HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Musik ()
Date: May 16, 2008 05:55AM

Would this set a precedent for other states to do the same?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: May 16, 2008 06:12AM

Of course it will and should.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: unite ()
Date: May 16, 2008 06:25AM

Now EJ and Meade can seal the deal!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: trogdor! ()
Date: May 16, 2008 08:42AM

It will probably go to the US Supreme Court, where they will affirm the lower court's decision.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: pgens ()
Date: May 16, 2008 09:51AM

They will likely affirm it as a states rights issue, but not a federal one. States where it is illegal would likely not be required to recognize the license from another state.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Stinkfist ()
Date: May 16, 2008 09:55AM

Oh, California? So like not Fairfax or even northern VA? This is OFF TOPIC you retard.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: JAck Black ()
Date: May 16, 2008 10:16AM

So what happens if Mr. X and Mr. Y get married in California and move to Reston? Can they get the same benefits? Do they lower land value? Should they be arrested for sodomy? If I bring my California license for medical marijuana here, the police will treat me like a common Virginia drug user/criminal, so why shouldn't homosexual marriages fall under the same standard?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: May 16, 2008 10:37AM

Your premise is illogical and false.

Sodomy is a physical act and you can't get arrested for it just by being a homosexual.

Also, you would not be arrested for bring your license for medical marijuana into the state. You'd get arrested for bringing the drug, but not the license.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Genevieve ()
Date: May 16, 2008 10:43AM

JAck Black Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what happens if Mr. X and Mr. Y get married in
> California and move to Reston? Can they get the
> same benefits?

Have you already forgotten the "Marriage Amendment"?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: pgens ()
Date: May 16, 2008 11:08AM

JAck Black Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what happens if Mr. X and Mr. Y get married in
> California and move to Reston?

Your example is orientationist... women get married too.

Did I just invent the word orientationist? What is the equivilent of "racist" and "sexist"? "Homophobic" doesn't work because that has to do with fear and not simple bigotry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2008 01:01PM by pgens.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: quantum ()
Date: May 16, 2008 11:45AM

Actually, the Court of Appeal in NY dealt with this issue (interpreting their own marriage statutes) a few years back. The Court of Appeal is the highest court in New York. It held that as sympathetic as they were to the cause of those seeking the legitimization of same sex marriage, that the issue was one best left to the legislature as opposed to non-elected judges.

I too am sympathetic to the cause of same sex marriage, but like the Court of Appeal, believe it must be left up to the legislature. The California Supreme Court itself recognized the dangers of legislating by judicial fiat - explaining in dicta that their ruling does not extend to countenancing polygamy and communal marriages - practices that have long been abusive to women and children - because of "long held" community beliefs. But that is the problem, isn't it? What are or are not long held community beliefs need to be embodied through our legislatures, as imperfect as they are. The California Supreme Court may think it has made law defining marriage as a combination of just "two people" - but once having deemed marriage an implied Constitutional right, as they clearly have here, the wispy notion of "long held community" beliefs will not withstand the inevitable claims (especially in California) that will come from those seeking judicial confirmation and access to our courts and legal mechanism for polygamist and plural arrangements, all of which have proven time and time again to be exceedingly harmful to the fabric and structure of our society and to those most vulnerable.

Which brings me to an interesting question. The California Supreme Court has legislated from the bench before - and have come to dislike its own rulings and reversed them (so much for judicial restraint). I am reminded when the lofty and fair minded jurists in California in the 90's established on their own a covenant of good faith and fair dealing as applicable to all employment contracts, eviscerating in essence the employment at will doctrine. Like many a judicial activist, they forgot to look at the consequences of their feel good decision, as the California courts were deluged with employment claims (worse than divorce cases in their bickering) that they could not manage or handle. So they quickly reversed themselves. A confidence inspiring move, huh?

I raise these issues because while the decision gets the right result for those in favor of same sex marriage, it may be one that impairs the cause of gay people nationwide, especially given California's zany politics and ballot initiatives. The California legislature tilts fairly liberal, and getting them to pass a same sex marriage statute in the near future (if they had any political courage) was a realistic prospect. By the same token, ballot initiatives bring out the most zealous, and it is entirely likely that a ballot initiative will now be put into play, and pass. Judicial restraint would have worked better in the long run.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: WashingToneLocian ()
Date: May 16, 2008 12:04PM

Would someone please tell Meade that as long as he stays out of California, Massachusetts and Vermont, he doesn't have to worry about his dick "accidentally" ending up in some guy's ass?

Options: ReplyQuote
.
Posted by: Alias ()
Date: May 16, 2008 09:40PM

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 02:17AM by Alias.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Hussein Obama ()
Date: May 19, 2008 04:38PM

Gays have no place in our society! Gays should go to Mexico and hard working illegals should come up here...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: CO ()
Date: May 19, 2008 05:27PM

Very cool. So basically this nasty perversion has now been legalized in Gaylifornia.

Such is the hypocricy of today's times. It is now almost an offence to speak up or oppose against something that's plain unnatural.

Is it really that difficult to understand that a marriage can occur only between a man and a woman? Or does Gaylifornia actually believe that when a man bonks another man in the ass, a human form comes out of the ass?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Mofo ()
Date: May 19, 2008 05:28PM

Didn't Massachusetts do it first?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Jesus ()
Date: May 19, 2008 05:58PM

Its Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Go CA ()
Date: May 19, 2008 06:40PM

CO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it really that difficult to understand that a
> marriage can occur only between a man and a woman?

Why can it? Because a mostly fabricated and highly propaganda-filled religious text full of absurd tales (and yet preaching "love thy neighbor") says something vaguely along those lines?

> Or does Gaylifornia actually believe that when a
> man bonks another man in the ass, a human form
> comes out of the ass?

So I assume every time you have sex (assuming you do), you do it with the full intention of procreation? And you have never partaken in (or tried for) a little "backdoor action" with your partner (assuming you've had one)? Be honest now... If you can answer yes to both those, and give me a sensible, logical argument against gay marriage that's not based in centuries-old dogma and superstition, I might consider your views. Until then, you're a bigoted, intolerant and ignorant ass.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: CO ()
Date: May 19, 2008 08:04PM

Go CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CO Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is it really that difficult to understand that
> a
> > marriage can occur only between a man and a
> woman?
>
> Why can it? Because a mostly fabricated and
> highly propaganda-filled religious text full of
> absurd tales (and yet preaching "love thy
> neighbor") says something vaguely along those
> lines?
>
> > Or does Gaylifornia actually believe that when
> a
> > man bonks another man in the ass, a human form
> > comes out of the ass?
>
> So I assume every time you have sex (assuming you
> do), you do it with the full intention of
> procreation? And you have never partaken in (or
> tried for) a little "backdoor action" with your
> partner (assuming you've had one)? Be honest
> now... If you can answer yes to both those, and
> give me a sensible, logical argument against gay
> marriage that's not based in centuries-old dogma
> and superstition, I might consider your views.
> Until then, you're a bigoted, intolerant and
> ignorant ass.
==================================================================================

Thanks for proving my point that it is nothing but a nasty perversion where two perverted males sodomize each other just for fun. Not only that, they even want to legalize this nasty perversion and force the general populace into reading/viewing this perverted behavior in public (males holding hands,kissing etc) places & TV and having to expose the innocent young children to such unwanted BS.

Fuck the age old scriptures; marriage between male and female is just common sense.

God made rapists, murderers and child molesters as well. So you want to legalize such perversions as well..? Very nice.

Fuck Gaylifornia.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Fruppie ()
Date: May 19, 2008 09:20PM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it will and should.

You're stupid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: MP ()
Date: May 20, 2008 12:52AM

CO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > CO Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Is it really that difficult to understand
> that
> > a
> > > marriage can occur only between a man and a
> > woman?
> >
> > Why can it? Because a mostly fabricated and
> > highly propaganda-filled religious text full of
> > absurd tales (and yet preaching "love thy
> > neighbor") says something vaguely along those
> > lines?
> >
> > > Or does Gaylifornia actually believe that
> when
> > a
> > > man bonks another man in the ass, a human
> form
> > > comes out of the ass?
> >
> > So I assume every time you have sex (assuming
> you
> > do), you do it with the full intention of
> > procreation? And you have never partaken in
> (or
> > tried for) a little "backdoor action" with your
> > partner (assuming you've had one)? Be honest
> > now... If you can answer yes to both those,
> and
> > give me a sensible, logical argument against
> gay
> > marriage that's not based in centuries-old
> dogma
> > and superstition, I might consider your views.
> > Until then, you're a bigoted, intolerant and
> > ignorant ass.
> ==================================================
> ================================
>
> Thanks for proving my point that it is nothing but
> a nasty perversion where two perverted males
> sodomize each other just for fun. Not only that,
> they even want to legalize this nasty perversion
> and force the general populace into
> reading/viewing this perverted behavior in public
> (males holding hands,kissing etc) places & TV and
> having to expose the innocent young children to
> such unwanted BS.
>
> Fuck the age old scriptures; marriage between male
> and female is just common sense.
>
> God made rapists, murderers and child molesters as
> well. So you want to legalize such perversions as
> well..? Very nice.
>
> Fuck Gaylifornia.

If marriage between male and female is just common sense, then not legalizing rape, murder, and child molestation is common sense as well. God made them all, yes. God also gave man (and woman) free will. One does not have to rape. One does not have to murder. One does not have to molest. There are other offenses that should not be done as well: physical abuse of others, fighting, incest, theft, shunning the disadvantaged, animal abuse, driving while intoxicated, etc. Why is it that individuals are so offended by the possible opportunity for two people marry? It was not until the middle 1960s that the U.S. government allowed the state-level practice of forbidding interracial marriage. Was this too irreconcilable? Your bigotry sir/madam has no place in this country.

I recognize that many states (including Virginia) have outlawed the possibility of same-sex marriage in their constitutions. One must, however, look at the margin in which these referendums passed. In many states, it was very miniscule, namely Virginia. The voters were misinformed of the text of the amendment. If you look at the test of the voters, you will also see that the more educated areas of the state (i.e., northern Virginia) voted against the amendment. This does show the grossly inadequate public definition of the proposed (now passed) amendment.

Furthermore, you have failed to offer anything other than you undereducated opinion of the matter. I would venture to say that you are in fact of a very low education level and you refuse to recognize the importance of these relationships to the people that are in them. These people, vote, pay taxes, and bleed the same as you (hopefully). You should open your mind slightly to realize the total implications of the judicial decision in California. What are the ramifications? Are these relationships a threat to you or your family? If so, how? How will such relationships affect the culture of the US, both negatively and positively? Please be objective when you consider these questions.

Good day.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: RESton Peace ()
Date: May 20, 2008 02:26AM

I've found in the past few months that individuals who assign terms like "perverted nastiness" to behaviors, usually wish to engage in those behaviors themselves.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: CO ()
Date: May 20, 2008 06:23PM

MP Wrote:
> If marriage between male and female is just common
> sense, then not legalizing rape, murder, and child
> molestation is common sense as well. God made
> them all, yes. God also gave man (and woman) free
> will. One does not have to rape. One does not
> have to murder. One does not have to molest.
> There are other offenses that should not be done
> as well: physical abuse of others, fighting,
> incest, theft, shunning the disadvantaged, animal
> abuse, driving while intoxicated, etc. Why is it
> that individuals are so offended by the possible
> opportunity for two people marry? It was not
> until the middle 1960s that the U.S. government
> allowed the state-level practice of forbidding
> interracial marriage. Was this too
> irreconcilable? Your bigotry sir/madam has no
> place in this country.
>
> I recognize that many states (including Virginia)
> have outlawed the possibility of same-sex marriage
> in their constitutions. One must, however, look
> at the margin in which these referendums passed.
> In many states, it was very miniscule, namely
> Virginia. The voters were misinformed of the text
> of the amendment. If you look at the test of the
> voters, you will also see that the more educated
> areas of the state (i.e., northern Virginia) voted
> against the amendment. This does show the grossly
> inadequate public definition of the proposed (now
> passed) amendment.
>
> Furthermore, you have failed to offer anything
> other than you undereducated opinion of the
> matter. I would venture to say that you are in
> fact of a very low education level and you refuse
> to recognize the importance of these relationships
> to the people that are in them. These people,
> vote, pay taxes, and bleed the same as you
> (hopefully). You should open your mind slightly
> to realize the total implications of the judicial
> decision in California. What are the
> ramifications? Are these relationships a threat
> to you or your family? If so, how? How will such
> relationships affect the culture of the US, both
> negatively and positively? Please be objective
> when you consider these questions.
>
> Good day.
================================================================================

In the mind of a serial murderer or rapist, he is doing the right thing because he is deriving pleasure out of his perversion. Similarly, these so called gays are deriving pleasure out of their perversion by slamming each other in their bung holes. We cannot legalize such perversions. That was my point.


In reference to you last para..


I would say, stop venturing :D


So just because these perverted people pay taxes (which every American is supposed to, by law) you want to legalize them?

Yes, I have opened my mind and I fully realize the implications of this unwanted BS on our society and that is the very reason why I am ranting. Am I the only one? Well then, so be it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: May 21, 2008 12:33AM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it will and should.


please move to california, your kind are waiting for you.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."095042938540

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: California Legalized gay marriage
Posted by: pgens ()
Date: May 21, 2008 08:05AM

He can go to Boston for that, much closer. He can drive there alone in his Ford Excursion while complaining about high gas prices the whole way up and how it is Bush's fault that his fossil-fuel-sucking, wasteful, non-fuel-efficient vehicle is so expensive to fill up.

Options: ReplyQuote
.
Posted by: Alias ()
Date: May 22, 2008 02:11AM

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 02:33AM by Alias.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********    ******     *******   **         **      ** 
 **     **  **    **   **     **  **    **   **  **  ** 
 **     **  **         **     **  **    **   **  **  ** 
 ********   **   ****   ********  **    **   **  **  ** 
 **         **    **          **  *********  **  **  ** 
 **         **    **   **     **        **   **  **  ** 
 **          ******     *******         **    ***  ***  
This forum powered by Phorum.