(08-06-2010 02:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:31 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 12:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:32 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

Right, even though in no way can you explain as to why they are irrational.

I did. But apparently the words were too big for you.

Actually, you did not. Not once.

You really need to put down the meth and the fox news pop up book. It is really ******* your mind up. You're starting to see things.

(08-06-2010 02:42 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Please explain why the consequences of the marriage contract involving social security benefits, tax benefits, disability benefits, military and veterans benefits, decision-making in a medical emergency etc. etc., must change if same-sex couples are included. What role does gender or combination of genders play in these legal issues?

Do the math. These are all actuarial sort of calculations. I'm sure they weren't perfect when they were constructed, but they had some reasonably sound basis. That is, the benefits to society (including economic ones) by marriage could be recompensed financially.

But somehow these are now viewed as entitlements, and those not participating in the original contract, that is traditional marriage, should still have access to them.

Bleh. Even Fo should recognize the desecration of his highly regarded contract.

Go read Satinover's book if you want to see some hard facts about the homosexual lifestyle. These are empirically derived observables. THey are facts. They are not hypothetical situations that are constructed in a lame effort to support an untennable philosophy.

Nor are they some hateful, homophobic response. They are simply facts. No one is getting in the way of gays living as they choose. In fact, quite the opposite, the activisim has been very repressive toward other points of view. Nevertheless, people can behave as they choose. But, it's patently absurd to think that everyone is entitled to everyone else's earned benefits.

Both the left and the right love to use the word "unsustainable." Well, this is unsustainable.

(08-06-2010 02:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:42 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Please explain why the consequences of the marriage contract involving social security benefits, tax benefits, disability benefits, military and veterans benefits, decision-making in a medical emergency etc. etc., must change if same-sex couples are included. What role does gender or combination of genders play in these legal issues?

Do the math. These are all actuarial sort of calculations. I'm sure they weren't perfect when they were constructed, but they had some reasonably sound basis. That is, the benefits to society (including economic ones) by marriage could be recompensed financially.

But somehow these are now viewed as entitlements, and those not participating in the original contract, that is traditional marriage, should still have access to them.

Bleh. Even Fo should recognize the desecration of his highly regarded contract.

Go read Satinover's book if you want to see some hard facts about the homosexual lifestyle. These are empirically derived observables. THey are facts. They are not hypothetical situations that are constructed in a lame effort to support an untennable philosophy.

Nor are they some hateful, homophobic response. They are simply facts. No one is getting in the way of gays living as they choose. In fact, quite the opposite, the activisim has been very repressive toward other points of view. Nevertheless, people can behave as they choose. But, it's patently absurd to think that everyone is entitled to everyone else's earned benefits.

Both the left and the right love to use the word "unsustainable." Well, this is unsustainable.

Good point.

Edit: Good point about the actuarial calculations. I'm not going to speculate or make broad judgments about the homosexual lifestyle. Somehow I doubt that two middle-aged homosexual women have the same lifestyle as two twenty-something homosexual men.

(08-06-2010 02:45 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:31 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 12:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:32 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

Right, even though in no way can you explain as to why they are irrational.

I did. But apparently the words were too big for you.

Actually, you did not. Not once.

You really need to put down the meth and the fox news pop up book. It is really ******* your mind up. You're starting to see things.

Paul, I'm sure in your little touchy-feely world, where everyone's opinion is the same, and therefore valid, and that there are no dumb questions, you are not used to seeing logic and rigor.

So you know what? This is definitely too hard for you. You know what else? That **** is a waste of my time, b/c I am capable of accomplishing real, tangible achievements. Reality is the world I'm used to working in, so your pretend world w/ your 4th rate pseudo-scholars and indolent barroom philosophers doesn't impress or even interest me.

You don't get it, I know that. But stop bugging me to waste my valuable time trying to explain it to you yet again.

(08-05-2010 12:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-04-2010 09:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Marriage is essentially a contractual agreement with the government...otherwise you would not need a license.

I would submit that those that oppose the gays being able to enter into the same contract as them...start opposing the governmental licensing contract...otherwise STFU about it.

It amazes me that with all the REAL problems in America...People are worrying about the gays... I welcome the gays into my community with open arms....I live in a very $hitty town that could use lots of them to make it a better place to live. We could use their skills in renovating crappy homes and making property look as if people care about it.

Actually gays need to STFU. As long as they don't get in my face, my children or grandchildren face I'm fine with it, when they parade their junk bs in public, I got a problem. No one cares if they shack up, no one cares what happens behind their closed doors. If they quit making unreasonable demands they would be just fine. They should just STFU and get on with their lives.

what if your children or grand children are gay...i bet you're the kind to try and "beat the gay out"

(08-06-2010 03:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:45 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:31 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 12:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

Right, even though in no way can you explain as to why they are irrational.

I did. But apparently the words were too big for you.

Actually, you did not. Not once.

You really need to put down the meth and the fox news pop up book. It is really ******* your mind up. You're starting to see things.

Paul, I'm sure in your little touchy-feely world, where everyone's opinion is the same, and therefore valid, and that there are no dumb questions, you are not used to seeing logic and rigor.

So you know what? This is definitely too hard for you. You know what else? That **** is a waste of my time, b/c I am capable of accomplishing real, tangible achievements. Reality is the world I'm used to working in, so your pretend world w/ your 4th rate pseudo-scholars and indolent barroom philosophers doesn't impress or even interest me.

You don't get it, I know that. But stop bugging me to waste my valuable time trying to explain it to you yet again.

Ok, fool. You're nothing more than a foolish bigot with a big vocabulary and for whatever reason you think that makes you superior to everyone that differs in opinion.

I would love for you to answer the question though.

Why is allowing gays the right to be married irrational? Is it because of money? REALLY?

I would love to know what type of grand achievements you are capable of that I am not or will not be in time.

You look at this world that is full of injustice and evil and just say, "get over it" and "this is the real world". That makes you INSANE. You and people like you create a world of shitholes and then expect everyone to just love it or leave it.

You don't have one attribute worthy of merit if you don't even attempt through just words to better the world. Instead you just continue on this idea that because you are part of a vastly retarded majority that you are immediatly correct in everything you think.

You call me simple because I attempt to bring people and cultures closer together instead of further apart. You call my idea of peace and tranquilty absurd, but let me ask you this; Who is more stupid? The person that sits in crap or the person that cleans it up? And as far as you are concerned...you are just another piece of crap that needs to be flushed.

(08-06-2010 02:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 01:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree that the law should be consistent across the board for all contracts of this nature.

Curiously enough, it currently is.

Quote: The government has no damn business getting involved in how people contract with each other as long as they are consenting adults and no theft, fraud or violence is involved.

Then what are all those tomes on contract law all about? Reality is far more complicated than you paint it.

Quote:Someone please explain why legally it should be different for the gays to contract with each other differently than straights? Is the law not supposed to be the same for everyone?

Well, as I said before, it is the same. So it's not about equal treatment under the law.

It's a fact that there are legal consequences of the status of marriage. Those consequences are predicated on the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman. Change that, and the consequences must change in response.

Thus, the entire country is affected by this decision, even if many members don't care.

Nothing would change that should not be changed. Your arguments are valid giving the current paradigm...they do not change the fact that gays can not contractually join together in the same manner as straights. If so...Where can the gays get a marriage license?

You are correct...I do not care about the consequences of this regardless of what they are. I have no problem with the gays.

(08-06-2010 03:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Nothing would change that should not be changed. Your arguments are valid giving the current paradigm...they do not change the fact that gays can not contractually join together in the same manner as straights. If so...Where can the gays get a marriage license?

I didn't say that. I said that gay or straight, the laws are the same.

(08-06-2010 02:57 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 02:42 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Please explain why the consequences of the marriage contract involving social security benefits, tax benefits, disability benefits, military and veterans benefits, decision-making in a medical emergency etc. etc., must change if same-sex couples are included. What role does gender or combination of genders play in these legal issues?

Do the math. These are all actuarial sort of calculations. I'm sure they weren't perfect when they were constructed, but they had some reasonably sound basis. That is, the benefits to society (including economic ones) by marriage could be recompensed financially.

But somehow these are now viewed as entitlements, and those not participating in the original contract, that is traditional marriage, should still have access to them.

Bleh. Even Fo should recognize the desecration of his highly regarded contract.

Go read Satinover's book if you want to see some hard facts about the homosexual lifestyle. These are empirically derived observables. THey are facts. They are not hypothetical situations that are constructed in a lame effort to support an untennable philosophy.

Nor are they some hateful, homophobic response. They are simply facts. No one is getting in the way of gays living as they choose. In fact, quite the opposite, the activisim has been very repressive toward other points of view. Nevertheless, people can behave as they choose. But, it's patently absurd to think that everyone is entitled to everyone else's earned benefits.

Both the left and the right love to use the word "unsustainable." Well, this is unsustainable.

All of the above is a valid argument....Still...I do not care. I still favor that people should be able to contract with each other legally in the same manner regardless of their genders as long as they are consenting adults and no theft,fraud or violence is involved.

I agree it is absurd to think that everyone is entitled to everyone else's benefits. Unfortunately....the Rubicon has long since been crossed in that regard. I will leave it to the bean counting actuaries to figure out a new paradigm.

(08-06-2010 03:32 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 03:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Nothing would change that should not be changed. Your arguments are valid giving the current paradigm...they do not change the fact that gays can not contractually join together in the same manner as straights. If so...Where can the gays get a marriage license?

I didn't say that. I said that gay or straight, the laws are the same.

Agreed...in regard to the individual..the laws are exactly the same.

(08-06-2010 03:05 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 12:57 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-04-2010 09:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Marriage is essentially a contractual agreement with the government...otherwise you would not need a license.

I would submit that those that oppose the gays being able to enter into the same contract as them...start opposing the governmental licensing contract...otherwise STFU about it.

It amazes me that with all the REAL problems in America...People are worrying about the gays... I welcome the gays into my community with open arms....I live in a very $hitty town that could use lots of them to make it a better place to live. We could use their skills in renovating crappy homes and making property look as if people care about it.

Actually gays need to STFU. As long as they don't get in my face, my children or grandchildren face I'm fine with it, when they parade their junk bs in public, I got a problem. No one cares if they shack up, no one cares what happens behind their closed doors. If they quit making unreasonable demands they would be just fine. They should just STFU and get on with their lives.

what if your children or grand children are gay...i bet you're the kind to try and "beat the gay out"

You obviously don't know me, prick.

So gays "being in your face" is a none starter but who said it is worthy of topic of the day?

Whoo hoo! Look! Over here. It was me.

Big whoop-de-freaken-do.

You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

(08-06-2010 09:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

You know you are right. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Waters, are choosing which laws they follow. Obama the Usurper in Cheif, Slaughter, Pelosi, make sh!t up as they go along. I'm not feeling too generous at tax time.

(08-06-2010 09:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

Well...I get your point..but..there is nothing wrong with ignoring laws one thinks are bad. Just because those in power write down something on a piece of paper does not make it worth abiding. Of course..one must be prepared to suffer the violence of the state.
Prohibition was a perfect example of this. I would rather though that people challenge these laws in court and the juries use nullification of the laws instead of judges being activists.

The power of jury nullification is the most hidden and overlooked tenets of liberty. If anyone is interested....go to FIJA.com and get informed.

Most people have no idea that they have the right as a juror to judge not only the defendant...but the statute he or she was charged under.

Judges will not allow you to serve on a jury if you admit that you believe in this principle. They know it is your right and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS...but ..they are not obligated to tell you it is your right. It is up to you to know about this.

The ending of the last prohibition was impacted by juries refusing to jail bootleggers....I hope we again use it to end this current futile drug war. I know damn well that if I get the opportunity to use it in a case of a non violent drug offense...I will hang the hell out of the jury.

(08-06-2010 10:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

Well...I get your point..but..there is nothing wrong with ignoring laws one thinks are bad. Just because those in power write down something on a piece of paper does not make it worth abiding. Of course..one must be prepared to suffer the violence of the state.
Prohibition was a perfect example of this. I would rather though that people challenge these laws in court and the juries use nullification of the laws instead of judges being activists.

The power of jury nullification is the most hidden and overlooked tenets of liberty. If anyone is interested....go to FIJA.com and get informed.

Most people have no idea that they have the right as a juror to judge not only the defendant...but the statute he or she was charged under.

Judges will not allow you to serve on a jury if you admit that you believe in this principle. They know it is your right and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS...but ..they are not obligated to tell you it is your right. It is up to you to know about this.

The ending of the last prohibition was impacted by juries refusing to jail bootleggers....I hope we again use it to end this current futile drug war. I know damn well that if I get the opportunity to use it in a case of a non violent drug offense...I will hang the hell out of the jury.

It does not surprise me that you would appear for jury duty without even the pretense of an open mind.

(08-07-2010 12:48 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 10:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

Well...I get your point..but..there is nothing wrong with ignoring laws one thinks are bad. Just because those in power write down something on a piece of paper does not make it worth abiding. Of course..one must be prepared to suffer the violence of the state.
Prohibition was a perfect example of this. I would rather though that people challenge these laws in court and the juries use nullification of the laws instead of judges being activists.

The power of jury nullification is the most hidden and overlooked tenets of liberty. If anyone is interested....go to FIJA.com and get informed.

Most people have no idea that they have the right as a juror to judge not only the defendant...but the statute he or she was charged under.

Judges will not allow you to serve on a jury if you admit that you believe in this principle. They know it is your right and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS...but ..they are not obligated to tell you it is your right. It is up to you to know about this.

The ending of the last prohibition was impacted by juries refusing to jail bootleggers....I hope we again use it to end this current futile drug war. I know damn well that if I get the opportunity to use it in a case of a non violent drug offense...I will hang the hell out of the jury.

It does not surprise me that you would appear for jury duty without even the pretense of an open mind.

Ill go one further....Ill hang a jury in which the defendant is charged with a crime that has no victim I would be remiss in my duty a juror to fail to evaluate the law as well as the person charged. I would submit that is far from being closed minded.

I refuse to just be a good little serf and obey the orders of someone just because he wears a robe. I do not even think one should have to "stand" for a judge. He has done nothing to deserve that level of respect from anyone.

Jury nullification is valid tenant of the justice system and has been upheld several times by the courts. I do not however blame others for not wanting to do this. It can be a ugly scene in court if you do this and openly profess using nullification as your verdict. It is best to just vote "not guilty" and keep quiet.

If anyone ever wants to get out of jury duty...all you have to do is openly tell a judge that in a case of crime without victim...you may invoke nullification of the law. You will be dismissed instantly.

(08-07-2010 08:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2010 12:48 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 10:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

Well...I get your point..but..there is nothing wrong with ignoring laws one thinks are bad. Just because those in power write down something on a piece of paper does not make it worth abiding. Of course..one must be prepared to suffer the violence of the state.
Prohibition was a perfect example of this. I would rather though that people challenge these laws in court and the juries use nullification of the laws instead of judges being activists.

The power of jury nullification is the most hidden and overlooked tenets of liberty. If anyone is interested....go to FIJA.com and get informed.

Most people have no idea that they have the right as a juror to judge not only the defendant...but the statute he or she was charged under.

Judges will not allow you to serve on a jury if you admit that you believe in this principle. They know it is your right and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS...but ..they are not obligated to tell you it is your right. It is up to you to know about this.

The ending of the last prohibition was impacted by juries refusing to jail bootleggers....I hope we again use it to end this current futile drug war. I know damn well that if I get the opportunity to use it in a case of a non violent drug offense...I will hang the hell out of the jury.

It does not surprise me that you would appear for jury duty without even the pretense of an open mind.

Ill go one further....Ill hang a jury in which the defendant is charged with a crime that has no victim I would be remiss in my duty a juror to fail to evaluate the law as well as the person charged. I would submit that is far from being closed minded.

I refuse to just be a good little serf and obey the orders of someone just because he wears a robe. I do not even think one should have to "stand" for a judge. He has done nothing to deserve that level of respect from anyone.

Jury nullification is valid tenant of the justice system and has been upheld several times by the courts. I do not however blame others for not wanting to do this. It can be a ugly scene in court if you do this and openly profess using nullification as your verdict. It is best to just vote "not guilty" and keep quiet.

If anyone ever wants to get out of jury duty...all you have to do is openly tell a judge that in a case of crime without victim...you may invoke nullification of the law. You will be dismissed instantly.

I'll assume we are talking criminal felony cases. Where are there no victims? Lets not go to PCS. You see drug cases as victimless. I do not, especially where there is intent to distribute. How about Felon in possession of a handgun. Is that victimless? Criminal Trespass? And you would hang a jury for General Principal. That is just nuts. Jury nullification has it's place. I do not dispute that. It should be reserved for cases where the jury knows everyone is lying, or lying by omission. Prosecutors, defense lawyers, wittiness, even the judge will not be forthcoming with all the facts for whatever reason, or will outright boldface lie. But, jury nullification in the way you describe is just cowardly, you just want to show your disdain for judges or justice system. Where in the world is there a better justice system.

(08-07-2010 12:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-07-2010 08:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2010 12:48 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 10:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  You know what's funny? A california judge ruled for the gays but federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages. This is like the illegal alien thing where you get to pick and choose which laws you'll follow.

Well...I get your point..but..there is nothing wrong with ignoring laws one thinks are bad. Just because those in power write down something on a piece of paper does not make it worth abiding. Of course..one must be prepared to suffer the violence of the state.
Prohibition was a perfect example of this. I would rather though that people challenge these laws in court and the juries use nullification of the laws instead of judges being activists.

The power of jury nullification is the most hidden and overlooked tenets of liberty. If anyone is interested....go to FIJA.com and get informed.

Most people have no idea that they have the right as a juror to judge not only the defendant...but the statute he or she was charged under.

Judges will not allow you to serve on a jury if you admit that you believe in this principle. They know it is your right and it has been upheld by the SCOTUS...but ..they are not obligated to tell you it is your right. It is up to you to know about this.

The ending of the last prohibition was impacted by juries refusing to jail bootleggers....I hope we again use it to end this current futile drug war. I know damn well that if I get the opportunity to use it in a case of a non violent drug offense...I will hang the hell out of the jury.

It does not surprise me that you would appear for jury duty without even the pretense of an open mind.

Ill go one further....Ill hang a jury in which the defendant is charged with a crime that has no victim I would be remiss in my duty a juror to fail to evaluate the law as well as the person charged. I would submit that is far from being closed minded.

I refuse to just be a good little serf and obey the orders of someone just because he wears a robe. I do not even think one should have to "stand" for a judge. He has done nothing to deserve that level of respect from anyone.

Jury nullification is valid tenant of the justice system and has been upheld several times by the courts. I do not however blame others for not wanting to do this. It can be a ugly scene in court if you do this and openly profess using nullification as your verdict. It is best to just vote "not guilty" and keep quiet.

If anyone ever wants to get out of jury duty...all you have to do is openly tell a judge that in a case of crime without victim...you may invoke nullification of the law. You will be dismissed instantly.

I'll assume we are talking criminal felony cases. Where are there no victims? Lets not go to PCS. You see drug cases as victimless. I do not, especially where there is intent to distribute. How about Felon in possession of a handgun. Is that victimless? Criminal Trespass? And you would hang a jury for General Principal. That is just nuts. Jury nullification has it's place. I do not dispute that. It should be reserved for cases where the jury knows everyone is lying, or lying by omission. Prosecutors, defense lawyers, wittiness, even the judge will not be forthcoming with all the facts for whatever reason, or will outright boldface lie. But, jury nullification in the way you describe is just cowardly, you just want to show your disdain for judges or justice system. Where in the world is there a better justice system.

Let me be very clear...I either am doing a lousy job of conveying my position...you have not read my posts...or you have chosen to put words in my mouth.....In any case....

I consider victimless crime those that do not include theft,fraud or violence. I have been nothing but consistent in that principle. I do not have any disdain for the system. In fact I admire it. I admire it so much that I would use jury nullification to protect the system. I do however have disdain much of the system that profits off of victimless crime.

So...basically...You and I are in total agreement other than the drug crime issue. Unfortunately...the largest portion of the prison population are there for those crimes and the costs to incarcerate them are astronomical. I want people behind bars that HURT others...not some guy caught selling some weed. In fact...I want those that harm others to be in jail for the ENTIRE damn length of their sentence. As it is now the damn jails are so overcrowded with drug offenders that we release violent criminals back into society with much time served. Please tell me how that makes any damn sense!!

BTW.. I have no sympathy for someone that is facing a drug charge that involves theft, fraud or violence and would have no problem rendering a guilty verdict against them any less than I would a drunk driver that hurts someone in an accident.

(08-06-2010 09:29 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:12 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minding your own business has lots of advantages.

That's just not the Republican way.

Black Democrats were, by and large, one of the largest blocs that supported Prop 8.

You were saying again, cupcake?

I seem to recall reading nearly the SAME arguments about interracial marriages what? 50 years ago, if that? And btw, up until a few short years ago, most states had sodomy laws, by which I could spend a portion of my life in prison for doing something with a person I love.

AS FOR THE DEEPWATER HORIZON COMMENT.... I had a GAY friend who was on that rig, and you need to STFU about it.

And the courts are there to PROTECT the minority...

When the Majority votes on minority rights, they always ALWAYS limit the minority.

I don't throw my sexuality in people's faces, but I don't whine when I see two str8's(I chose not to use another word... u might get offended) holding hands or showing affection in public. If I did that... well, Heaven FORBID I show my love and adoration for the person I want to spend eternity with.

If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same-sex. Duh.