« British Convicts Live Better on the Inside | Main | Eurocrats Go After Car Ads »

Hey, I recognize those guys..... oops, I meant the Broom and the Groom.

When the initial SF court house ceremonies happened, my wifie and I had a good time looking on the yahoo slide show at all of our co-workers who 'got married.'

Then we had to endure endless bitching when the 'marriages' were, um, not really legal...

The moral of the story is, the Lawyers who handle divorce are wringing thier hands at the prospects of all of the new $$$$$$$$$$$ revenue coming thier way.

The gay community, which (as I have observed first hand) is not prepaired to deal with real divorce settlements.

As a rule, they mostly get into and out of sudo-partnerships (really no more than contractual business deals between two consenting adults), but are not prepared for what heterosexuals have to go through for divorce.

I say, give them legal marrage!!!!!!

Wait and laugh when they bitch because they can not just move on like before, but actually have to hire divorce attorneys.

The legal profession is happy with the new milk cow.

Damb, I did not use spell check on the last post.

I guess the spelling dingleberry will be up my butt soon.............. LOL at you MF.

OT -

This will piss off those who are rich and pay way too much in EU Value Added Taxes (VAT) already.

Europe's lawmakers want to restrict and regulate automobile advertising. Their hope is that most drivers will lose interest in large cars and finally turn to more frugal models.

Though clearly a topic that they have no serious interest in pursuing when it comes to their own luxury sedans, the commissioners are poised to tackle the issue..... for the COMMON MAN....

German automakers and the advertising industry that depends on them, on the other hand, are about to go on the warpath.

The Audoban is Kuput!!!!!! EU WeenieWonderMoonBats Unite!!!!!

Obama would approve!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,553478,00.html

According to Michael Savage, 4 of the 7 judges who overruled the vote of millions of California voters on this are what he calls... "former ACLU blood suckers and part of the Gay Mafia, bought and paid for" and this will be overturned because the Constitution states that government and courts cannot override the "Will of the People". These people are despicable in what they will do to manipulate the rest of society.

Thank God I dont live anywhere near California. I do live near a major moonbat city but its in the burbs where things arent that bad - yet.

One thing Ive noticed is that when the media says Clinton and Obama's names they usually say Hillary RODHAM Clinton for Clinton but for Obama they say only Barack Obama not Barack HUSSEIN Obama (not using his middle name). Gee, I wonder why. LOL!

Army Mom,

True as far as what you are saying, but it don't mean squat in CA.

Remember, CA voted out affirmative action over 10 years ago, but now...........(well, you know the rest of the story).

OT -

This will just piss off the MoonyBatties..........

U.S. citizenship to be checked in event of a storm
Agents to watch those in the Valley who board buses to flee a hurricane
By LYNN BREZOSKY

.....But Tuesday, a reporter photographing a mock evacuation for the Rio Grande Guardian Web site saw Border Patrol agents rehearsing citizenship document checks of people boarding buses.

No free Red Cross $$$$$ for you Illegal Ignorants....oh so sad, too bad......

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5784300.html

The FLDS must be ecstatic. If you redefine marriage so that genders don't matter, how can you then say, with any amount of intellectual honesty, that numbers do.

Homosexual marriage will be legal throughout the U.S. one day and I think thats fair.

I agree that this will devalue the institution of marriage, but we shouldnt discriminate against anyone who wishes to marry.

Now when gay/lesbian activists push sexuality classes among elementary school kids, then I am against such lunacy.

Next up? Human - Animal marriages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage

A society requires a firm definition of what marriage is. How is it fair to allow people who choose to live by a particular lifestyle to marry. Most companies allow insurance benefits to be given to "domestic partners". Traditional marriage needs to be kept "traditional". If they want to give tax breaks to "domestic partnerships", I say fine... just don't let a bunch of freaks make a mockery out of marriage.

"...just don't let a bunch of freaks make a mockery out of marriage."

Because the straights have done such a good job taking marriage seriously?

If homosexual marriage is allowed, then how much longer until polygamist marriages are legalized?

Rising: heterosexual marriages produce children, therefore it is a natural union, unlike two men or two women whose union is both fruitless and an abomination.

I happen to have no problem with polygamy either. Would I personally do it? No. Would I personally marry a man? No. But why should I care if someone else wants to? In no way is my own marriage to my wife weakened by what anyone else does.

As for fruitless unions, is that to say that a man and woman who have no children (whether by choice or by physical limitation) are in an unnatural union?

Because the straights have done such a good job taking marriage seriously?

Posted by: the Rising Jurist at May 16, 2008 8:25 AM

I don't know what planet you live on RJ, but heterosexual marriage began as a means to have and bring up children from the get go. Nobody does it perfect, but a man-woman union produces offspring. Let's see a man-man or a woman-woman union do that without going "outside the marriage" to make it happen. It won't, because it isn't part of natures design, period.

The only problem I have with polygamy is it is against the law of the land. But then again so is illegal immigration, and liberals are quite content to allow that onslaught to go on and on.

RJ, I apologize for the "planet comment" but I simply can't agree with you, I can only "hear your opinion" and agree to disagree. My experience with homosexuals has led me to conclude that they are not happy unless they can push their vile agendas on the rest of us. I admittedly have an attitude, especially toward the San Francisco gay population, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I will agree with you that agenda-pushing is taking it too far. My attitude is very libertarian: do what you want, so long as it doesn't affect me. So if it comes down to being brow-beaten about someone else's lifestyle, I can't get behind that.

I just don't see the marriage issue as a big deal. As I said above, the stewards of my marriage are me and my wife. Nothing anyone else (gay, straight, animal, mineral) does affects that one bit.

Sorry, but I have to agree with the Rising Jurist. It doesn't hurt anyone else, then its none of anyone else's godd*mn business. That is something alot of Conservatives are only too guilty of, sorry, but its true.

There are bigger things to worry about whether or not 2 men, 2 women or 2 women and 1 man get married. Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polandry and Polyamorous marriages are none of anyone else's business, least of all a group of nosey, holier-than-thou busybodies. This isn't going to spell the end of our civilization.

As Oaio said, let them go through the BS of divorce court and see what the deal is like for the rest of us.

Now, having said all this, let me also say I'm not in favour of ADVOCATING a homosexual lifestyle. Its the antithesis of what life is about: procreation. Its not wrong to say its genetic aberration. Its Mother Nature's little way of telling them that they shouldn't breed.

Actually, you guys are pulling me on board with your points. I just want to see people's private lives kept behind closed doors. I don't want to see Ed and Ed flouncing around the streets in a Gay Pride parade blowing each other. I don't want to see a freak show, and I certainly don't want the same public schools that won't allow prayer, allowing homosexual indoctrination via off the wall books and political correctness. With that being said, ya'll are right. How someone else chooses to love, really isn't anyone's business.

The no-fault divorce laws destroyed American marriage a generation ago. By allowing marriage to be dissolved on a whim, this nation transformed marriage from a family arrangement to a temporary, romantic paring. This development was only a matter of time after the initial seeds of destruction were sown.

"My attitude is very libertarian: do what you want, so long as it doesn't affect me."

That's a sorry attitude to have, RISING.

I really have no problem with gays (I have said this before), but the real problem is that four JUDGES created a LAW with that decision, taking that duty away from the LEGISLATURE, as has always been the case in our FREE REPUBLIC. The people of California had VOTED against gay marrage and the California legislature had passed laws in accordance with the will of the people. But then these JUDGES came in and essentialy said "WE will make the laws and YOU will obey us!". This is called a DICTATORSHIP.

No Liberals, "a dictatorship" does NOT have to be run by just ONE person, it can be a group of people. The United Nations is a fine example of a lawfully-appointed committee that after several years decided that it "ruled" the world.

Well, KHarn, I never got into the case, so much as the concept of gay marriage in and of itself. But since you raise the issue, why do you think the people of California should get to decide whether to permit gay marriage? Why should you, as a voter, get to decide who can marry whom?

It is the way the Constitution is set up RJ. The Gooberment (all branches, executive, legislative, and judicial) is not suppose to have more power than the people themselves. We vote on laws so the the majority decides. It is what our free society is based on. It is a safeguard to our freedom. You can support your beliefs with your vote.

example: Let's say a judge mandates that you have no say over what age or when your daughter marries. He mandates that HE, the judge decides.
But you just voted on legislation that stated your signature has to be on the license before your daughter marries up to age 18 (defined by law as age of consent)and the law was enacted. The judge doesn't have the right to override the will of the people or the law itself.
We have a voice in the law because that is what freedom is. It isn't a bunch of people running around making their own laws as they go, as that would be anarchy. Your voice, my voice need to be heard and the best and most convenient time seems to be at the polls. This way, some Judge can't jump in and decide for you that your 12 year old daughter is going to marry his 62 year old golf buddy Bob!!!!

Oh... and that is let's "pretend" you have a daughter...

Ah, but we don't simply let the people decide. That would be majority rule, or pure democracy. We, of course, do not have that; we are a democratic republic, in which the rights of the minority are protected by charter.

In this case, the court didn't decide to just ignore what the people wanted. It decided that the state's founding document forbids the people from making that decision at all.

"mandy at May 16, 2008 12:13 PM."
Bulls-eye, Mandy. The courts went to no-fault because (a) the "feminists" howled for it, and (b) the courts got sick of rubber-stamping fraudulent grounds for divorce. In the process, the message to society was "marriage is a disposable institution, and less worthy of upholding than a contract to buy a car." Perhaps we would've been better off if the courts had said "shack up if you like, but unless you want the law to be involved in your life, don't say 'I do' and don't spawn."

I wonder if the people of California could bring a suit to SCOTUS based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? It was the people who expressed their will in a referendum, a will codified by their representatives; a will ignored by the court. The question needs to be asked: Does a majority have ANY rights which a court feels bound to respect?

I just have a problem with Judges going against the people's vote in their district. Agenda based judges should be toss off the bench. But as I acquiesced to previously, it isn't allowing the group to marry, it is the attack on freedom when judges start making law instead of interpreting it as it is written.

it is the attack on freedom when judges start making law instead of interpreting it as it is written

Again, this is why we have a Constitution and each state has one as well. I don't want to live in a Mobocracy where 51% of the people out there get to determine how I live. I don't care how strongly someone feels about this, we have rights that should not be trampled because someone else does not like the way we live. Its called Self-Determination. Don't be a hypocrite.

Laws are made to protect our right to self-determination Red Leg. Judges have the ethical standards to follow without letting their personal feelings interfer, that's why they usually will disqualify themselves if they have a conflict of interest. Do you think we should not have laws or elections... that is what majority rule is. I agree, less government and laws interfering in our private lives is a good thing and the way things should be, but with all due respect, I see nothing hypocritical in expecting judges to render judgement according to law instead of personal agendas.

I see nothing hypocritical in expecting judges to render judgement according to law instead of personal agendas

::sighs::

It has nothing to do with a judge's personal agenda. It has everything to do with Equal Protection Under the Law as well as Self-Determination. I don't give a rat's ass what the judge thinks personally. I'm not in favour of slitting my own throat for some ill-defined 'morality' that doesn't have one godd*mn thing to do with our society.

Two pole-smokers getting married is none of my business, your business or anyone else's. Its a contractual agreement between two consenting adults. Nothing more, nothing less.

Be careful poking your nose into someone else's life, as they can easily poke back. Look up the term 'slippery slope' if you're having a hard time understanding what I'm talking about. Just because you may not agree with it does not give you the right to say someone else should not be able do as they please (within the limits of rational living). Its no different than the leftist douchebags telling us that we cannot express our opinions because they are offended by them.

Dear Gang,
I love the comments! Keep em coming! I'm a TS so marriage is a moot point (I am married with 3 daughters) Next time I get married I'd prefer to be the wife, you know, get it right! Where's all this "Sanctity" coming from? Marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years and many cultures. So Christians can't claim "the Bible sez". Ain't it funny how in each case the gubmint has to "legalise" this bond? No one is supposed to just pair off and be a couple, male or female, without the Govt giving it's blessing. The Gov't is always sticking it's nose in where it's not needed or wanted. I see Gay Marriage in two ways, One as a non issue thats being blown up in front of us, a gov't subsidised distraction! Or as an endless source of legal work for starving lawyers. You Decide!
Regards, Terry

Exactly Pablo, and did you know the feminists modeled the no-fault law after the divorce laws of the then Soviet Union? Trotsky said "The family must go" and so his loyal stormtroopers got busy.

I read somewhere that divorce helps children normalize the involvement of the courts in private life. So by the time they are adults it is perfectly normal to them to have the government via judges, lawyers, shrinks deciding very personal matters. Hilary's "village" in action.

I agree we may be better off with marriage as a private or religious matter with no government interference.