DOMA struck down - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

iSpyCams · 06-26-2013, 11:49 AM

Personally I believe marriage is an archaic institution based on the idea that a woman can be the property of a man.

And I also believe health insurance is pretty much a scam.

I think we are all making progress in the wrong direction. Sure its easier to convince society that gays should marry than to convince them that NO ONE should marry, but it's still not progress. It's allowing gays to enter a party that should have been over long ago.

kane · 06-26-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

don't much care one way or another what the homos do however I disagree with using the word 'marriage' to delineate homosexual activity. homos should have the exact same right to get fucked over in a divorce that straights do... BUT marriage is a word defined by cultures though a long history that has nothing to do with gays. the gays only used the word marriage to antagonize the religious crowd which IMO is very shitty and petty of them

Clearly you do care what two "homos" do. If you didn't care you wouldn't care about them using the word marriage.

Mickey_ · 06-26-2013, 11:51 AM

Jerry Nadler nailed it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Nadler

We have a separation of church and state in this country. So for government purposes, you can be married.

The church may not recognize this. That's their business.

If you don't want to recognize it from a religious point of view, it's your business.

No one is forcing anybody to get married. The point of the separation of church and state is that when we deal with public business and the celebration of marriage by the state, the recognition by the state of who's married is not a religious question.

(yes, Jerry Nadler has a GFY account)

mardigras · 06-26-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I never understood the religious getting behind it, it was never a religious thing, it was a state thing or government thing.
Prop 8 in California is dead. the only thing I can say about that is, thou it was stupid to have as a law, people voted on it and it shows what ever we vote on, a judge can override it, that scares me. Judges are not suppose to have that power.
Given time, and another vote, prop 8 would have been shot down by the voters

Until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 an interracial couple could not get married in my state. Left to the voters I don't know how long it would have taken and I'm almost certain that there would still be areas with whites only/blacks only drinking fountains and other facilities.

Prop 8 likely would have never passed had it not been for a shitload of out-of-state money, notably from the Mormon church.

Tom_PM · 06-26-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But at the same time it's so much more than just a "legal document". It's a huge commitment.

Yes of course, but the difference here is that you can have a huge commitment without any document. It's the document that makes it a marriage under law! That's what I'm saying.

kane · 06-26-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Great day!

It's so much more than that. My brother is not legally married, and cannot give his girlfriend of fifteen years health benefits. When he was in the hospital a few months back, his girlfriend was unable to visit him for over a week - all because they didn't have that silly piece of paper.

It's funny really, because a year ago he told me there was "no reason for him to get that piece of paper". Since then he has learned exactly what that silly piece of paper means.

Is this normal in California or was he in some kind of ICU or something? The reason I ask is that last year I spent a few days in the hospital and over the years I have visited people in the hospital and never once has anyone even questioned who I was when I visit someone or restricted visitors from seeing me. In most cases I ask for a room and walk right in regardless of my relationship to them.

The only exception was when my mom had a pretty major surgery and afterward she was in an ICU ward. They didn't ask who my brother and I were, they just told us she was limited to two visitors at a time and that they preferred if we didn't stay longer than 30 minutes at a time.

mikesouth · 06-26-2013, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I never understood the religious getting behind it, it was never a religious thing, it was a state thing or government thing.
Prop 8 in California is dead. the only thing I can say about that is, thou it was stupid to have as a law, people voted on it and it shows what ever we vote on, a judge can override it, that scares me. Judges are not suppose to have that power.
Given time, and another vote, prop 8 would have been shot down by the voters

You are wrong, that is EXACTLY the powerr that judges are supposed to have.

If they did not have it then the will of the people could violate the right rights of any minority simply by pushing a "majority rule", "democracy" bullshit argument.

If all the black and hispanic folks got together and voted that white people's votes only count 2/5s of a vote, it is that judge that stands between YOU and enslavement.

IDM Marketing Guy · 06-26-2013, 11:58 AM

Now they can be just as worried about their pensions as we are...

uno · 06-26-2013, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

You are wrong, that is EXACTLY the powerr that judges are supposed to have.

If they did not have it then the will of the people could violate the right rights of any minority simply by pushing a "majority rule", "democracy" bullshit argument.

If all the black and hispanic folks got together and voted that white people's votes only count 2/5s of a vote, it is that judge that stands between YOU and enslavement.

yeah i laughed when i read his post.

sandman! · 06-26-2013, 12:17 PM

mikesouth · 06-26-2013, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uno

yeah i laughed when i read his post.

He just doesnt understand the role of the Supreme Court in our country and truthfully They usually end up getting things right over time...Roe V. Wade is another great example....the problem is that it usually takes them too long, but that is also good in that it also prevents them from ruling based on public opinion

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-26-2013, 12:54 PM

ADG

mineistaken · 06-26-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

exactly, this is the issue the homos are facing... the inability to have common civil rights such as inheritance, custody, health coverage from a spouse etc... and all 'couples' should have those rights however there was no need to use the word 'marriage'

Exactlamente

mardigras · 06-26-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Excremente

There, I fixed that for you

Cleo · 06-26-2013, 01:45 PM

Just like separate but equal didn't work with the races it doesn't work with sexual orientation.

Marriage outside of the church, that is what we are talking about here, is nothing more than a legal contract.

Marriage gives my spouse and I legal protection against inheritance taxes. Social Security benefits. increased standard deductions on our taxes. These are the benefits that we are looking forward to enjoying.

But there are a plethora of other benefits regarding child credits, immigration not being forced to testify against your spouse just to name a few more.

We already have a civil union but at best that only allows visitation in a hospital, which we have both taken advantage of.

I don't give a rats ass about religion, the church or any imaginary omnipotent creatures in the sky or below.

The term marriage is what our society has come to call the benefits given to two adults that have entered into a legal binding agreement.

Just like I spend money that says "In God We Trust" despite the fact that I don't believe that there is a god I accept the fact that marriage is called what it is.

America is supposed to be a secular government. It's about time that religion is finally being removed from marriage.

Vendzilla · 06-26-2013, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

You are wrong, that is EXACTLY the powerr that judges are supposed to have.

If they did not have it then the will of the people could violate the right rights of any minority simply by pushing a "majority rule", "democracy" bullshit argument.

If all the black and hispanic folks got together and voted that white people's votes only count 2/5s of a vote, it is that judge that stands between YOU and enslavement.

In most places, I could see your point, but this is California, one of if not the most progressive state in the union. This state has always had civil rights at the fore front.

That said, I believe it's important that when one judge can dismiss 7 million votes, there is a problem. Those 7 million votes should have more weight than that.

I'm not agreeing with prop 8, hell remember prop 187? Same thing happened.

Vendzilla · 06-26-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

He just doesnt understand the role of the Supreme Court in our country and truthfully They usually end up getting things right over time...Roe V. Wade is another great example....the problem is that it usually takes them too long, but that is also good in that it also prevents them from ruling based on public opinion

Oh I get it, basically, the Supreme Court didn't want to rule on prop 8 other than to say they are pushing it back to the lower courts.

Gay marriage still has a long way to go and it will get there, let them get married if they want. My problem is overturning votes. and that's all I have a problem with. Now illegal aliens can vote legally

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

I love this whole marriage thing because in my mind it is a huge example of unintended consequences. I think DWB was spot on in that ideally it shouldn't be of concern to anyone but the persons involved.

But THIS is a prime example of what happens when the religious folks push to get the government to legislate religious institutions into law. The minute it becomes law it is no longer a religious institution, it is a government institution and it is open to political whim and most importantly on this one, constitutional review.

The government simply cannot treat people differently

Had the ?church? kept it?s marriage as a religious institution and not allowed the government to legislate it in any way then the first amendment protection of freedom of religion prevails.

good points

baddog · 06-26-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Oh I get it, basically, the Supreme Court didn't want to rule on prop 8 other than to say they are pushing it back to the lower courts.

That isn't it at all.

mikesouth · 06-26-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Oh I get it, basically, the Supreme Court didn't want to rule on prop 8 other than to say they are pushing it back to the lower courts.

Gay marriage still has a long way to go and it will get there, let them get married if they want. My problem is overturning votes. and that's all I have a problem with. Now illegal aliens can vote legally

I know your problem is overturning the idea of majority rule and that is EXACTLY what the supreme court was set up to do.

The supreme court is the check against mob rule. it doesnt matter if 99.999% of the people are in favor of something and vote it into law the job of the supreme court is to make sure that the rights guaranteed to all of the people, including that .001% are not violated. If they are violated then it doesnt matter what the majority thinks or wants, it's the whole equal protection thing, the government is NOT allowed to treat people differently because of race, religion or anything else.

So few people really understand the role of the Supreme Court but they really should because it is hugely influential on their lives in ways they dont understand.

LONG after President Obama and all the justices are gone this decision will effect people's lives in ways that we don't yet know, but falling back on the idea of equal protection (DOMA) was exactly the right decision.

As far as the constitutionality of prop 8 and similar laws are concerned that will be decided on another day when someone who does have standing brings forth the suit.

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

If you were curious why I stopped replying to your emails it is because I remembered who you were.

because I think the conservative religious have the same rights as you do? you guys always seems to pass right by that one... don't you...

it's all about what you want right? fuck everybody else... FYI I don't care one way or the other have no interest in gay affairs or religious issues. I'm just pointing out that you behave exactly as those you condemn as bigots...

and actually I want even curious due of the amount of unprofessionalism among webmasters and figured you fell into that category. :2 cents

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Clearly you do care what two "homos" do. If you didn't care you wouldn't care about them using the word marriage.

using the word marriage is a deliberate attack against the conservative family values groups. I don't think gay people have any more right to attack conservative family values , then conservative family values do to attack the gays. do you disagree with that?

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleo

Just like separate but equal didn't work with the races it doesn't work with sexual orientation.

Marriage outside of the church, that is what we are talking about here, is nothing more than a legal contract.

Marriage gives my spouse and I legal protection against inheritance taxes. Social Security benefits. increased standard deductions on our taxes. These are the benefits that we are looking forward to enjoying.

But there are a plethora of other benefits regarding child credits, immigration not being forced to testify against your spouse just to name a few more.

We already have a civil union but at best that only allows visitation in a hospital, which we have both taken advantage of.

I don't give a rats ass about religion, the church or any imaginary omnipotent creatures in the sky or below.

The term marriage is what our society has come to call the benefits given to two adults that have entered into a legal binding agreement.

Just like I spend money that says "In God We Trust" despite the fact that I don't believe that there is a god I accept the fact that marriage is called what it is.

America is supposed to be a secular government. It's about time that religion is finally being removed from marriage.

those are good points...

kane · 06-26-2013, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

using the word marriage is a deliberate attack against the conservative family values groups. I don't think gay people have any more right to attack conservative family values , then conservative family values do to attack the gays. do you disagree with that?

How exactly is using the word marriage an attack on conservative groups?

It is conservative groups that are trying to tell gay couples that they can't be married.

Vendzilla · 06-26-2013, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

I know your problem is overturning the idea of majority rule and that is EXACTLY what the supreme court was set up to do.

The supreme court is the check against mob rule. it doesnt matter if 99.999% of the people are in favor of something and vote it into law the job of the supreme court is to make sure that the rights guaranteed to all of the people, including that .001% are not violated. If they are violated then it doesnt matter what the majority thinks or wants, it's the whole equal protection thing, the government is NOT allowed to treat people differently because of race, religion or anything else.

So few people really understand the role of the Supreme Court but they really should because it is hugely influential on their lives in ways they dont understand.

LONG after President Obama and all the justices are gone this decision will effect people's lives in ways that we don't yet know, but falling back on the idea of equal protection (DOMA) was exactly the right decision.

As far as the constitutionality of prop 8 and similar laws are concerned that will be decided on another day when someone who does have standing brings forth the suit.

I don't have a problem with DOMA getting shut down by the supreme court,

What I had a problem with was the one judge ruling on prop 8, one judge shouldn't have that power

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

How exactly is using the word marriage an attack on conservative groups?

It is conservative groups that are trying to tell gay couples that they can't be married.

I believe the conservative groups are saying that a man and a man can't be married because the definition of marriage is a man and a woman... that is the definition of marriage that has been established continually though antiquity...

I haven't seen any commentary or disagreements with gay civil unions coming out of the conservative camp.. you?

seems to me the ONLY controversy is the use of the word marriage define homosexual unions.

what would be wrong with gay couples in civil unions quietly going about their business with out public outrage and controversy? you see any issues with that?

Vendzilla · 06-26-2013, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

That isn't it at all.

They said prop 8 was unconstitutional, that way they didn't have to rule on the constitutionality of all states recognizing gay marriage. So that's exactly that

kane · 06-26-2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I believe the conservative groups are saying that a man and a man can't be married because the definition of marriage is a man and a woman... that is the definition of marriage that has been established continually though antiquity...

I haven't seen any commentary or disagreements with gay civil unions coming out of the conservative camp.. you?

seems to me the ONLY controversy is the use of the word marriage define homosexual unions.

what would be wrong with gay couples in civil unions quietly going about their business with out public outrage and controversy? you see any issues with that?

There is plenty of anti-gay sentiment regarding civil unions coming from the right wing. The more moderate of the right wingers have embraced civil unions recently because they didn't want to look like asses. If you don't believe me Google Conservatives against civil unions and you will find plenty of evidence.

As I stated in a different thread anytime you want to force a group of people to refer to themselves by a particular title you open them up to discrimination. That is what they gay marriage advocates are trying to avoid.

By saying that they want their marriage to be called a marriage and to be able to refer to themselves as married is not an attack on conservatives.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 06-26-2013, 03:58 PM

Latent homosexual homophobia...

ADG

mardigras · 06-26-2013, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I haven't seen any commentary or disagreements with gay civil unions coming out of the conservative camp.. you?

seems to me the ONLY controversy is the use of the word marriage define homosexual unions.

what would be wrong with gay couples in civil unions quietly going about their business with out public outrage and controversy? you see any issues with that?

Quote:

Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted. Of these, ten make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional, seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type

I don't know what conservatives you are listening to, but I have heard plenty of them against civil unions.

Bladewire · 06-26-2013, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

you've labeled me nonhuman and foolish on a public forum just for disagreeing with you...... in essence you have decided that my opinion has no value and choose to mock me. really Sarah? how dare I disagree with you? I obviously have no value because you are morally and intellectually superior and made the call? is that how it works? remind you of any other 'group'?

you don't get it do you Sarah? so only gay people have rights? is that the deal? what about religious people, they don't have rights?

what's different about you than them? you are just a bigoted, just as opinioned, just as morally superior and just as much of a bully.

personally don't care what anyone does sexually as long as they are over 18 and there is free will involved... but please leave my dog alone.

be pretty interesting if you would look at 'your' behaviors. you might be very surprised at what you find.

USE OF THE WORD HOMOS =

You want to degrade minorities on here, then lash back as a victim when people call you out on it? Be a man and deal with it! That woman has more sense then you've displayed so far

Bladewire · 06-26-2013, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Marriage is just a word that describes a legal relationship.

Straight couples can work on a new improved "super marriage" and pass it into law if they want to. Or homosexuals can. Either way.

Well said!

baddog · 06-26-2013, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

They said prop 8 was unconstitutional, that way they didn't have to rule on the constitutionality of all states recognizing gay marriage. So that's exactly that

No, they did not even address it.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday left for dead California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, but the question of gay and lesbian couples' constitutional right to marry remains very much alive.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices held in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial.

?We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,? Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. ?We decline to do so for the first time here.?

The judgement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

There is plenty of anti-gay sentiment regarding civil unions coming from the right wing. The more moderate of the right wingers have embraced civil unions recently because they didn't want to look like asses. If you don't believe me Google Conservatives against civil unions and you will find plenty of evidence.

As I stated in a different thread anytime you want to force a group of people to refer to themselves by a particular title you open them up to discrimination. That is what they gay marriage advocates are trying to avoid.

By saying that they want their marriage to be called a marriage and to be able to refer to themselves as married is not an attack on conservatives.

I believe what you are saying and honestly I really don't have that much interest in the whole gay situation. I just dropped into the threads to point out similar behaviors, the belief that everyone else is wrong and only 'they' hold the superior knowledge, in both the conservative and the gay lobby.

another point I'll make is I personally haven't heard or read the demeaning slanderous descriptors that the gay lobby uses to label the conservatives, and that certainly is my experience at GFY for having the audacity to disagree or point out another option, used by conservatives. I'm not saying that conservatives aren't doing this, only that I haven't seen the same level negative personality distortion coming from the group.

in my experience only liberals use 'you're stupid, disgusting, a loser, crazy etc.' as intellectual arguments to justify their stance or opinion. and I certainly see much of this at GFY.

however I'm sure since you have just pointed it out to me that if I were to search some low IQ areas of the web I would indeed find this conservative detritus.

being a father, grandfather, friend, business owner, producer, artist, fuck buddy and having a big ass cool dog keeps my pretty busy though.

this is an interesting point you have brought up:

Quote:

As I stated in a different thread anytime you want to force a group of people to refer to themselves by a particular title you open them up to discrimination. That is what they gay marriage advocates are trying to avoid.

seems like 'queer nation', gay pride and other homosexual organizations are working against this. everything I read about homosexuality is "I'm special, look at me" personally I don't believe pride is a personal label. I am proud of my daughter accomplishments, I am grateful for mine.

to me gay pride is a complete self aggrandizing statement with no validity. my feeling is if you are so grateful for being gay why must you always try and prove it to me? I have no dog in the fight... if it's that great go enjoy it in the privacy of your home

Grapesoda · 06-26-2013, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

USE OF THE WORD HOMOS =

You want to degrade minorities on here, then lash back as a victim when people call you out on it? Be a man and deal with it! That woman has more sense then you've displayed so far

here read this out loud until you get it:

I'm sofa king we todd did

that should keep you busy for a while here on the oprah winfey forum

baddog · 06-26-2013, 09:07 PM

For those unclear on what the CA ruling means, there has been no appeal on the Constitutionality of Prop 8 due to lack of jurisdiction.

PornDiscounts-V · 06-26-2013, 10:03 PM

DOMA was not struck down. It was shown to not apply only to the couples who filed the suit. Everyone else still cannot get married.

kane · 06-26-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

this is an interesting point you have brought up:

seems like 'queer nation', gay pride and other homosexual organizations are working against this. everything I read about homosexuality is "I'm special, look at me" personally I don't believe pride is a personal label. I am proud of my daughter accomplishments, I am grateful for mine.

to me gay pride is a complete self aggrandizing statement with no validity. my feeling is if you are so grateful for being gay why must you always try and prove it to me? I have no dog in the fight... if it's that great go enjoy it in the privacy of your home

I agree completely. I never understood ethnic pride. It seems like many different ethnic groups have pride parades, pride days etc. There are only a few things in this life you can't control. Which vagina you come out of is one of them. Like you say, if you are happy you are gay, or white, or black or Italian or Asian or whatever great. I'm not sure why there is a need to hold a parade and tell me about it.

It is a big hangup for some people. My neighbor hates the idea of any interracial couples. She doesn't even like that I am dating an Asian girl. Her argument is that children of mix race couples will have no "cultural base." When she told me this I almost started laughing. I said, "My girlfriend is half Japanese, most of my ethnic background is Swedish. The kid will be a viking samurai. That sounds like a pretty good cultural base to me."

The Porn Nerd · 06-26-2013, 11:37 PM

I got all excited at first - I thought the thread said "DMCA Struck Down"! LOL

Only people who fucking care about this issue are assholes with no life, worrying about other people's sex lives.

Google Expert · 06-27-2013, 10:08 AM

So now that DOMA is unconstitutional, how long will it be before age of consent laws are struck down too?

Why is one form of degeneracy acceptable but another isn't?

Grapesoda · 06-27-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

I got all excited at first - I thought the thread said "DMCA Struck Down"! LOL

Only people who fucking care about this issue are assholes with no life, worrying about other people's sex lives.

ahhh haa ... don't you make a living worry about other peoples sex lives????

Grapesoda · 06-27-2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Getsu

So now that DOMA is unconstitutional, how long will it be before age of consent laws are struck down too?

Why is one form of degeneracy acceptable but another isn't?

drug and sex laws are politically motived $.02

The Porn Nerd · 06-27-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

ahhh haa ... don't you make a living worry about other peoples sex lives????

Hmmm....good point I must say.....:D

06-26-2013, 11:49 AM	#51
iSpyCams Amateur Gynecologist Industry Role: Join Date: May 2009 Location: Medellin Posts: 4,436	Personally I believe marriage is an archaic institution based on the idea that a woman can be the property of a man. And I also believe health insurance is pretty much a scam. I think we are all making progress in the wrong direction. Sure its easier to convince society that gays should marry than to convince them that NO ONE should marry, but it's still not progress. It's allowing gays to enter a party that should have been over long ago. __________________ - As soon as I think up a good sig it's going here.

06-26-2013, 12:17 PM	#60
sandman! Icq: 14420613 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: chicago Posts: 15,432	__________________ Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]

06-26-2013, 12:54 PM	#62
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

06-26-2013, 01:45 PM	#65
Cleo Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Fort Laudderdale Posts: 218	Just like separate but equal didn't work with the races it doesn't work with sexual orientation. Marriage outside of the church, that is what we are talking about here, is nothing more than a legal contract. Marriage gives my spouse and I legal protection against inheritance taxes. Social Security benefits. increased standard deductions on our taxes. These are the benefits that we are looking forward to enjoying. But there are a plethora of other benefits regarding child credits, immigration not being forced to testify against your spouse just to name a few more. We already have a civil union but at best that only allows visitation in a hospital, which we have both taken advantage of. I don't give a rats ass about religion, the church or any imaginary omnipotent creatures in the sky or below. The term marriage is what our society has come to call the benefits given to two adults that have entered into a legal binding agreement. Just like I spend money that says "In God We Trust" despite the fact that I don't believe that there is a god I accept the fact that marriage is called what it is. America is supposed to be a secular government. It's about time that religion is finally being removed from marriage. __________________ Looking for fresh content and website design please call or text. If no ansewar try my email Micheal (754) 245-7579 [email protected]

06-26-2013, 03:58 PM	#79
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	Latent homosexual homophobia... ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

06-26-2013, 11:58 AM	#58
IDM Marketing Guy Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 40	Now they can be just as worried about their pensions as we are...

06-26-2013, 09:07 PM	#86
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	For those unclear on what the CA ruling means, there has been no appeal on the Constitutionality of Prop 8 due to lack of jurisdiction.

06-26-2013, 10:03 PM	#87
PornDiscounts-V Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: L.A. Posts: 5,744	DOMA was not struck down. It was shown to not apply only to the couples who filed the suit. Everyone else still cannot get married. __________________ Blog Posts - Contextual Links - Hardlinks on 600+ Blog Network * Handwritten * 180 C Class IPs * Permanent! * Many Niches! * Bulk Discounts! GFYPosts /at/ J2Media.net

06-26-2013, 11:37 PM	#89
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,609	I got all excited at first - I thought the thread said "DMCA Struck Down"! LOL Only people who fucking care about this issue are assholes with no life, worrying about other people's sex lives. __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

06-27-2013, 10:08 AM	#90
Google Expert Webmaster Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 14,294	So now that DOMA is unconstitutional, how long will it be before age of consent laws are struck down too? Why is one form of degeneracy acceptable but another isn't?