SCOTUS ruling just in -- clears way for gay marriage in California (San Francisco: cities, place)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yeah but the only thing that's wrong in this scenario is the part about young girls.

Otherwise, if consenting adults choose to be in a marriage with 2 or more other consenting adults and join a cult of clowns, that really should not be opposed by anyone who truly believes in the freedom to marry.

Exactly. Throughout this thread the phrase "consenting adults" has been use of which, a 13 year old does not qualify.

[CousinMaynard]

just to recap

Us "Yes on 8" voters have had our votes taken away by activist judges, our state government is openly defying the will of the people, and the supreme court has just ruled thats its ok by them that citizens have no voice. wasnt there a big movement in the american south to fight anti democratic powers that be?

the large minority turnout in 2008 has even been attributed to putting 8 over the top. maybe next time those "minorities" (kind of stupid to still be saying that, as there is no majority in california) they should check with their liberal elite puppet masters, who purport to represent them so often, so as to make sure theyre voting the correct way next time around

i'd argue that those celebrating such travesties have a lot more in common with those who favored jim crow and segregation than theyd ever be willing to admit, as the principles appear eerily similar, despite their opposing politics.

[oldtrader]

Actually polyamory, is being practiced more often than many people realize. It can be a man with multiple women, or a woman with multiple men. Sometimes it is multiple women and multiple men living together and sharing their love on a heterosexual basis.

It is reported that there are over 500,000 polyamory families in the U.S. alone. Most are not for religious reasons.

Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

They even have their own magazine, and annual conferences.

Loving More Magazine | Modern Poly

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by CousinMaynard

just to recap

Us "Yes on 8" voters have had our votes taken away by activist judges, our state government is openly defying the will of the people,.

Stop stop stop! Can't read anymore. The supreme court is there to keep things like this from happening. The will of the people must be kept in check if that will is detrimental to someone else. Sorry you feel the way you do but the rights of others should never have been put to a vote in the first place.

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Stop stop stop! Can't read anymore. The supreme court is there to keep things like this from happening. The will of the people must be kept in check if that will is detrimental to someone else. Sorry you feel the way you do but the rights of others should never have been put to a vote in the first place.

Aah but will the right of others to speak out against this be taken away by claiming hate speech??

[CousinMaynard]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Stop stop stop! Can't read anymore. The supreme court is there to keep things like this from happening. The will of the people must be kept in check if that will is detrimental to someone else. Sorry you feel the way you do but the rights of others should never have been put to a vote in the first place.

instead of editing out what you wanted to read, why not read the rest. its good for all of us to have a look in the mirror every now and then:

just to recap

Us "Yes on 8" voters have had our votes taken away by activist judges, our state government is openly defying the will of the people, and the supreme court has just ruled thats its ok by them that citizens have no voice. wasnt there a big movement in the american south to fight anti democratic powers that be?

the large minority turnout in 2008 has even been attributed to putting 8 over the top. maybe next time those "minorities" (kind of stupid to still be saying that, as there is no majority in california) they should check with their liberal elite puppet masters, who purport to represent them so often, so as to make sure theyre voting the correct way next time around

i'd argue that those celebrating such travesties have a lot more in common with those who favored jim crow and segregation than theyd ever be willing to admit, as the principles appear eerily similar, despite their opposing politics.

[Sierravillian]

the Supreme Court declared that a certain law is not in accord with the US Constitution. This is not the first time they have done so, but from the bellyaching "end of the republic" stuff, one would think so.

How many people who today are upset by the ruling from the Supreme Court were not upset by the setting aside of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and vice versa.

[CousinMaynard]

Originally Posted by Sierravillian

the Supreme Court declared that a certain law is not in accord with the US Constitution. This is not the first time they have done so, but from the bellyaching "end of the republic" stuff, one would think so.

How many people who today are upset by the ruling from the Supreme Court were not upset by the setting aside of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and vice versa.

the scotus did not rule on prop 8. not at all

they ruled that a state appointed judge, and the politicians who appointed those judges, can conspire to overturn the will of the people, and the people have no voice to defend their will. dont take my word for it, read the article thats in the op.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

Aah but will the right of others to speak out against this be taken away by claiming hate speech??

I wouldn't support having anyone's right to free speech taken away. However, if one says something, others also have a right to label what they hear whatever they see fit as long as they don't try to infringe on the other's rights. For example; I am black, I think what the KKK says is hate speech. I have a right to feel that way but I would not support any legislation to take away their right to free speech.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Sierravillian

the Supreme Court declared that a certain law is not in accord with the US Constitution. This is not the first time they have done so, but from the bellyaching "end of the republic" stuff, one would think so.

How many people who today are upset by the ruling from the Supreme Court were not upset by the setting aside of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and vice versa.

None! I don't recal seeing any posts from the very members who are crying about this which leads me to my next response...