Prop8 Judge Admits Hes Gay - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Prop8 couldnt even have been on the ballot if federal law had no allowed it, unfortunately for advocates of same-sex marriage federal law ALREADY ruled that LEGAL marriage is defined as a union between a male and a female. So let me get this straight, our federal representative created a law that federally in essence banned same-sex marriage, then voters in California banned same-sex marriage and then ONE HOMOSEXUAL judge decides he doesnt like that so he tries to pick it apart with an opinion and suddenly you all think the Supreme Court will overturn the will of the federal government and majority of people?

I guess we'll find out, won't we.

My money is on SC upholding the judge's decision.

Quentin · 08-06-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Yes I absolutely have and there is a HUGE BIAS in it, he fails to take into account that the majority of Californian voters voted and passed an issue that the federal government gave them the RIGHT TO VOTE on. So let me ask you this, as a federal judge he simply IGNORED federal law and you dont call that bias?

He ignored federal law? Are you quite sure about that?

The section on conclusions of law is actually fairly detailed, and includes quite a bit of case law citation for something that he "ignored."

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what part about universal suffrage, emancipation, and freedom of speech don't you understand?

How can you even make that idiotic comparison, HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE and they DID VOTE on this bill. It is not illegal to be gay. I fail to see the comparisons you are drawing? You simply cannot have a RIGHT TO EVERYTHING that you deem important to you morally or personally when it overturns the majority of voters.

brassmonkey · 08-06-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coup

cry about it you fucking homophobes

its not fear people don't want gays getting married.

if they allow it their turning their back on their beliefs.

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Prop8 couldnt even have been on the ballot if federal law had no allowed it

Is that a fact? Well then, federal law must now allow that Marijuana is legal for those over 21, because that's on the ballot here.

cwd · 08-06-2010, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

No, but then the USA is not a Democracy anyways, but I do agree with the statement above that this has hurt the Democratic process. What part of "the majority of Californian voters banned same-sex marriage" dont you understand?

So you don't care if gays are allowed to marry or not, you are concerned that people voted on an issue and a judge overruled that vote, thereby hurting the democratic process.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Is that a fact? Well then, federal law must now allow that Marijuana is legal for those over 21, because that's on the ballot here.

I meant to say "WOULDNT" have been on the ballot if Federal law did not give states the right to put it on the ballot. Regardless, wouldnt or couldnt essentially the same thing.

Vendzilla · 08-06-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

I always get out of jury duty by telling the court exactly what I think of the police. Never had to serve on a jury yet.

Last time I was up for Jury duty, I told them that the arresting officer was my next door neighbor growing up, it was a murder trial. They got rid of me fast.

I told him later and bought him a beer for his help

marketsmart · 08-06-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

I meant to say "WOULDNT" have been on the ballot if Federal law did not give states the right to put it on the ballot. Regardless, wouldnt or couldnt essentially the same thing.

do you believe that sodomy should be legal?

.

cwd · 08-06-2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Last time I was up for Jury duty, I told them that the arresting officer was my next door neighbor growing up, it was a murder trial. They got rid of me fast.

I told him later and bought him a beer for his help

I have honestly never been called for jury duty...maybe they know something I don't...

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwd

So you don't care if gays are allowed to marry or not, you are concerned that people voted on an issue and a judge overruled that vote, thereby hurting the democratic process.

Personally no I dont REALLY care about same-sex marriage, I do care about the increasing loss of voters rights and states rights. Absolutely this is dangerous for this country no matter which way you slice it.

Unfortunately I think liberals and most Democrats WANT this erosion to happen so we can have a socialist country ruled exclusively essentially by one entity(the federal government) and to give more weight to minority opinion and law than majority.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

do you believe that sodomy should be legal?

I have not looked at sodomy law but as I understand it based on common knowledge I believe its a states rights issue, and legal in some areas and illegal in others. I see nothing wrong either way. This is why we are called the UNITED STATES of America. Do you think Sodomy should be a federal law?

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

I meant to say "WOULDNT" have been on the ballot if Federal law did not give states the right to put it on the ballot.

Wouldn't or couldn't is irrelevant. Now you're talking about the states right to make their own laws. That's been around for quite some time. But they still cannot just make laws willy-nilly that violate constitutional rights, are discriminatory, or otherwise ill-conceived, no matter how many damn people vote it into law.

And that's where judges come in. It's their job to decipher, interpret, and rule on the validity of the measures passed by the state. This one was found to be full of shit, and the judge did his job & rightfully shit-canned it.

The fact that you are so upset over what is a shining example of the process in action, tells me you are either extremely homophobic, or simply uneducated.

_Richard_ · 08-06-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

How can you even make that idiotic comparison, HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE and they DID VOTE on this bill. It is not illegal to be gay. I fail to see the comparisons you are drawing? You simply cannot have a RIGHT TO EVERYTHING that you deem important to you morally or personally when it overturns the majority of voters.

all these things were against public opinion.. so the example does a great job in trying to show you that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on rights that are based in discrimination

_Richard_ · 08-06-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Wouldn't or couldn't is irrelevant. Now you're talking about the states right to make their own laws. That's been around for quite some time. But they still cannot just make laws willy-nilly that violate constitutional rights, are discriminatory, or otherwise ill-conceived, no matter how many damn people vote it into law.

And that's where judges come in. It's their job to decipher, interpret, and rule on the validity of the measures passed by the state. This one was found to be full of shit, and the judge did his job & rightfully shit-canned it.

The fact that you are so upset over what is a shining example of the process in action, tells me you are either extremely homophobic, or simply uneducated.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

all these things were against public opinion.. so the example does a great job in trying to show you that people shouldn't be allowed to vote on rights that are based in discrimination

There are lots of things against majority public opinion that are legal, the DIFFERENCE here is this was an issue put on the ballot and passed by the voters, this is HOW we make our laws. The judge is the one discriminating against the majority voters of California not the other way around.

The only other REAL precedent based on your loose comparison that can be made is Jim Crow laws, those were ill conceived and verys specific laws that could and were easily picked apart. Same-sex marriage is not even close to segregation.

Technically EVERY LAW is discriminatory to someone.

cwd · 08-06-2010, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Personally no I dont REALLY care about same-sex marriage, I do care about the increasing loss of voters rights and states rights. Absolutely this is dangerous for this country no matter which way you slice it.

Unfortunately I think liberals and most Democrats WANT this erosion to happen so we can have a socialist country ruled exclusively essentially by one entity(the federal government) and to give more weight to minority opinion and law than majority.

I am glad that this is not about gay people having the right to marry someone of their choosing. Really when it comes down to it, people are people and love is love and if two people have found each other and wish to spend their lives together than there can be no more visible way to show this love to the world than through marraige.

As for the erosion of voters (individuals) and states rights, it seems there are quite a few people who are concerned of this lately. However I don't follow that liberals and democrats are to be blamed for this.

_Richard_ · 08-06-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

There are lots of things against majority public opinion that are legal, the DIFFERENCE here is this was an issue put on the ballot and passed by the voters, this is HOW we make our laws. The judge is the one discriminating against the majority voters of California not the other way around.

The only other REAL precedent based on your loose comparison that can be made is Jim Crow laws, those were ill conceived and verys specific laws that could and were easily picked apart. Same-sex marriage is not even close to segregation.

Technically EVERY LAW is discriminatory to someone.

you mean 52%.. and apparently that 52% didn't get the memo that this wasn't a religious issue when they collected 25 million dollars from Mormons, who, by the way, are from several different states who took part in 'the legal process' of the one state

look, i know you're never going to admit you're making an error of logic, and I'm just going to leave this as is. but i do hope you consider my point regarding the very real dangers in allowing public to be able to arbitrarily decide who gets what rights, and who doesn't.

marketsmart · 08-06-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

I have not looked at sodomy law but as I understand it based on common knowledge I believe its a states rights issue, and legal in some areas and illegal in others. I see nothing wrong either way. This is why we are called the UNITED STATES of America. Do you think Sodomy should be a federal law?

Do you think a judge would overturn a law against sodomy just because he likes to fuck chicks in the ass?

.

Vendzilla · 08-06-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwd

I have honestly never been called for jury duty...maybe they know something I don't...

I live in an area where with the small population you have a better chance of being called, they get your address from your voting record, been getting it more since I went independent, about 6 months ago, just told them what I do for a living, didn't even make it to the courtroom

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwd

As for the erosion of voters (individuals) and states rights, it seems there are quite a few people who are concerned of this lately. However I don't follow that liberals and democrats are to be blamed for this.

When you give the minority vote the majority weight in law the system breaks down. Not to say the system isnt already broken, it is very much in the process of breaking.

Whats going on here is basically the homosexual equivalent of the race card being played.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

Do you think a judge would overturn a law against sodomy just because he likes to fuck chicks in the ass?

I guarantee you it would be on his mind and he would look for ways to make it legal. Legal opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

The fact that he is gay makes complete sense of why and how he chose to pick apart Prop8 and I am pretty sure subliminally the conservative judges f the Supreme Court will take this into account. They will probably work extra hard to poke holes in his opinion and uphold the will of the voters and states rights.

Thats why the first words of this post were YA DUN GOOFED

A straight judge ruling this way would have been so much better for the fags.

La_Sexorcist · 08-06-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yeah, they should of had a normal judge handle this case.

Lol! A normal judge?

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

There are lots of things against majority public opinion that are legal, the DIFFERENCE here is this was an issue put on the ballot and passed by the voters, this is HOW we make our laws. The judge is the one discriminating against the majority voters of California not the other way around.

The only other REAL precedent based on your loose comparison that can be made is Jim Crow laws, those were ill conceived and verys specific laws that could and were easily picked apart. Same-sex marriage is not even close to segregation.

Technically EVERY LAW is discriminatory to someone.

You're way out in the deep end. Every law is not discriminatory. That's ridiculous. The judge didn't discriminate against anyone. Equally ludicrous.

WP:

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or judicature) is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign or state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case.

This branch of government is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "supreme court" or "constitutional court"), together with lower courts.

The judicial branch has the power to change laws.

LINK

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 08-06-2010, 01:01 PM

That's bullshit. No one is forcing people to enter gay marriages. If gay marriage is against your beliefs, don't get gay married.

Eating lobster is forbidden in the bible, but you don't see those who don't eat lobster for religious reasons trying to forbid other people from eating it by enacting laws to make it illegal. They simply don't eat it and go about their lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

its not fear people don't want gays getting married.

if they allow it their turning their back on their beliefs.

marcop · 08-06-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Why stop at homosexual marriages? Extend it to polygamy, child marriages and beast marriages. Hell necro-marriage too.

I always wondered why polygamy is against the law. Anyone know why?

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

You're way out in the deep end. Every law is not discriminatory. That's ridiculous. The judge didn't discriminate against anyone. Equally ludicrous.

1. Yes every single law is discriminatory to someone, this is why laws are VOTED upon.
2. The judge discriminated and/or ignored the state of Californias right to have this issue on the ballot, Federal laws right to allow the state of California to have this issue on the ballot and the majority of voters who voted to pass this issue on the ballot.

brassmonkey · 08-06-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by La_Sexorcist

Lol! A normal judge?

he's gay! that's what he means

dyna mo · 08-06-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by La_Sexorcist

Lol! A normal judge?

i guess my sarcastic wit backfired on me, no one got it.

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

1. Yes every single law is discriminatory to someone, this is why laws are VOTED upon.
2. The judge discriminated and/or ignored the state of Californias right to have this issue on the ballot, Federal laws right to allow the state of California to have this issue on the ballot and the majority of voters who voted to pass this issue on the ballot.

1. Murder law isn't discriminatory. Theory blown.
2. The judge didn't "discriminate" or "ignore" California's "right" to have this issue on the ballot. It WAS on the ballot. More than once. It passed, and the judge deemed it stupid.

cwd · 08-06-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

I always wondered why polygamy is against the law. Anyone know why?

no one likes mormons?

I think thats why they spent all that cash against same sex marriage..."if we can't have marriage our way, no one can!"

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

I always wondered why polygamy is against the law. Anyone know why?

They tend to force girls into marriage. Also believe they tend to cross incestuous lines.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

1. Murder law isn't discriminatory. Theory blown.
2. The judge didn't "discriminate" or "ignore" California's "right" to have this issue on the ballot. It WAS on the ballot. More than once. It passed, and the judge deemed it stupid.

You use words like "stupid" and "theory blown" and expect people to respect let alone acknowledge your opinion?

Murder law(lol love how you describe it) can certainly be discriminatory towards an individual with severe retardation, people in the act of law enforcement, soldiers at war, impaired individuals, etc. Fortunately we have fine tuned your "all inclusive murder law" to be MANY laws that encompass the death of individuals caused by the actions or inaction of others.

The Judge never said Prop8 was "stupid" in his opinion. That is a word he would reserve to be used only to describe you.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

They tend to force girls into marriage. Also believe they tend to cross incestuous lines.

And homosexuals tend to spread AIDS... how is it that you can even use that mind of yours to even breathe without a machine AMP?

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwd

no one likes mormons? I think thats why they spent all that cash against same sex marriage..."if we can't have marriage our way, no one can!"

Im pretty sure more people dont like fags than mormons. Im just saying....

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

You use words like "stupid" and "theory blown" and expect people to respect let alone acknowledge your opinion?

Murder law(lol love how you describe it) can certainly be discriminatory towards an individual with severe retardation, people in the act of law enforcement, soldiers at war, impaired individuals, etc. Fortunately we have fine tuned your "all inclusive murder law" to be MANY laws that encompass the death of individuals caused by the actions or inaction of others.

The Judge never said Prop8 was "stupid" in his opinion. That is a word he would reserve to be used only to describe you.

Murder laws discriminate against retarded people, police, soldiers, and the drunk?

Okay, so you don't like "murder law".... let's see if I can come up with a few others that aren't discriminatory that you might find acceptable.

Jaywalking (discriminates against jaywalkers)
Speed limits (discriminates against speeders)
Term limits (discriminates against incumbants)
Burglary laws (discriminates against burglars)
CP laws (discriminate against kids trying to break into the porn biz)
Alcohol laws (discriminate against those under 21)
Drunk Driving laws (discriminate against alcohol retailers)

Are you fucking retarded or something?

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

And homosexuals tend to spread AIDS... how is it that you can even use that mind of yours to even breathe without a machine AMP?

Straights spread AIDS too. Let's ban them from getting married.

What the fuck does ass-fucking have to do with marriage?

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Straights spread AIDS too. Let's ban them from getting married.

What the fuck does ass-fucking have to do with marriage?

I was responding to someone using generalizations against a religious group of people so I used a generalization against a sexual preference group of people. Trying to drag me off subject because of you own ignorance of the true issues at hand are weak AMP.

The Demon · 08-06-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

So not only can gays not marry, but they should be discriminated against for positions on the bench because they're gay too? Somehow gay = abnormal now?

EDIT: Also, why do you think it's fair for a straight judge to rule on the rights of gays? Straight judges are more fair?

Uh, unless you're claiming homosexuality is normal, in which case you'd be a moron on drugs. There is nothing normal about homosexuality, that's why people have a problem with it. I guess the male and female bodies are designed randomly. Just stop posting. With that said, he was openly gay before the ruling and I have respect for Supreme Court judges. I have no doubt he was being objective, I just don't agree with his decision.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Are you fucking retarded or something?

Lets see if you can actually find a SOCIAL law that isnt discriminatory.

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

I was responding to someone using generalizations against a religious group of people so I used a generalization against a sexual preference group of people. Trying to drag me off subject because of you own ignorance of the true issues at hand are weak AMP.

I'm not dragging you off subject. I'm just trying to keep up with all the insane laughable things you are saying. You said Homosexuals spread AIDS. I informed you that straights do too. That nullifies your statement. (not that your statement had anything to do with marriage anyway)

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Lets see if you can actually find a SOCIAL law that isnt discriminatory.

You said ALL LAWS. I proved you wrong. Don't try to change your parameters now. It's too late.

Gerco · 08-06-2010, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Why stop at homosexual marriages? Extend it to polygamy, child marriages and beast marriages. Hell necro-marriage too.

Oh fuck off already Fuck.

No one gives 2 shits about you. You in the "Adult" industry. Take you fucking views elwhere to preach you fucking fuck.

Fuck.

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Uh, unless you're claiming homosexuality is normal, in which case you'd be a moron on drugs. There is nothing normal about homosexuality, that's why people have a problem with it.

According to YOU and "those people". They probably find you to be very not-normal as well. I know I do.

Tom_PM · 08-06-2010, 01:39 PM

Some people say that people choose to be gay. So for them it could be broken down into simple steps, such as: if you dont like it, dont choose to be gay. Which only makes sense if a person is capable of choosing their sexual orientation.

That is a clearly incorrect presumption. But even if someone wholeheartedly disagrees and insists that it's a choice, they can still employ logic to realise the other sides position. To the other side it's a simple matter of birth. And you need look no further than ANY other consequence of birth to make the legal analogy. Should black people be banned from being married if the majority of voters say that they should be? Of course fucking not. It's a right.

Furthermore, the very fact that it's "up for a vote" is proof that equality doesnt yet exist for them. It's a 1 to 1 replacement analogy, and it's fucking painfully simple. One side thinks it's a choice, and therefore you can regulate it like having to be this tall to ride the ride. The other side knows that they were born that way, and say fuck you idiot, you dont even understand the argument.

The Demon · 08-06-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

According to YOU and "those people". They probably find you to be very not-normal as well. I know I do.

Oh jesus, you're delusional. Even homosexuals admit they're not normal. The ones that are trying to rationalize their choices came up with "there's nothing wrong with it!!" You're right though, your retarded opinion trumps science!

You're right though. Most stupid people are in denial and therefore find everyone else to be abnormal.

cambaby · 08-06-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerco

Oh fuck off already Fuck. No one gives 2 shits about you. You in the "Adult" industry. Take you fucking views elwhere to preach you fucking fuck. Fuck.

The truth hurts I know. Go smoke a bong you will feel better.

The Demon · 08-06-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Some people say that people choose to be gay. So for them it could be broken down into simple steps, such as: if you dont like it, dont choose to be gay. Which only makes sense if a person is capable of choosing their sexual orientation.

That is a clearly incorrect presumption. But even if someone wholeheartedly disagrees and insists that it's a choice, they can still employ logic to realise the other sides position. To the other side it's a simple matter of birth. And you need look no further than ANY other consequence of birth to make the legal analogy. Should black people be banned from being married if the majority of voters say that they should be? Of course fucking not. It's a right.

Furthermore, the very fact that it's "up for a vote" is proof that equality doesnt yet exist for them. It's a 1 to 1 replacement analogy, and it's fucking painfully simple. One side thinks it's a choice, and therefore you can regulate it like having to be this tall to ride the ride. The other side knows that they were born that way, and say fuck you idiot, you dont even understand the argument.

Please point out any conclusive scientific study that says homosexuals were born that way, and not resulted from the product of their environment.

mardigras · 08-06-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Prop8 couldnt even have been on the ballot if federal law had no allowed it, unfortunately for advocates of same-sex marriage federal law ALREADY ruled that LEGAL marriage is defined as a union between a male and a female. So let me get this straight, our federal representative created a law that federally in essence banned same-sex marriage, then voters in California banned same-sex marriage and then ONE HOMOSEXUAL judge decides he doesnt like that so he tries to pick it apart with an opinion and suddenly you all think the Supreme Court will overturn the will of the federal government and majority of people?

When I was a kid (I'm 48) the "will of the people" in my state was to slap "Whites Only" signs on drinking fountains, restrooms, restaurants, etc... it was not a vote of the people that ended it. The Supreme Court ended school segregation in October '69, against "the will of the people". Were those "activist" judges? Were they wrong?

Amputate Your Head · 08-06-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Oh jesus, you're delusional. Even homosexuals admit they're not normal. The ones that are trying to rationalize their choices came up with "there's nothing wrong with it!!" You're right though, your retarded opinion trumps science!

And you are the one that gets to decide what's normal and what's not? Good to know.

08-06-2010, 01:39 PM	#95
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Some people say that people choose to be gay. So for them it could be broken down into simple steps, such as: if you dont like it, dont choose to be gay. Which only makes sense if a person is capable of choosing their sexual orientation. That is a clearly incorrect presumption. But even if someone wholeheartedly disagrees and insists that it's a choice, they can still employ logic to realise the other sides position. To the other side it's a simple matter of birth. And you need look no further than ANY other consequence of birth to make the legal analogy. Should black people be banned from being married if the majority of voters say that they should be? Of course fucking not. It's a right. Furthermore, the very fact that it's "up for a vote" is proof that equality doesnt yet exist for them. It's a 1 to 1 replacement analogy, and it's fucking painfully simple. One side thinks it's a choice, and therefore you can regulate it like having to be this tall to ride the ride. The other side knows that they were born that way, and say fuck you idiot, you dont even understand the argument. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.