RunRyder RC
 9  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 3947 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Court says "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional
06-05-2012 02:03 AM  5 years agoPost 41
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"Real Men" might call you "Sweetie" when you lie about your family (brothers dying in a war zone) on a public forum.
YOu know what dennis frigg off ok
Same to you sweet stuff.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 02:42 AM  5 years agoPost 42
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I am wondering if cb wore a dress or he/she just go the old fashion gay way. you know the knit blouse and tight jeans with the ankle
split with heels. Can we call you gay-lord instead cb}.
real gay man dont really address other man as sweetie so it seem you just an act LOL.
You can call me anything you want Hun.....whatever gets you through the day.....

You were very specific in how you imagined me dressed......Hmmmmm......

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 10:26 PM  5 years agoPost 43
127.0.0.1

rrNovice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

In Virginia, all you have to do is pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee. And if you're in an accident, prepare to be personally sued for the damages caused. No other caveats.

I posted this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here:
The important thing here is two fold:

1.) If repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government can no longer separate "civil union" from "marriage" nor define "marriage" as solely between a man and a woman.
2.) States are free to define marriage as they see fit.

Here's where things get interesting. It is constitutional law that no state laws can deny any citizen the rights given at the federal level. So, if a state constitution removes the right of equal marriage, it can be ruled in objection to federally granted rights.

I'm interested to see where this is going to go.
IMHO this wouldn't be as much of an issue if they were not trying to change the definition of Marriage.
Do you realize that DOMA was signed by Clinton? Your precious definition of marriage, as between a man and woman, was actually signed into federal law by a Democrat. That's right, your federal definition of marriage comes from a guy everyone loves to use as the antithesis to marriage.

Yeah, I'll just let that sit and percolate for a little while...
We live in a republic.

Whenever a lifestyle or belief gets in the way of the majority, that same majority has a right to vote it out of existence or deny certain rights of the majority. Any notion otherwise is to promote taking away the rights of the majority. You cannot have it both ways.
Makes no sense.

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-05-2012 11:54 PM  5 years agoPost 44
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Look.....here's the deal......I could give a rats ass what its called. The only thing I care about (in reference to this subject) is that I have the same right to sign a legally binding contract to give half my crap away as the straight people do....which I dont because some douche a thousand years ago who was afraid of his own sexuality wrote something in a religious text.....

You wanna solve the problem?.....Here's what you do....If you want to get "Married"......do it in a church......let the churches decide whether they want to "change the definition". All other union's performed outside of the church (i.e. Justice of the Peace, Judges, Ships Captains, Internet Preachers, Etc)are to be considered "Civil Unions". No matter if your gay or straight...you get paired this way....thats what its called and there should be no distinction....they're both considered the same in the eyes of the law.

They do this with Champagne and Tequila...why not marriage??

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 12:26 AM  5 years agoPost 45
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

California gay marriage case headed to U.S. Supreme Court

June 5, 2012

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to deny an appeal of February’s ruling against Proposition 8 paves the way for a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage by next year.

The decision means the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have two major gay-rights cases on its docket in the near future. Another federal appeals court last week struck down a federal law that denied federal recognition to same-sex marriage.

Backers of Proposition 8 said they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit ruling.

Proposition 8, passed by California voters in November 2008, reinstated a ban on same-sex nuptials six months after the state Supreme Court had struck it down on state constitutional grounds. The ballot measure amended the state constitution. Two same-sex couples then sued in federal court, contending that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in February that the ban violated federal constitutional guarantees but limited the effect of the ruling to California. Sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the 9th Circuit to assemble an 11-judge panel to rehear the case.

A majority of the circuit’s active judges voted against such reconsideration.

On Tuesday, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, joined by two other jurists, wrote in a dissent that President Obama, in declaring his personal support for same-sex marriage, said it was a matter for states to decide.

“We have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters,” O’Scannlain wrote. “We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.”

Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins, who voted in February to overturn Proposition 8, responded in a concurring opinion that their ruling was narrow.

“We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage.

“That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time.”

The court’s brief order Tuesday also said that Judge N.R. Smith, who dissented in the February ruling, favored review by an 11-member en banc panel of the court.

“The final chapter of the Proposition 8 case has now begun,” said Chad Griffin, founder of a group that is financing the legal fight to overturn Proposition 8. “Should the United States Supreme Court decide to review the 9th Circuit’s decision in our case, I am confident that the justices will stand on the side of fairness and equality.”

Marriage Equality, another gay rights group, noted that opponents of gay marriage have 90 days to request review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit held that Proposition 8’s targeting lesbian and gay people and taking away their freedom to marry violated the equality and fairness guarantees of the United States Constitution,” said John Lewis, Marriage Equality USA’s legal director.

“Today, a majority of the Court agreed, by declining to revisit the ruling. If the United States Supreme Court also declines to review the case, loving, committed lesbian and gay couples could be able to marry again in California later this year or early next year.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...reme-court.html

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 03:41 PM  5 years agoPost 46
PsychoZ

rrApprentice

Northern, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

they're both considered the same in the eyes of the law.
Actually no they are not. A married couple receives about 1,000 benefits that a civil union couple does not.

So if they are the same then they should receive all the same benefits of a married couple, and that is what they are fighting for.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 03:57 PM  5 years agoPost 47
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That's Completely AZZ BackWard's : That Mental Mind Set IS the Problem
Completely :


A married couple receives about 1,000 benefits that a civil union couple does not.
If that was the case ??? Why is it that fewer and fewer are married under the Covenant :
If it was such a good deal - then why NOT ???

THE COST and it's Not Just Monetarily$$$$$

Any time thing's get tough : They BAIL like coward's -that's mild

GIVE THEM THE SAME COST beside's the $$ Benifit's

They don't want that part

Every time you see a failed Marriage : What do you see ?????

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 04:09 PM  5 years agoPost 48
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Actually no they are not. A married couple receives about 1,000 benefits that a civil union couple does not.
So if they are the same then they should receive all the same benefits of a married couple, and that is what they are fighting for.
Understood.....I was implying that "in my scenario".....they would be the same thing....no distinction. Just clearing that up.

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 04:57 PM  5 years agoPost 49
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

which I dont because some douche a thousand years ago who was afraid of his own sexuality wrote something in a religious text...
What a bunch of liberal bullcrap !! Blame it on Bush and now blame it on God who doesn't exist!!! LOLOLolololo! Tell us cb who else is on you blame it on list?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 05:12 PM  5 years agoPost 50
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gee Mr. Erb.......I take it you didn't do too well in reading comprehension in school...did you? Must be all those bible verses clouding your head......

Pull your head out of the sand and smell the air (created by photosynthesis and molecules of atoms held together by their covalent bonds....not "magic"

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 05:25 PM  5 years agoPost 51
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

created by photosynthesis and molecules of atoms held together by their covalent bonds....not "magic"
No magic here! " created is correct but by whom or in your mind what?
Soup of the day? Hmmmmm???

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:07 PM  5 years agoPost 52
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No soup for me today.....I had it night before last....a nice crab and roasted pepper bisque...Mmmmmm! Oh wait.....you guys dont do shellfish...do you?......I mean the whole "shellfish is an abomination" and all that.....

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:18 PM  5 years agoPost 53
127.0.0.1

rrNovice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No magic here! " created is correct but by whom or in your mind what?
Soup of the day? Hmmmmm???
Photosynthesis is a process that takes place in plants. Plants are the result of the perfected evolutionary process of algae. Algae (and subsequently proteins) are created via amino acids (yes, naturally occurring) through a process call protein synthesis. Sooooo, all process we've discusses are naturally occurring and explainable without referencing any divine creator. Problem solved?

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:22 PM  5 years agoPost 54
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The Concise Division
Undeniable:

The Created ::::: You -----your responsibility---

The CRE----A----TOR :::::: HIM - his responsibility

HUGH Difference :

One is Not The Other -think about it

greyeagle

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:23 PM  5 years agoPost 55
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Photosynthesis is a process that takes place in plants. Plants are the result of the perfected evolutionary process of algae. Algae (and subsequently proteins) are created via amino acids (yes, naturally occurring) through a process call protein synthesis. Sooooo, all process we've discusses are naturally occurring and explainable without referencing any divine creator. Problem solved?
Works for me!

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:25 PM  5 years agoPost 56
sjgusmc21

rrApprentice

San Antonio, Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey CB, what the heck are you talking about? Shell fish? Some guy confused with his sexuality 1000 years ago? I KNOW you aren't talking about being a Christian....And I KNOW you aren't talking about Christ. Because if you are, then you APPARENTLY haven't a clue as to what you are saying. I know you wouldn't be that disrespectful. I don't care what you believe in, whether you are straight or gay, religious, spiritual or an atheist.

What I do care about is when a minority group, and I mean SMALL MINORITY GROUP try to force the majority to accept them and their beliefs and lifestyles. Two men or two women want to live together? Go for it, they are human beings and have that right. Notice I said 'live together, not marry'. BUT DON'T TRY TO TELL ME OR MY FAMILY IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL. You want to believe it, then go right ahead. But let me catch some libtard teacher telling my children it is perfectly normal for two men or two women to be married, well, at a minimum I will probably be escorted from the school and my children will no longer attend that school.

Marriage is between a Male and a Female. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe what you want. Semper Fi!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:26 PM  5 years agoPost 57
127.0.0.1

rrNovice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Took a pic of myself after reading GREYEAGLE's post...thought I'd share.

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:36 PM  5 years agoPost 58
127.0.0.1

rrNovice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hey CB, what the heck are you talking about? Shell fish? Some guy confused with his sexuality 1000 years ago? I KNOW you aren't talking about being a Christian....
I'm pretty sure my reading comprehension is up-to-snuff...I'm pretty sure he was talking about those things.
And I KNOW you aren't talking about Christ. Because if you are, then you APPARENTLY haven't a clue as to what you are saying. I know you wouldn't be that disrespectful.
Again, I'm pretty sure he was. And I'm pretty sure he knew what he was saying. I don't think it's disrespectful at all. No more disrespectful that for you to ask him to "just fall in line and accept the facts."
I don't care what you believe in, whether you are straight or gay, religious, spiritual or an atheist.
If you don't care, why get so offended?
What I do care about is when a minority group, and I mean SMALL MINORITY GROUP try to force the majority to accept them and their beliefs and lifestyles.
Ever opened a history book? Ever read about the crusades?
Two men or two women want to live together? Go for it, they are human beings and have that right. Notice I said 'live together, not marry'. BUT DON'T TRY TO TELL ME OR MY FAMILY IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL.
I think "normal" is a bit of an overstatement. I think the point is that they just want it to be "acceptable." You may teach what is "normal" to your kids allow them to decide what is acceptable.
You want to believe it, then go right ahead. But let me catch some libtard teacher telling my children it is perfectly normal for two men or two women to be married, well, at a minimum I will probably be escorted from the school and my children will no longer attend that school.
That sounds perfectly rational.
Marriage is between a Male and a Female. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe what you want. Semper Fi!
SEMPER FI YUT KILL MOTIVATE, BLAH.

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:41 PM  5 years agoPost 59
flyinfriend

rrApprentice

North American continent

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Whenever I see people ranting against gays this quote from Shakespeare's comes to mind...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

If you don't 'get it' then think Ted Haggard.

How such ignorance exists in this day and age and how such hatred can spew from 'loving' christians never ceases to amaze me. Put down your 2000 year old middle eastern scrolls, pick up an educational book and step into the 21st century. It really is amazing what even a mediocre education can do for broadening your closed mindedness.

The bible states eating shell fish is an abomination in gods eyes. It also states that disobedient children should be stoned to death. God forbid any of you had/have children. It also states that virgin women who are the spoils of battle can be raped and babies can be dashed against stone walls, and that slaves can be beaten and as long as they live for three days after the beating it is not a sin to have beaten them...this goes on and on, the list by no means stops here. What an incredibly loving and thoughtful god you believe in. If I chose to believe in any god I could I wouldn't believe in THAT one. Come on, you can make up a better god than the old guy with a grey beard who is all about murder, rape, and punishment (look at all the innocent women and children he slaughtered because of a few gays in Haiti). I always wondered why he is so hung up on peoples sex lives. With all the cruelty humankind inflicts upon one another I have always been surprised why sex is so high on his list.

Yeah I know you don't have to tell me...I'm going to hell.

It's about time this quote from one of our founding fathers comes to be:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

~ THOMAS JEFFERSON

Oh, whoops I forgot our country was founded on Christian 'ethic'.

Let the quoting from the bible (or the Koran if you're so inclined) begin...

Please respond to this post in a christian manner.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
06-06-2012 06:42 PM  5 years agoPost 60
PsychoZ

rrApprentice

Northern, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Two men or two women want to live together? Go for it, they are human beings and have that right. Notice I said 'live together, not marry'. BUT DON'T TRY TO TELL ME OR MY FAMILY IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL.
Homosexuality has been going on since the beginning of time. So when did it not become normal? For something to be normal it has to have been happening since the beginning, which it has.
But let me catch some libtard teacher telling my children it is perfectly normal for two men or two women to be married, well, at a minimum I will probably be escorted from the school and my children will no longer attend that school.
Real mature, and a great lesson to teach your kids. If you do not agree with something or someone, get violent. Father of the year!
Marriage is between a Male and a Female. Nothing more, nothing less. Believe what you want.
Says who? The same people that founded this land that kept slaves?

Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 7 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 3947 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › Court says "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 9  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, May 20 - 12:33 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online