

You'll never beat me in a debate.

But don't be ashamed, better men than you have tried.



Why did you just plagerize BabyLee?

patteeu
03-15-2005, 12:17 AM
They don't have the power to get a federal amendment passed and this will all come down to the US Supreme Court...bet your panties on that

How do you think this will impact the debate about confirming Bush judges and justices?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:17 AM
Then you don't understand the phrase.



.


But you were for a maleble constitution in Brown V Board no?

keg in kc
03-15-2005, 12:18 AM
You'll never beat me in a debate.< obligatory "master debater" quip >

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:19 AM
How do you think this will impact the debate about confirming Bush judges and justices?

It will bring the issue to the front no doubt....but Rhenquist is the only one going out for now....no harm done to a moderate court that ruled 6-3 in Romer and Lawrence

Taco John
03-15-2005, 12:20 AM
Then you don't understand the phrase.


I understand the phrase. I reject it's premise. When people whine "Activist Judges," usually they are just crying in their beer that a judge interpreted the law differently than they wished he would.


LOL, I didn't say you voted for Browne. I said the Libertarian Party must have really gone downhill since I left the fold if they've embraced the concept of a maleable Constitution.

I still don't know why you've got the impression that they do. I think you're making leaps in logic that don't really connect.

But I'll give you the opportunity to connect. Please share what specific aspect of this judgement interprets the constitution in a maleable way.

patteeu
03-15-2005, 12:22 AM
But you were for a maleble constitution in Brown V Board no?

No. I'm not in favor of a maleable constitution even if it leads to decisions I don't like. I'm in favor of changing the constitution via the amendment process or not at all. My mistake in our Brown v. Board of Education discussion was a different one. I don't recall what it was at the moment, but I remember you turning me around on something.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:24 AM
No. I'm not in favor of a maleable constitution even if it leads to decisions I don't like. I'm in favor of changing the constitution via the amendment process or not at all. My mistake in our Brown v. Board of Education discussion was a different one. I don't recall what it was at the moment, but I remember you turning me around on something.


it was that equality was already there it was just never interpreted that way until Brown :) so another amendment would be redundant and eventually make our constitution bulky and unmanageable

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 12:32 AM
Why did you just plagerize BabyLee?

I didn't realize I had "plagiarized" BL. Link?

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 12:34 AM
< obligatory "master debater" quip >

I set him up, he just couldn't deliver. BTW--WTF are you doing here on the dark side?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:35 AM
I set him up, he just couldn't deliver. BTW--WTF are you doing here on the dark side?

Excuse me sir, but, seeing as the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we put the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC, he could end up MIA and then we'd all be put on KP.

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 12:36 AM
Excuse me sir, but, seeing as the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we put the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC, he could end up MIA and then we'd all be put on KP.

Okay, okay--I'll take the panties off. Commando is more comfortable.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:37 AM
Okay, okay--I'll take the panties off. Commando is more comfortable.
ROFL

Ari Chi3fs
03-15-2005, 02:12 AM
I say lets have all the gays move to California, just in time for San Andreas' big party.

Ari Chi3fs
03-15-2005, 02:14 AM
look into the ass...

http://tabo.aurealsys.com/pub/keyra/keyra_agustina_16_005.jpg

dont be a fag.

|Zach|
03-15-2005, 02:19 AM
I should prob put some half naked chicks in my sig...don't wanna look like a homo on the board or anything. :rolleyes: ROFL

Ari Chi3fs
03-15-2005, 02:31 AM
I should prob put some half naked chicks in my sig...don't wanna look like a homo on the board or anything. :rolleyes: ROFL

yeah, people are starting to whisper behind your back...

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 06:42 AM
Gosh, one liberal activist judge from San Francisco struck down an "anti-gay" law....WHO would have thunk it???

In fairness, I shold be able to get to pick an Orange County judge to look at the case....heh. :)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 06:49 AM
People who use terms like "Judicial Activism" are scary individuals. It's as if they don't understand how the system works at all.

And apparently you don't understand the difference between strict constuctionist judicial philosophy, and loose constructionist judicial philosophy....which are historically recognized and reasonable disagreements as to the proper role of the courts. The Constitution's (and even common law's) position on the issue is anything but clear.

Why is it, anyone who DARES to disagree with you is either a "far right wing wacko, a scary individual, or homophobic people who are using a "straw man" argument"....what utter and complete baloney. :shake:

Dude, reasonable people can disagree...I accept that you do; why must you be so intolerent and demeaning toward others who are equally heartfelt in their disagreement with you. Seriously, why is that so difficult for you?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:34 AM
Gosh, one liberal activist judge from San Francisco struck down an "anti-gay" law....WHO would have thunk it???

In fairness, I shold be able to get to pick an Orange County judge to look at the case....heh. :)


ROFL ROFL Ignorance is Bliss!

Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee

Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally Monday in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer — a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of gay marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that. "The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

Kramer had made a name for himself in the legal world in 1992, when he successfully defended Bank of America in a class-action lawsuit in which the bank was accused of illegally freezing credit-card interest rates around 20 percent between 1982 and 1986. First Interstate and Wells Fargo, also plaintiffs in that case, had settled for a combined $55 million, but Kramer the lawyer took the case to trial and prevailed.

Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Judge Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh, whose plaintiffs sued Imperial Premium Finance. The Sherman Oaks insurer agreed to provide 30,000 customers with $35 coupons to be used to pay their premiums after Kramer ruled the company was illegally holding onto customer refunds.

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."

The case is Marriage Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, 4364.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/14/state/n162642S50.DTL

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 07:36 AM
ROFL ROFL Ignorance is Bliss!

Dude that article suggests NOTHING about his political ideology. A Republican Catholic in San Fran, would be a Communist/Anarchist anywhere else in the country...everything is relative. :)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:38 AM
my arguments are utter and complete baloney.


I fixed your post for ya ;)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:39 AM
Dude that article suggests NOTHING about his political ideology. A Republican Catholic in San Fran, would be a Communist/Anarchist anywhere else in the country...everything is relative. :)
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL but but but but...... ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 07:39 AM
I fixed your post for ya ;)

I noticed you ignored the substance of my post; if you are going to comment....wouldn't it be fair for you to address the substance? :)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 07:41 AM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL but but but but...... ROFL

Deflect, Divert, Ignore, and Deny....may work with some on a discussion board, but not likely in the Supreme Court. I like my chances there...heh.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:44 AM
historically recognized and reasonable disagreements as to the proper role of the courts. The Constitution's (and even common law's) position on the issue is anything but clear.




This argument is so absurd it is ridiculous...okay strict constructional views of the constitution don't give us a right to privacy......strict constructionalist views want amendments for every little thing we read into the constitution. That is exactly what the framers DID NOT want...they want the constitution to be ambigious so that it could strech to cover things they couldn't dream of.....as for the role of the courts it is clear as day it is thier job to interpret the meaning of the constitution....I find it ironic you will debate me all day on this topic and yet still not provide any evidence that homosexuals are greater sexual predators than heterosexuals becasue "we have gone over this before"

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:46 AM
Deflect, Divert, Ignore, and Deny....may work with some on a discussion board, but not likely in the Supreme Court. I like my chances there...heh.


6-3 baby...and speaking of deflection "I have my sources and you have yours"--"I have argued this too many times to argue anymore" well show me your sources then I showed you mine and Why are you arguing here then if you know the position? I think you have no sources (RE:homos have higer sexual predator rates than heteros)...prove me wrong...it's only fair.....

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 07:48 AM
...they want the constitution to be ambigious so that it could strech to cover things they couldn't dream of.....

A living, breathing document?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:50 AM
A living, breathing document?


absolutly...and if you disagree ....like I pointed out to Patteau, Equality was always there it was just not interpreted that way until the 1950's in Brown v Board.....imagine how cumbersome the Constitution would be if it were 50 amendments ....

|Zach|
03-15-2005, 07:50 AM
Dude that article suggests NOTHING about his political ideology. A Republican Catholic in San Fran, would be a Communist/Anarchist anywhere else in the country...everything is relative. :)
Rob, even for you this one is a stretch.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 07:53 AM
Rob, even for you this one is a stretch.

My wife has a childhood friend, who is Catholic and Republic....she lives in San Francisco (or a suburb.) She is as liberal as anyone I've ever met....is also gay, BTW. I'm dead serious.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:55 AM
My wife has a childhood friend, who is Catholic and Republic....she lives in San Francisco (or a suburb.) She is as liberal as anyone I've ever met....is also gay, BTW. I'm dead serious.

I have this girlfriend,she lives in another state.....my uncles wife who lives in nebraska one time told me that her friend was really hot....I'm dead serious

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 07:55 AM
absolutly...and if you disagree ....like I pointed out to Patteau, Equality was always there it was just not interpreted that way until the 1950's in Brown v Board.....imagine how cumbersome the Constitution would be if it were 50 amendments ....

You've already lost the argument in the arena.

Your "movement" was on the right track, now it's getting derailed by these activist judges.

They are stealing time right away from you.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:57 AM
You've already lost the argument in the arena.

Your "movement" was on the right track, now it's getting derailed by these activist judges.

They are stealing time right away from you.


so interracial marriages were derailed by activst judges? maybe court ordered desegregation was derailed too? I disagree Regis :)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 07:58 AM
I have this girlfriend,she lives in another state.....my uncles wife who lives in nebraska one time told me that her friend was really hot....I'm dead serious

The difference is my example bears directly on the allegation I made; yours only continues your deny/divert/ignore strategy. :)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 07:59 AM
The difference is my example bears directly on the allegation I made; yours only continues your deny/divert/ignore strategy. :)


It's second hand :BS: knowledge who give fack what kinda political stance she has...is she a Judge? is her name Richard Kramer? then STFU

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:00 AM
so interracial marriages were derailed by activst judges? maybe court ordered desegregation was derailed too? I disagree Regis :)

Apples and oranges; a genetic condition versus behavior/lifestyle choice. Gays don't have (nor will they get) the suspect classification status they need....to make that argument.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:01 AM
Apples and oranges; a genetic condition versus behavior/lifestyle choice. Gays don't have (nor will they get) the suspect classification status they need....to make that argument.


it doesn't matter....it is still discrimination...speaking of deflection where are my statistics you promised me or are you avoiding?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:02 AM
absolutly...and if you disagree ....like I pointed out to Patteau, Equality was always there it was just not interpreted that way until the 1950's in Brown v Board.....imagine how cumbersome the Constitution would be if it were 50 amendments ....

Many of us would prefer 50 amendments; 100 if necessary...so long as it would leave the authority to make such changes where is rightly belongs--in the hands of representatives who've been elected by the people (and not lifetime judges who have no real way of being held accountable for usurping legislative authority.)

I'll have to check back later; actually have work to do...

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:04 AM
it doesn't matter....it is still discrimination...speaking of deflection where are my statistics you promised me or are you avoiding?

Basis for discrimination, does matter....ask the Supreme Court. :)

Please remind me, what you are referring too.....we've had numerous discussions....I'm not recalling what you are talking about....sorry.

Mark M
03-15-2005, 08:04 AM
Your "movement" was on the right track, now it's getting derailed by these activist judges.


Ahhh ... there it is. The term "activist judge."

The label applied to any judge who rules in favor of something with which conservatives disagree.

MM
~~;)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:05 AM
(and not lifetime judges who have no real way of being held accountable for usurping legislative authority.)


ROFL the legislature can remove (impeach) a judge and depending on what judge they can be recalled or not re-elceted

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:16 AM
ROFL the legislature can remove (impeach) a judge and depending on what judge they can be recalled or not re-elceted

And you and I both KNOW the legal standard that is required for impeachment; it's precisely WHY more states are moving to ELECT these officials....to restore some sort of accountability. Personally, FEDERAL judges ought to be elected too--issues like this may bring about THAT amendment too.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:16 AM
Basis for discrimination, does matter....ask the Supreme Court. :)

Please remind me, what you are referring too.....we've had numerous discussions....I'm not recalling what you are talking about....sorry.


I already did :)

The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.
......

In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous. By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.
........

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. "'Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. "The guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'"

A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Even laws enacted for broad and ambitious purposes often can be explained by reference to legitimate public policies which justify the incidental disadvantages they impose on certain persons


Romer v Evans


yesterdays ruling

"One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married," he wrote. "Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found."

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:18 AM
And you and I both KNOW the legal standard that is required for impeachment; it's precisely WHY more states are moving to ELECT these officials....to restore some sort of accountability.


ROFL Judges in this state regardless of elected or appointed always come up for retention votes...save the state supreme court...I belive you should familiarize yourself with "the missouri plan"

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:20 AM
statistics regarding homosexuals have a higher incidence of being sexual predators on children than do heterosexuals

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:24 AM
I already did :)


Romer v Evans


yesterdays ruling

The Romer decision also stated it was not making a ruling on the status of same sex relationships....I've offered THAT to you before, as well. This is from the majority opinion....

"[this decision does not] involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."....

If the majority is, in effect saying, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions"

:)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:27 AM
ROFL Judges in this state regardless of elected or appointed always come up for retention votes...save the state supreme court...I belive you should familiarize yourself with "the missouri plan"

And they RUN against no one.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:28 AM
The Romer decision also stated it was not making a ruling on the status of same sex relationships....I've offered THAT to you before, as well. This is from the majority opinion....



If the majority is, in effect saying, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions"

:)


It doesn't have to...the point is you can't discriminate just to discriminate...becasue you don't like someone....there is no legitimate govermental interest....which means laws cannot be created to deny blue eyed people from getting married (even though eye color is not a suspect class) just as law cannot be made denying same sex couples frome asking the GOVERNMENT to recognize thier relationship

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:29 AM
And they RUN against no one.


and who's fault is that? if you want a judge out of office run against him or support someone who can....next!

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:31 AM
....there is no legitimate govermental interest....

THAT, on this issue, remains to be determined; it was ONLY the specific Colorado law that was being examined in that case--it was NOT 'gay marriage.' The court has yet to rule, and you know it.

You are reading way too much into the Romer decision.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:32 AM
and who's fault is that? if you want a judge out of office run against him or support someone who can....next!

It's a "retention" vote; it's NOT an election...in the sense we elect political figures.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:33 AM
it was ONLY the specific Colorado law that was being examined in that case


No it wasn't it was in light of the 14th amendment silly

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:34 AM
It's a "retention" vote; it's NOT an election...in the sense we elect political figures.
and if they are not retained another is either appointed by the governor or a new election is held ...

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 08:35 AM
Ahhh ... there it is. The term "activist judge."

The label applied to any judge who rules in favor of something with which conservatives disagree.

MM
~~;)

Aren't you supposed to be working?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:36 AM
No it wasn't it was in light of the 14th amendment silly

It was their application of the Fourteenth to the SPECIFIC case in question....of course you already know that, and are merely wishing your position was true.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:36 AM
I already did :)


Romer v Evans





From Romer

By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz --STEVENS, J., concurring(in Fritz)"If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect.".

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:37 AM
From Romer

By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. See United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz --STEVENS, J., concurring(in Fritz)"If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect.".


this goes back farther than Romer

"`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)).

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 08:38 AM
so interracial marriages were derailed by activst judges? maybe court ordered desegregation was derailed too? I disagree Regis :)

Equating race with homosexuality isn't really helping your cause either.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:40 AM
It was their application of the Fourteenth to the SPECIFIC case in question....of course you already know that, and are merely wishing your position was true.
"`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)).

"[d]iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision." Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37-38 (1928

United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 181 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect.").

"[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973)

a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U.S. 450, 462 (1988)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:42 AM
Equating race with homosexuality isn't really helping your cause either.


I wasn't equating race...but nice try...I was saying that publically unpopular decsions by courts hardly derail a cause...

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 08:46 AM
I wasn't equating race...but nice try...I was saying that publically unpopular decsions by courts hardly derail a cause...

I'm not "trying" anything. Just pointing out the perception.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:47 AM
statistics regarding homosexuals have a higher incidence of being sexual predators on children than do heterosexuals

What's the point? Seriously. :rolleyes:

If you are REALLY that interested, there are THOUSANDS of articles and sites that make the case....Google Search: Rates of Pedophiles Homosexual Heterosexual.

Whomever I cite, you will dispute their credibility; I'd do likewise with YOUR "sources." There is, once again, 'research' to support your position, and other 'research' to support mine. We each will choose to believe whichever side we find most supportive of our preconcieved notions.... :shrug:

Why wasn't this in the more "MAINSTREAM" press more prominently; YOU know why.....as do I. It goes against THEIR position on the issue.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture.

THIS was the first hit....I haven't looked at it closely; suffice it to say, it represents other studies I've looked at. No one wants to be harsh; no one wants to hear this....it is disturbing. SO the press refuses to hightlight it.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 29, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit."

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience."

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals. Both he and Reisman found that media coverage of adult homosexual abuse of minors is also slanted.

"The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual," Reisman wrote.

That one fact is especially noteworthy, experts point out, given the recent child sex scandals taking place within the American Catholic church.

A survey by WorldNetDaily of recent news reports found that rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as "homosexual" or "gay" activity – even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world.

Gay press promotes sex with children

Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."

"The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality," Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:


The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."

In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."

Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."

In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.

Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
Homosexuality 'youth-oriented'?

"Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth-oriented culture," Baldwin wrote. "Very few gays exhibit preference for older men."

"Some admit to focus on teenage boys," he said, "some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories."

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.

When asked what he thought about critics who attempt to debunk his research, Baldwin said the results speak for themselves.

"For them to say this theory is false is to call many of the homosexual movement's leaders liars," he said. "Most of my evidence comes right from the gay community."

"I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis – child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement – is a valid thesis," Baldwin told WorldNetDaily.

Other experts have also found a distinct pattern between child sex abusers and the incidence of homosexuality.

"How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition? And there's a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?" writes Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, on behalf of NARTH – the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality – a group that says it exists to "provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue."

The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is "a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love," Baldwin said in his report.

The group is often endorsed by "many of the homosexual movement's most prominent leaders," he said.

Advocacy moving to schools

Promotion of the "gay and lesbian lifestyle" is increasing in the nation's public schools.

A WND survey of homosexual-oriented websites found that almost every group has some sort of program to "educate" teachers, school administrators and other school employees about the homosexual lifestyle:


GLSEN – the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network – bills itself as "the largest national network of parents, students, educators and others" specifically formed to end "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools. Two recent press released boasted of the Broward County (Fla.) school board approving GLSEN-sponsored "training for teachers."

A student activist working with GLSEN officials has managed to "give voice" recently to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students" at California schools;

PFLAG has created a national campaign called, "From Our House to the Schoolhouse," distributing to school officials – among other materials – a booklet entitled, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer For Principals, Educators, & School Personnel. [Editor's note: Readers need the Adobe PDF reader to open and read this file.]
Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children.

"What … does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."

Related story:

Pedophile lawsuit goes class action?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon E. Dougherty is the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:48 AM
I'm not "trying" anything. Just pointing out the perception.


well stop it you perciving all wrong.....I could have said pro choice decsions or desions on juvenile death sentences....would you think i was equating gay marriage to juvenile murders?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:52 AM
"`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)).

"[d]iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision." Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 37-38 (1928

United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 181 (1980) (STEVENS, J., concurring) ("If the adverse impact on the disfavored class is an apparent aim of the legislature, its impartiality would be suspect.").

"[I]f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973)

a law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U.S. 450, 462 (1988)

I'm sure your side will quote those cases, and similar cases to support their side.

If you are delusional enough to think the other side will NOT be able to cite cases supporting their position....you are really naive.

The COURT will decide the issue, as it specifically relates to "gay marriage"....other case law, from both sides will have to be weighed.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:52 AM
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false
ROFL ROFL Your article falls apart there

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:54 AM
ROFL ROFL Your article falls apart there

Of Course, as would just about ANY article YOU would cite.... ROFL

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:56 AM
If you are delusional enough to think the other side will NOT be able to cite cases supporting their position....you are really naive.




Their main argument

"Simply put, same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before," the judge said ruling on the case brought by Newsom and 12-same sex couples.


The judge also rejected the argument by California officials that authorities had a traditional interest in precluding same-sex marriages and that marriage was somehow linked to heterosexual procreation.


"Under our present opposite-sex only law, marriage is available to heterosexual couples regardless of whether they can or want to procreate.


"On this point, the advocates of opposite-sex only marriage have failed to opposite any explanation whatsoever for such disparate treatment..," the judge said in his 27 page ruling

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 08:56 AM
well stop it you perciving all wrong.....I could have said pro choice decsions or desions on juvenile death sentences....would you think i was equating gay marriage to juvenile murders?

Of course not. Here's the Reader's Digest version of how I view this.

The "gay movement" was doing rather well, tolerance was up, people were beginning to see gay people and gay couples as "normal" (for lack of a better word)

The Mass. court stepped in and forced their views on a public that wasn't ready to go that far...yet.

That idiot mayor wanted his 15 minutes and really fanned the flames.

Or would it be flamers? (sorry--couldn't resist)

Now the issue is dominating and not the everyday gay people.

That makes it very tough for your side.

The US Constitution is not alive. It's a legal document.

The American people are alive and through the legislative process have the ability to make the changes you desire.

Go back to concentrating on changing the minds of people and you will have success.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 08:58 AM
Of Course, as would just about ANY article YOU would cite.... ROFL


Yeah cause the FBI is a buncha GAY LOVERS I tell ya...they love those homos so mush they would SKEW CRIME STATISTICS......talk about pathetic...where is your tin foil hat?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:59 AM
DC,

This should be a red flag to any fair minded individual...

"What … does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation. [yet are only 3-4% (really) of the population

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."


:shrug:

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:00 AM
Go back to concentrating on changing the minds of people and you will have success.


I already have...several people on here have confided in me that they have changed thier position from opposed to same sex marriage to in support of.....I have yet to hear anyone change in the other direction...maybe you have?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:01 AM
According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false


LINK, please? :shrug:

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:02 AM
1985
:shrug: got anything more recent? like less than 20 years ago?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:02 AM
LINK, please? :shrug:


its in your article


www.fbi.gov

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:03 AM
...I have yet to hear anyone change in the other direction...maybe you have?

"Several" as you say. :)

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 09:06 AM
I already have...several people on here have confided in me that they have changed thier position from opposed to same sex marriage to in support of.....I have yet to hear anyone change in the other direction...maybe you have?

I don't think anyone will ever "switch teams."

But you are still far short of your goal.

Eleven states voted to amend their state Consitutions in the last election to define marriage.

More to come, including California.

That's becuse of four black-robed tyrants in Massachusetts and a geeky looking mayor.

They scewed you.

So to speak.

;)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:09 AM
Their main argument

"Simply put, same sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before," the judge said ruling on the case brought by Newsom and 12-same sex couples.


The judge also rejected the argument by California officials that authorities had a traditional interest in precluding same-sex marriages and that marriage was somehow linked to heterosexual procreation.


"Under our present opposite-sex only law, marriage is available to heterosexual couples regardless of whether they can or want to procreate.


"On this point, the advocates of opposite-sex only marriage have failed to opposite any explanation whatsoever for such disparate treatment..," the judge said in his 27 page ruling

Romer, or the OTHER SC decisions...dude. Not this ONE wierd judge. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:12 AM
its in your article


www.fbi.gov

Dude, I'm asking for the SPECIFIC place where the FBI "says" this....we need context, dude. Context.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:15 AM
I don't think anyone will ever "switch teams."

But you are still far short of your goal.

Eleven states voted to amend their state Consitutions in the last election to define marriage.

More to come, including California.

That's becuse of four black-robed tyrants in Massachusetts and a geeky looking mayor.

They scewed you.

So to speak.

;)
and all will come crashing down becasue of 19 states that hold a majority democratic legislature....that breaks the 2/3's deal with a federal amendment...assuming it could get out of the federal legislature in the first place...so when the SC rules them unconstitutional it will all have been one big legal waste of timeand money....money spent on same sex marraige court cases that could have been spent on convicting the next murderer or rapist...that should be what is curling your nails hun not 2 dudes holding hands

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:16 AM
:shrug: got anything more recent? like less than 20 years ago?

The article is 2002....what are you talking about?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:16 AM
Dude, I'm asking for the SPECIFIC place where the FBI "says" this....we need context, dude. Context.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:17 AM
The article is 2002....what are you talking about?


the study it cites is 20 years old

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:17 AM
and all will come crashing down becasue of 19 states that hold a majority democratic legislature....

If your case hinges on that, YOU are in trouble....big time.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:18 AM
the study it cites is 20 years old

ONE of the studies it refers to....many have since replicated it, as is discussed.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:18 AM
If your case hinges on that, YOU are in trouble....big time.


no it hinges on the fact it will never make it out of the legislature...too many republicans are against a federal amendment...but if it does happen to make it out then you still gotta get 35 states to ratify it

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:19 AM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

I could find the statement NOWHERE on that link....did you?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:20 AM
ONE of the studies it refers to....many have since replicated it, as is discussed.


how do you replicate a study on sexual behavior anyway? I mean do they stick potential molesters in a room with a kid? or do they just study crime statistics? in which case why did they not consult the fbi?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 09:20 AM
no it hinges on the fact it will never make it out of the legislature...too many republicans are against a federal amendment...but if it does happen to make it out then you still gotta get 35 states to ratify it

If Democrats wish to be re-elected, some of them will also change sides. :)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:27 AM
I could find the statement NOWHERE on that link....did you?



its called the Uniform Crime Report...lots of statistics.....gotta have time to pour through them :)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:29 AM
If Democrats wish to be re-elected, some of them will also change sides. :)


Thats what they said in mass and most that were in favor of amending the state constitution lost thier seats

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 09:32 AM
and all will come crashing down becasue of 19 states that hold a majority democratic legislature....that breaks the 2/3's deal with a federal amendment...assuming it could get out of the federal legislature in the first place...so when the SC rules them unconstitutional it will all have been one big legal waste of timeand money....money spent on same sex marraige court cases that could have been spent on convicting the next murderer or rapist...that should be what is curling your nails hun not 2 dudes holding hands

So I'm clear, you are hoping to achieve "victory" in the Supreme Court?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:36 AM
So I'm clear, you are hoping to achieve "victory" in the Supreme Court?


it is inevitable...and now your going to say the legislature is going to stop the federal judiciary from hearing these cases...well first the court will determine that the legislature cannot stop the SC from ruling on federal constitutional issues then it will rule that the bans are unconstitutional .....then the argument could be made if the federal legislature wants to go that route whats to stop the liberals from using that tactic in gun cases? it is a very slipery slope the legislature is trying to climb by stopping the federal judiciary from hearing these cases...and yes ultimatly this will come to the Supreme Court

Cochise
03-15-2005, 09:44 AM
...the legislature is going to stop the federal judiciary from hearing these cases

They do have the right to do that, it's pretty clear.

Michael Michigan
03-15-2005, 09:44 AM
it is inevitable...and now your going to say the legislature is going to stop the federal judiciary from hearing these cases...well first the court will determine that the legislature cannot stop the SC from ruling on federal constitutional issues then it will rule that the bans are unconstitutional .....then the argument could be made if the federal legislature wants to go that route whats to stop the liberals from using that tactic in gun cases? it is a very slipery slope the legislature is trying to climb by stopping the federal judiciary from hearing these cases...and yes ultimatly this will come to the Supreme Court

I wasn't going to "say" anything. I really only wanted a simple yes or no.

What happens if you lose in the Supreme Court?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 09:58 AM
I wasn't going to "say" anything. I really only wanted a simple yes or no.

What happens if you lose in the Supreme Court?


:shrug: sorry....well thats the beauty of this country you can always try again...see Bowers V Hardwick and Lawrence v Texas

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 10:08 AM
They do have the right to do that, it's pretty clear.


I don't think so...that is the power of the judiciary to rule on federal constitutional matters

Cochise
03-15-2005, 10:27 AM
I don't think so...that is the power of the judiciary to rule on federal constitutional matters

Article III says that the Supreme Court "shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The Supreme Court also unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction in Ex Parte McCardle.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 10:45 AM
Thats what they said in mass and most that were in favor of amending the state constitution lost thier seats

MA sets the trend for the Nation....heh, good one. ROFL

Link? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 10:46 AM
I don't think so...that is the power of the judiciary to rule on federal constitutional matters

What Cochise said....heh. And the legislative's to propose amendments to remedy judicial over-reaching.... :)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 10:51 AM
Article III says that the Supreme Court "shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The Supreme Court also unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction in Ex Parte McCardle.

"But, but....butt, but...butt, BUTT!" :(

:deevee:



ROFL

vailpass
03-15-2005, 11:39 AM
Why do stories about c@cksuckers take up perfectly good news space?

|Zach|
03-15-2005, 12:21 PM
Why do stories about c@cksuckers take up perfectly good news space?
Because people like yourself are so insecure in your famlies that you think it effects your life style.

go bowe
03-15-2005, 12:25 PM
The Romer decision also stated it was not making a ruling on the status of same sex relationships....I've offered THAT to you before, as well. This is from the majority opinion....



If the majority is, in effect saying, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions"

:)what you are saying, in effect, is balderdash...

do you really think that by repeating your absurd assertions often enough you will eventually make them true?

of just that others will tire of correcting your asinine statements about the law and the courts?

go bowe
03-15-2005, 12:41 PM
and all will come crashing down becasue of 19 states that hold a majority democratic legislature....that breaks the 2/3's deal with a federal amendment...assuming it could get out of the federal legislature in the first place...so when the SC rules them unconstitutional it will all have been one big legal waste of timeand money....money spent on same sex marraige court cases that could have been spent on convicting the next murderer or rapist...that should be what is curling your nails hun not 2 dudes holding handsomg!

dudes hold hands????

next they'll be wanting to marry multiple animals... :p :p :p

Cochise
03-15-2005, 12:50 PM
"But, but....butt, but...butt, BUTT!" :(

:deevee:



ROFL

Damnit, the underlined part was supposed to be a link to a story about the case. Oh well, you people can google it.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:53 PM
The Supreme Court also unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction in Ex Parte McCardle.


:hmmm: maybe it revoked thier original juridiction but I'm sure some court had the authority to hear it in which those decsions could be appealed all the way to the SC...I dunno....gobo?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 12:53 PM
omg!

dudes hold hands????

next they'll be wanting to marry multiple animals... :p :p :p
ROFL

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 01:02 PM
omg!

dudes hold hands????

next they'll be wanting to marry multiple animals... :p :p :p
Funny, but more seriously, no one has laid out, despite wide opportunity to do so, a rational difference between homosexual marriage, polygamy, and marriage between blood relations.
Not gonna make a stance whether that means they all should be legalized or not. Just pointing out the inability to differentiate.

go bowe
03-15-2005, 01:46 PM
Article III says that the Supreme Court "shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The Supreme Court also unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction in Ex Parte McCardle.mccardle might not be controlling on the issue...

mccardle dealt with the jurisdiction of the court with respect to certain rights bestowed by statute rather than rights guaranteed by the constitution...

the question of whether congress can limit the judicial review power of the court with respect to constitutional rights is another issue...

it would be fascinating to see how the court resolves the obvious conflict between the constitutional provision giving congress the power to determine the court's jurisdiction and the marbury v. madison concept of the supreme court's inherent power to review all legislation to determine if it meets the requirements of the constitution...

whichever way the court might go, it would be controversial to be sure...

go bowe
03-15-2005, 01:56 PM
Funny, but more seriously, no one has laid out, despite wide opportunity to do so, a rational difference between homosexual marriage, polygamy, and marriage between blood relations.
Not gonna make a stance whether that means they all should be legalized or not. Just pointing out the inability to differentiate.well, marriage between blood relations is prohibited because of the probablility of birth defects or other congential disorders...

as between homosexual marriage and polygamy?

other than the obvious difference in the number of people involved, i really can't really think of anything offhand that differentiates between them in terms of equal protection arguments and the like...

but then, i am not personally opposed to polygamy...

Pitt Gorilla
03-15-2005, 01:57 PM
My wife has a childhood friend, who is Catholic and Republic....she lives in San Francisco (or a suburb.) She is as liberal as anyone I've ever met....is also gay, BTW. I'm dead serious.Yeah, I have lots of _______ friends.

BTW,
Why did you state this judge is "liberal?"

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:03 PM
well, marriage between blood relations is prohibited because of the probablility of birth defects or other congential disorders...
1. The probability is overstated.
2. A snip-snip and/or a tie-tie, and the probability is all but eliminated.

How about asexual people roomie-ing up and 'marrying' solely for tax benefits?

What about people with impending health problems [ie, hereditary and probable, but not diagnosed] marrying a buddy [of either sex] for health benefits?

What about the logistical nightmare of getting civil servants sufficiently schooled in gay culture to observe and comment on gay 'green card' marriages? Or sufficiently schooled in the culture of polygamy to observe and comment on multiple 'green card' marriages to one man?

What does a marriage or civil union require? Love, attraction, sex, affinity, convenience, procreation, commitment, cohabitation, co-mingling of assets, dependance, none, all?

Does it mean anything more that "I got me a piece of paper from the govment saying we can file our taxes together, and if I get sick [s]he can visit me."

Cochise
03-15-2005, 02:07 PM
it would be fascinating to see how the court resolves the obvious conflict between the constitutional provision giving congress the power to determine the court's jurisdiction and the marbury v. madison concept of the supreme court's inherent power to review all legislation to determine if it meets the requirements of the constitution...


One side is written into the Constitution, the other is a previous legal decision. It seems clear to me which is the higher authority :hmmm:

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:08 PM
How about asexual people roomie-ing up and 'marrying' solely for tax benefits?

What about people with impending health problems [ie, hereditary and probable, but not diagnosed] marrying a buddy [of either sex] for health benefits?




Anna Nichole Smith anyone?

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:09 PM
Anna Nichole Smith anyone?
What does that even mean?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:13 PM
One side is written into the Constitution, the other is a previous legal decision. It seems clear to me which is the higher authority :hmmm:


Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 02:14 PM
1. The probability is overstated.
2. A snip-snip and/or a tie-tie, and the probability is all but eliminated.

How about asexual people roomie-ing up and 'marrying' solely for tax benefits?

What about people with impending health problems [ie, hereditary and probable, but not diagnosed] marrying a buddy [of either sex] for health benefits?

What about the logistical nightmare of getting civil servants sufficiently schooled in gay culture to observe and comment on gay 'green card' marriages? Or sufficiently schooled in the culture of polygamy to observe and comment on multiple 'green card' marriages to one man?

What does a marriage or civil union require? Love, attraction, sex, affinity, convenience, procreation, commitment, cohabitation, co-mingling of assets, dependance, none, all?

Does it mean anything more that "I got me a piece of paper from the govment saying we can file our taxes together, and if I get sick [s]he can visit me."

Exactly.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:14 PM
What does that even mean?


got married for the benifits?

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:15 PM
got married for the benifits?
That is disputed, and I doubt you know the truth.
More importantly, is that all you aspire to?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:18 PM
That is disputed, and I doubt you know the truth.
More importantly, is that all you aspire to?
I don't know the truth but I'm willing to place an entire days wage on that fact that she did...and many people do!

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 02:20 PM
I don't know the truth but I'm willing to place an entire days wage on that fact that she did...and many people do!

Then where do we draw the line? Or should there even be a line?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:22 PM
Then where do we draw the line? Or should there even be a line?
consenting adults whom happen to be human beings...thats where the line is drawn...if a guy wants to marry 40 wives I hope he has a good cardiologist and psychologist

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:25 PM
consenting adults whom happen to be human beings...thats where the line is drawn...if a guy wants to marry 40 wives I hope he has a good cardiologist and psychologist
Then I want ABSOLUTELY NO tax, medical coverage, affilial, probate, or other tangible benefit to extend to any marriage or civil union.
There's absolutely no reason to give goodies out to two dudes, or two gals, or a dude and forty gals, just because they went to the courthouse and asked for it.

And people wonder why some think the agenda is not to enjoy marriage, but destroy it.

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 02:25 PM
consenting adults whom happen to be human beings...thats where the line is drawn...if a guy wants to marry 40 wives I hope he has a good cardiologist and psychologist

And how do you feel about inner-family?

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:27 PM
I ask again, as it appears to have been lost in DC's Anna Nicole quipping.
What does a marriage or civil union require? Love, attraction, sex, affinity, convenience, procreation, commitment, cohabitation, co-mingling of assets, dependance, a pulse, a history of once having a pulse, none, all?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:30 PM
And how do you feel about inner-family?

personally I think it is disgusting and revolting......but I can't think of one good reason not to allow them to do it if the information BL has says that inner breeding does not produce more abnormal birth defects than are normally found in the course of giving birth to children

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:31 PM
Then I want ABSOLUTELY NO tax, medical coverage, affilial, probate, or other tangible benefit to extend to any marriage or civil union.
There's absolutely no reason to give goodies out to two dudes, or two gals, or a dude and forty gals, just because they went to the courthouse and asked for it.

And people wonder why some think the agenda is not to enjoy marriage, but destroy it.


why how does it effect you one iota?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:33 PM
I ask again, as it appears to have been lost in DC's Anna Nicole quipping.


I think a pulse is required otherwise you couldn't be consenting now could you? Other than that it's not the states business....FWIW a quote directly from my Aunt just before she became my Aunt " I'm marrying your uncle for one reason. I will never have to work another day in my life" is that love?

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:34 PM
why how does it effect you one iota?
Because I don't choose to buddy up with another sentient being, just to get a tax break.
Under your rules, I'd be stupid not to.
There is no rationale supporting doling out goodies for people just because they went to a judge and said "we want to pay less taxes, and share our medical premiums."

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:35 PM
Because I don't choose to buddy up with another sentient being, just to get a tax break.
Under your rules, I'd be stupid not to.
There is no rationale supporting doling out goodies for people just because they went to a judge and said "we want to pay less taxes, and share our medical premiums."

and there is no rationale to not allow it

Iowanian
03-15-2005, 02:35 PM
I vote the US just Ward the state of........Oh.....Delaware to you gheys.

Have the best decorated houses, a botique on every corner and the best male figure skating team at the olympics.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:37 PM
Because I don't choose to buddy up with another sentient being, just to get a tax break.
Under your rules, I'd be stupid not to.
There is no rationale supporting doling out goodies for people just because they went to a judge and said "we want to pay less taxes, and share our medical premiums."


and if it were truely a problem people would be doing it today anyway ....I don't understand how allowing people of the same sex to marry all the sudden brings these problems to the table...is anything Vegas brought these problems to the table long ago

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:37 PM
I think a pulse is required otherwise you couldn't be consenting now could you? Other than that it's not the states business....FWIW a quote directly from my Aunt just before she became my Aunt " I'm marrying your uncle for one reason. I will never have to work another day in my life" is that love?
I don't know the particulars of your Aunt's situation regarding cohabitation, mingling funds, raising children, staying faithful, etc. But even if there are NONE, you are espousing using an example of subverting the societal aims of marriage to extend that subversion universally. How is that NOT destroying the concept of marriage? And if you want to marry someone you love and want to spend your life with, how can you espouse it?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 02:38 PM
well, marriage between blood relations is prohibited because of the probablility of birth defects or other congential disorders...

as between homosexual marriage and polygamy?

other than the obvious difference in the number of people involved, i really can't really think of anything offhand that differentiates between them in terms of equal protection arguments and the like...

but then, i am not personally opposed to polygamy...

Seems to me, if they agree to sterilization you'd have not argument. :hmmm:

Welcome to the polygamy bandwagon John; hope you are as enthusiastic and fair in your support of that "right."

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:39 PM
and if it were truely a problem people would be doing it today anyway ....I don't understand how allowing people of the same sex to marry all the sudden brings these problems to the table...is anything Vegas brought these problems to the table long ago
Because, as we've demonstrated earlier, there is a bright line between a heterosexual marriage, and all the other conceptions thereof we've outlined.

Pitt Gorilla
03-15-2005, 02:40 PM
1. The probability is overstated.
2. A snip-snip and/or a tie-tie, and the probability is all but eliminated.

How about asexual people roomie-ing up and 'marrying' solely for tax benefits?

What about people with impending health problems [ie, hereditary and probable, but not diagnosed] marrying a buddy [of either sex] for health benefits?

What about the logistical nightmare of getting civil servants sufficiently schooled in gay culture to observe and comment on gay 'green card' marriages? Or sufficiently schooled in the culture of polygamy to observe and comment on multiple 'green card' marriages to one man?

What does a marriage or civil union require? Love, attraction, sex, affinity, convenience, procreation, commitment, cohabitation, co-mingling of assets, dependance, none, all?

Does it mean anything more that "I got me a piece of paper from the govment saying we can file our taxes together, and if I get sick [s]he can visit me."I guess we should legally stop this from happening with a man and a woman too.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:42 PM
, how can you espouse it?

by being faithful and a good partner? A marriage is what you make it not what someone else says it is or isn't ....the government has no business handing out questionaires that are pass/fail depending on your reasoning to get married..... a church does but not hte government....what you are asking for is almost immeasurable...you can ask and one can lie and it can be said the marriage is made in love and to raise children but do you REALLY know thats the truth?

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 02:42 PM
And the discriminatory laws shall come tumbling down




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_11

Why don't you hop a plane to SFO and get hitched then?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:44 PM
Because, as we've demonstrated earlier, there is a bright line between a heterosexual marriage, and all the other conceptions thereof we've outlined.


There is? People are not going to get married just for the tax benifits okay? Same sex couple want to get married becasue they can't take care of a sick loved one or get kicked out of an apartment of their lover of 45 years after [s]he dies.....they love each other certainly or they wouldn't do it...but that is immeasuareble you can't measure how much someone loves someone else

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:45 PM
Why don't you hop a plane to SFO and get hitched then?

1. the order is not binding for 60 days
2. I have yet to meet anyone I want to spend the rest of my life with...my grandfather didn't get married till he was 34 ...whats the rush?

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:45 PM
by being faithful and a good partner? A marriage is what you make it not what someone else says it is or isn't ....the government has no business handing out questionaires that are pass/fail depending on your reasoning to get married..... a church does but not hte government....what you are asking for is almost immeasurable...you can ask and one can lie and it can be said the marriage is made in love and to raise children but do you REALLY know thats the truth?
So no problem with green card marriages?
No problem with medical beneift marriages?
No problem with two roommates getting married for tax breaks?
Maybe we should have freshman week marriage ceremonies in the dorms, so those poor dorm dwellers have a little more coin in their pockets.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:47 PM
So no problem with green card marriages?
No problem with medical beneift marriages?
No problem with two roommates getting married for tax breaks?
Maybe we should have freshman week marriage ceremonies in the dorms, so those poor dorm dwellers have a little more coin in their pockets.


and I assume you know that getting a divorce isn't cheap nor easy?
Green card marriages HAPPEN ALREADY! WTF is the point of this argument? you are angry about something that is a problem already added same sex marriage isn't going to make it any worse or better

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 02:51 PM
and I assume you know that getting a divorce isn't cheap nor easy?
Green card marriages HAPPEN ALREADY! WTF is the point of this argument? you are angry about something that is a problem already added same sex marriage isn't going to make it any worse or better

Cha-ching! $$$$ Cha-ching! $$$$

American taxpayer dollars, and consumer prices....raised to pay for these additional benefits and this "progress."


Yup, a lot of us are really looking forward to that.... :shake:

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:52 PM
and I assume you know that getting a divorce isn't cheap nor easy?
Only because of emotion and greed and differing conceptions of relative worth within the relationship, not likely if you're just buddies saving coin.
Green card marriages HAPPEN ALREADY! WTF is the point of this argument?
And they're policed for affinity, cohabitation, familiarity, affection, etc. Made much harder when all either of you have to have is a pulse.
you are angry about something that is a problem already added same sex marriage isn't going to make it any worse or better
Are you arguing same sex marriage or universal marriage between pulse-exhibiting homo-sapiens?

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:54 PM
Cha-ching! $$$$ Cha-ching! $$$$

American taxpayer dollars, and consumer prices....raised to pay for these additional benefits and this "progress."


Yup, a lot of us are really looking forward to that.... :shake:300K to the city of san francisco ($80 license times 3000 licneses)

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 02:55 PM
...Are you arguing same sex marriage or universal marriage between pulse-exhibiting homo-sapiens?

ROFL

Clearly, he's making a very, very good case for the latter.

ROFL

Boozer
03-15-2005, 02:55 PM
I guess we should legally stop this from happening with a man and a woman too.

Hey now, you're blurring Baby Lee's "bright line."

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 02:56 PM
What does a marriage or civil union require? Love, attraction, sex, affinity, convenience, procreation, commitment, cohabitation, co-mingling of assets, dependance, a pulse, a history of once having a pulse, none, all?
Got DC to commit to requiring a pulse. Anyone else with a weigh-in?

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 02:56 PM
Look, what does the government stand to gain from letting gays get coupled?

Will they produce new citizens that will become taxpaying producers for the government? Then why should they cop special benifits to those that are genetically uncabable of doing so?

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 02:56 PM
300K to the city of san francisco ($80 license times 3000 licneses)

Okay, that's one "operation" for, maybe, two spouse's undergoing complex "By-Pass Surgery" on the taxpayer's dime.

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 02:57 PM
Please, try to stay macro with me, and do not look at your own personal anecdotal situation.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 02:57 PM
I guess we should legally stop this from happening with a man and a woman too.

Perhaps we should.

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 02:58 PM
Look, what does the government stand to gain from letting gays get coupled?

Will they produce new citizens that will become taxpaying producers for the government? Then why should they cop special benifits to those that are genetically uncabable of doing so?

yeah we should stop people who can't have children (impotent) or people that don't want to have children from ever marrying!

Boozer
03-15-2005, 03:00 PM
Look, what does the government stand to gain from letting gays get coupled?

Will they produce new citizens that will become taxpaying producers for the government? Then why should they cop special benifits to those that are genetically uncabable of doing so?

By your reasoning, post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married, after all, what does the government stand to gain from sanctioning it?

Thanks to posters like you, people of my opinion don't even have to set up the straw men.

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 03:00 PM
I guess we should legally stop this from happening with a man and a woman too.
Guess I missed where we stopped policing the authenticity of green card marriages.
Guess I missed where the insurance companies stopped seeking to deny benefits extended to spouses where there was evidence of a sham marriage solely for coveage.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 03:02 PM
yeah we should stop people who can't have children (impotent) or people that don't want to have children from ever marrying!

Well, in those cases....nature "put the plumbin' there"--it just doesn't "work," for procreation; in the issue at hand, nature did not. And Jefferson was an advocate of "natural rights" not "invented" rights....heh.

:hmmm:

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 03:03 PM
By your reasoning, post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married, after all, what does the government stand to gain from sanctioning it?

Thanks to posters like you, people of my opinion don't even have to set up the straw men.
One more F*CKING try.
What does a marriage or civil union require? Love, attraction, sex, affinity, convenience, procreation, commitment, cohabitation, co-mingling of assets, dependance, a pulse, a history of once having a pulse, none, all?

Pitt Gorilla
03-15-2005, 03:03 PM
Look, what does the government stand to gain from letting gays get coupled?

Will they produce new citizens that will become taxpaying producers for the government? Then why should they cop special benifits to those that are genetically uncabable of doing so?Yeah, and they shouldn't let people who can't reproduce marry either. If those barren freeloaders can't produce new taxpayers, they shouldn't be married!

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 03:04 PM
By your reasoning, post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married, after all, what does the government stand to gain from sanctioning it?

Thanks to posters like you, people of my opinion don't even have to set up the straw men.

Ditto my last post, Sean:

Well, in those cases....nature "put the plumbin' there" for procreation--it just ain't "workin'"; in the issue at hand, nature did not. And Jefferson was an advocate of "natural rights" not "invented" rights....heh.

ROFL

Boozer
03-15-2005, 03:07 PM
Ditto my last post, Sean:

Well, in those cases....nature "put the plumbin' there" for procreation--it just ain't "workin'"; in the issue at hand, nature did not. And Jefferson was an advocate of "natural rights" not "invented" rights....heh.

ROFL

So if nature made the "plumbin'" non-functional, then surely the government shouldn't sanction such an unnatural coupling?

Pitt Gorilla
03-15-2005, 03:08 PM
Ditto my last post, Sean:

Well, in those cases....nature "put the plumbin' there" for procreation--it just ain't "workin'"; in the issue at hand, nature did not. And Jefferson was an advocate of "natural rights" not "invented" rights....heh.

ROFLTopologically, I don't see a difference. Sh!t doesn't work is isomorphic to sh!t doesn't work together in terms of production.

Boozer
03-15-2005, 03:21 PM
Topologically, I don't see a difference. Sh!t doesn't work is isomorphic to sh!t doesn't work together in terms of production.

Yeah, but God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Saving Rob some time, since that's what it boils down to for him.

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 03:27 PM
By your reasoning, post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to get married, after all, what does the government stand to gain from sanctioning it?

Thanks to posters like you, people of my opinion don't even have to set up the straw men.

Of course, if you go enough standard deviations from the mean, you are sure to get all manners of statistical anomalies that do not support my assertion. However, if you look at the Child Bearing population of females in the US from the perspective of someone who is in charge of governing a more perfect union, and it is your responsibility to set policy that will enhance the well being of said Union, it is prudent to look at things that will produce healthy rates of growth in the population.

Sure there are errors along the way, where egregious examples of a bad marriage can be cited to knock my "straw man" down, but you have to look at the whole field of straw before you can refute my claim.

Bottom line, it is NOT GOOD to be fuggin arround with one of societies most ancient constructs just because you think that YOU are more educated, more liberal, more tolerant, and just an all arround better guy.

;)

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 03:29 PM
Saving Rob some time, since that's what it boils down to for him.
ROFL

Boozer
03-15-2005, 03:32 PM
Bottom line, it is NOT GOOD to be fuggin arround with one of societies most ancient constructs

Link? ;)

I think "fuggin around" with other "ancient constructs" has worked out just fine for us, take slavery, for instance.

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 03:34 PM
Link? ;)

I think "fuggin around" with other "ancient constructs" has worked out just fine for us, take slavery, for instance.Try to stay on the issue at hand, if you want to discuss slavery and the sinfulness of such, then start a new thread by all means.

This is teh ghey thread.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 03:49 PM
Link? ;)

I think "fuggin around" with other "ancient constructs" has worked out just fine for us, take slavery, for instance.

Tell that to a former slave, or African American descendent of a slave:

"Slavery and homosexuality should be, for legal purposes, considered the same."

They'd slap you silly.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Boozer
03-15-2005, 04:15 PM
Tell that to a former slave, or African American descendent of a slave:

"Slavery and homosexuality should be, for legal purposes, considered the same."

They'd slap you silly.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

If you misinterpret everthing I post this bad, well...that explains everything.

Baby Lee
03-15-2005, 04:18 PM
I'm out, this looked to be a discussion, but it's clearly just a sissy-slapfest.

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 04:33 PM
I'm out, this looked to be a discussion, but it's clearly just a sissy-slapfest.This thread has inspired a poll.

Mosbonian
03-15-2005, 07:37 PM
Why is it, anyone who DARES to disagree with you is either a "far right wing wacko, a scary individual, or homophobic people who are using a "straw man" argument"....what utter and complete baloney. :shake:

Dude, reasonable people can disagree...I accept that you do; why must you be so intolerent and demeaning toward others who are equally heartfelt in their disagreement with you. Seriously, why is that so difficult for you?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

My biggest complaint about TJ.....

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
03-15-2005, 07:44 PM
If you misinterpret everthing I post this bad, well...that explains everything.

But he asks an interesting question.....do you mean to equate slavery and homosexuality?

mmaddog
*******

|Zach|
03-15-2005, 07:54 PM
But he asks an interesting question.....do you mean to equate slavery and homosexuality?

mmaddog
*******
I think it goes a long way of debunking the people that hold up their argument based on "tradition"

Mosbonian
03-15-2005, 08:24 PM
I think it goes a long way of debunking the people that hold up their argument based on "tradition"

So, are you saying yes?

mmaddog
*******

Boozer
03-15-2005, 08:29 PM
So, are you saying yes?

mmaddog
*******

Do you really think I was comparing homosexuality and slavery? I know your reading comprehension can't be that bad. Go back and read the relevant posts again. Then you'll see what Zach is talking about.

|Zach|
03-15-2005, 08:31 PM
So, are you saying yes?

mmaddog
*******
I guess if someone is dense enough to see issues such as slavery and gay marriage as that black and white and simple you could say yes.

In my mind they have some parts that are parallels and I am making a comparison.

So take that for what it is worth.

Mosbonian
03-15-2005, 09:57 PM
Do you really think I was comparing homosexuality and slavery? I know your reading comprehension can't be that bad. Go back and read the relevant posts again. Then you'll see what Zach is talking about.

Interesting.....as an Attorney, (or studying to be one), you would ask a question in court that you would want a simple "yes" or "no" to. If the person on the witness stand attempted to make an explanation of his answer, you would simply object and say...."a simple yes or no will suffice".

I made no attempt to do anything but ask a simple yes or no.....I wasn't here to say you were right or wrong. Just wanted your opinion....not necessary to ask me about my reading comprehension....

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
03-15-2005, 10:00 PM
I guess if someone is dense enough to see issues such as slavery and gay marriage as that black and white and simple you could say yes.

In my mind they have some parts that are parallels and I am making a comparison.

So take that for what it is worth.

So was it necessary to say that someone is dense if they choose to see the issues as black and white. Maybe that is just their interpretation...so would they be right in calling you dense for trying to make the opposite argument if they don't agree with you?

mmaddog
*******

|Zach|
03-15-2005, 10:02 PM
So was it necessary to say that someone is dense if they chooe to see the issues as black and white. Maybe that is just their interpretation...so would they be right in calling you dense for trying to make the opposite argument if they don't agree with you?

mmaddog
*******
I think someone that sees such huge complex issues in simple black and white terms is dense...

Call me dense if you disagree with me thats fine...

I think it fits pretty well. The fantastic part about this is that you don't have to agree with me.

Mosbonian
03-15-2005, 10:10 PM
I think someone that sees such huge complex issues in simple black and white terms is dense...

Call me dense if you disagree with me thats fine...

I think it fits pretty well. The fantastic part about this is that you don't have to agree with me.

See, that's where we differ now.....

I have come to the revelation late in life that not agreeing with someone isn't justification to insult them.....I will admit to being guilty of that very sin, but have recently come to see there is nothing to gain in trying to make myself feel better by tearing someone else down.

Let's just say a change of perspective due to circumstance in life....

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-15-2005, 10:12 PM
See, that's where we differ now.....

I have come to the revelation late in life that not agreeing with someone isn't justification to insult them.....I will admit to being guilty of that very sin, but have recently come to see there is nothing to gain in trying to make myself feel better by tearing someone else down.

Let's just say a change of perspective due to circumstance in life....

mmaddog
*******

Asshole































;) j/k :p I agree with you whole heartledly and I'm a guilty too

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 10:33 PM
Link? ;)

I think "fuggin around" with other "ancient constructs" has worked out just fine for us, take slavery, for instance.

You are suggesting that slavery was an ancient construct that we "fugged around with"....are you not?

You are also urging society to "fugg around" with the traditional/ancient construct (bunny's term) for marriage.

You are making a comparison: slavery and marriage are ancient constructs that we did, and should "fugg around with"--are you not?

What am I missin'? Is this "lawyer speak" ("Depends on what you mean by the word, 'is;'" or "I didn't have SEX with that woman...") or what?

Such parsing of language may slide by in court; but you and I both knew what you meant...you are comparing the plight of slaves with that of homosexuals.

It's a difficult position to accept responsibility for, I agree; I understand your reluctance. :hmmm:

Boozer
03-16-2005, 06:25 AM
You are suggesting that slavery was an ancient construct that we "fugged around with"....are you not?

You are also urging society to "fugg around" with the traditional/ancient construct (bunny's term) for marriage.

You are making a comparison: slavery and marriage are ancient constructs that we did, and should "fugg around with"--are you not?

What am I missin'? Is this "lawyer speak" ("Depends on what you mean by the word, 'is;'" or "I didn't have SEX with that woman...") or what?

Such parsing of language may slide by in court; but you and I both knew what you meant...you are comparing the plight of slaves with that of homosexuals.


Looks like you got it. I think the sticking point is that some believe compare means equate. No where did I say that the "plight" of homosexuals is as bad as slaves'; my statement shouldn't be read as anything more than showing the "that's the way it's always been done, since forever" argument is demonstrably weak. What I saw happening is that, just because I used an extreme example (one which makes a more memorable point, I believe, then using something equally as old and obscure, like say, the gold standard), two posters tried to paint me as unreasonable because I was equating the two.


FTR, I do believe that abandoning a metals-based currency has worked out just fine, too.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 06:34 AM
Looks like you got it. I think the sticking point is that some believe compare means equate. No where did I say that the "plight" of homosexuals is as bad as slaves'; my statement shouldn't be read as anything more than showing the "that's the way it's always been done, since forever" argument is demonstrably weak. What I saw happening is that, just because I used an extreme example (one which makes a more memorable point, I believe, then using something equally as old and obscure, like say, the gold standard), two posters tried to paint me as unreasonable because I was equating the two.


FTR, I do believe that abandoning a metals-based currency has worked out just fine, too.

Cool.

Change can be good, when it's warranted. Change for the sake of change, in the name of "progressivism" isn't necessarily good--you'll remember prohibition came out of the "progressive movement," heh.

Of course the debate in each case, is change really warranted?

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 10:22 AM
Interesting.....as an Attorney, (or studying to be one), you would ask a question in court that you would want a simple "yes" or "no" to. If the person on the witness stand attempted to make an explanation of his answer, you would simply object and say...."a simple yes or no will suffice".

I made no attempt to do anything but ask a simple yes or no.....I wasn't here to say you were right or wrong. Just wanted your opinion....not necessary to ask me about my reading comprehension....

mmaddog
*******That is so Binary, so black and white. We all know that the Liberal sees only gray.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 10:24 AM
See, that's where we differ now.....

I have come to the revelation late in life that not agreeing with someone isn't justification to insult them.....I will admit to being guilty of that very sin, but have recently come to see there is nothing to gain in trying to make myself feel better by tearing someone else down.

Let's just say a change of perspective due to circumstance in life....

mmaddog
*******:clap:

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 10:29 AM
You are also urging society to "fugg around" with the traditional/ancient construct (bunny's term) for marriage

Glad I could contribute something meaningful to the debate. :p

vailpass
03-16-2005, 11:34 AM
Because people like yourself are so insecure in your famlies that you think it effects your life style.

What a nicely programmed response; you are as easy to manipulate as, well, most any other student your age.
Keep on growing, one day you will think for yourself ;)

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 11:40 AM
What a nicely programmed response; you are as easy to manipulate as, well, most any other student your age.
Keep on growing, one day you will think for yourself ;)

Ja, Zach makt gut Hitler Jungend. Hiel, Hitler.

;)

Ironic that it is now the "progressives" that are the ideologcial zealots, now...eh?

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 02:26 PM
Ja, Zach makt gut Hitler Jungend. Hiel, Hitler.

;)

Ironic that it is now the "progressives" that are the ideologcial zealots, now...eh?Quite.

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 03:10 PM
What a nicely programmed response; you are as easy to manipulate as, well, most any other student your age.
Keep on growing, one day you will think for yourself ;)
And I am the one who is accused of not respecting others opinions around here.

ROFL

Vail, I live in Springfield, Missouri. I may be at an institute of higher learning but if you think my stance on this issue is shared by a lot of people surrounding me then you are dead wrong.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 03:31 PM
....Vail, I live in Springfield, Missouri. I may be at an institute of higher learning but if you think my stance on this issue is shared by a lot of people surrounding me then you are dead wrong.

ROFL




As to what you meant to say, you are at a College....of course it would be that way. It was for many of us; then we grew up and had families...and began to understand the importance of that.
:shrug:

DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:39 PM
ROFL




As to what you meant to say, you are at a College....of course it would be that way. It was for many of us; then we grew up and had families...and began to understand the importance of that.
:shrug:


of procreation or children?

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 03:41 PM
ROFL




As to what you meant to say, you are at a College....of course it would be that way. It was for many of us; then we grew up and had families...and began to understand the importance of that.
:shrug:
You think I don't value the idea of family?

DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:42 PM
You think I don't value the idea of family?


Of course you don't and neither do gays...we are heathens I tell you ....Heathens!

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 04:55 PM
You think I don't value the idea of family?

Did I say you? :hmmm:

You are still young....there is hope. :)

It's kinda like many of my friends in college said: "Yeah, man. When WE are in charge, we are gonna legalize marijuana." Well, as they grew up, matured, and yes....became more conservative (it happens to the majority of people, heh)....suddenly that didn't seem like such a good idea.

Ironic, now, I do think we "might as well" decriminalize it, but it hasn't happened....and likely we aren't even close. :shrug:

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 04:58 PM
Did I say you? :hmmm:


You made a reference to me personally and then made the claim. I think it was inferred.

So I guess I will ask again. Do you think I do not value the idea of family?