California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!

[Highlander]

[quote=Dupontster;3404488]I have to agree....How can the majority of people vote on something, pass it and then some judge comes along and says no, I'm going to change the vote because the majority of people don't know what is right or wrong and I do...We just had a little election in this country....Suppose some judge came along and said I don't want Obama in there so I'm going to change it...[/QUOTE]

We can only hope!

Good point.

[ironintestines]

Originally Posted by bcp

in this case it would make him the idiot, however, as history has shown more than once, not following the majority does not always make one an idiot.
for instance lets say there was one person at Jim Jones circle of love that decided that drinking the kool aid was possible not a really good idea at that time, so he didnt..would he be the idiot?

HAHAHAHA
No, but it would suck to be the ones that did..LOL..

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Highlander

Tell me more about this Kangaroo thing. That sounds interesting!

HEY! They have rights too you know!

[ironintestines]

The problem w/ gay people is that they're gay..
If they'd just quit being gay, everything would be honkey-dorey..

Butt--- NOOOOO... They gotta be gay for gayness sakes. Like it makes a difference.. Gay people are quite entertaining. They should sell it at Walmart

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by ironintestines

The problem w/ gay people is that they're gay..
If they'd just quit being gay, everything would be honkey-dorey..

Butt--- NOOOOO... They gotta be gay for gayness sakes. Like it makes a difference.. Gay people are quite entertaining. They should sell it at Walmart

You're gay aren't you.






it's okay, no one will make fun of you.

[ylexot (Premo)]

It's a State Constitutional Amendment. How could it possibly be overruled? Well, maybe if it goes against the US Constitution...

[Ponytail]

Originally Posted by Dupontster

I have to agree....How can the majority of people vote on something, pass it and then some judge comes along and says no, I'm going to change the vote because the majority of people don't know what is right or wrong and I do...We just had a little election in this country....Suppose some judge came along and said I don't want Obama in there so I'm going to change it...

I'd say that it would appear, at least on the surface, that that judge is in fact smarter than most of those that voted in America during the last presidential election.

Originally Posted by ylexot

It's a State Constitutional Amendment. How could it possibly be overruled? Well, maybe if it goes against the US Constitution...

DING DING DING !!!

Originally Posted by The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[BlueBird]

Originally Posted by bcp

judging from the vote that was cast,, I would say that the majority care.

why do the gays care if its not called marriage if whatever they call it brings the same legal means?

they could call it rumpage, and then they could be introduced as either a rumper or rumpee, depending one the role that would be traditionally held by husband or wife in the marriage.

They have morals maybe?...

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

DING DING DING !!!

Please explain how defining marriage as between one man and one woman is against this amendment in ANY way.

Now, remember, when you do this, the next questions will be:

• So, what about polygamists? Incestuous relationships among consenting adults?

• Since a marriage license merely provides tax status and welfare abilities, would you consider the fact that higher income people paying a higher percentage of their taxes to also violate this amendment?

• How about a women's shelter vs. a hotel - should one be tax exempt and the other not? Wouldn't that also violate this amendment with the same lame argument you'll use for homosexual marriage?

Also keep in mind that California has a civil union status, so all of the other so called advantages of a marriage license are already available for a homosexual union, just under a different name (based on being a different category of union).