paxetaurora said:Both Sens. from PA did, but Sen. Santorum has already been taken care of, as anyone who is reads Savage Love on a regular basis knows.
That has to be the funniest thing ever, and he deserves it more than the box turtle moron.
Melon
MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
That has to be the funniest thing ever, and he deserves it more than the box turtle moron.
Melon
Calluna
Rock n' Roll Doggie
paxetaurora said:Both Sens. from PA did, but Sen. Santorum has already been taken care of, as anyone who is reads Savage Love on a regular basis knows.
Every time I see him on TV I'm like, "hehehe santorum."
pax
ONE love, blood, life
I know. And that jackass represents me.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
I'm lost...what's all this about Senator Santorum? 
.
Angela
.Angela
Calluna
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Or you can visit the website. www.spreadingsantorum.com
Sorry, You are no longer married....CA Supreme Court Rules on Same Sex Marriages
[Q]Calif. Court Voids SF Same-Sex Marriages
POSTED: 9:58 am EDT August 12, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court has voided in a Thursday ruling all gay marriages that were sanctioned in San Francisco.
In its ruling, the court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates and performed the marriage ceremonies beginning in February.[/Q]
http://www.wesh.com/family/3647053/detail.html
[Q]Calif. Court Voids SF Same-Sex Marriages
POSTED: 9:58 am EDT August 12, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court has voided in a Thursday ruling all gay marriages that were sanctioned in San Francisco.
In its ruling, the court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates and performed the marriage ceremonies beginning in February.[/Q]
http://www.wesh.com/family/3647053/detail.html
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
BostonAnne
Refugee
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
Total bullshit. 
najeena
War Child
An atsonishing example of how our system can go wrong. I'm appalled, and I feel terrible for the people who are affected my this. 
The good news is they did not rule on gay marriage. They ruled on the fact that a city or town does not have the right to circumvent the state legislature.
While I am saddened by the decision, and upset because I had hopes for relatives of mine to be married, I agree with the courts decision and feel it is an example of the system going right.
The ruling does not stop the chance that gay marriage may happen.
While I am saddened by the decision, and upset because I had hopes for relatives of mine to be married, I agree with the courts decision and feel it is an example of the system going right.
The ruling does not stop the chance that gay marriage may happen.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Wow, they really stuck it to all those loving, peaceful couples who wanted to spend the rest of their lives together.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Well, yes, Dread, you're right. It just pisses me off when I think of how heartbroken those couples and their friends and families must be. I hope some other legal avenue opens up to them as soon as possible, obviously on a state level.
Man, do I ever need the FYM chill pill today, huh?
Man, do I ever need the FYM chill pill today, huh?
ILuvLarryMullen
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
ThatGuy said:
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Yeah, the mayor did something illegal, but hey, then again, so did black people in the 50s and 60s, right? Not saying we should all go around breaking every law that exists, but if the law's one that promotes discrimination, well...
Bah. This sucks. Those poor couples.
Angela
Bah. This sucks. Those poor couples.
Angela
BostonAnne
Refugee
Dreadsox said:
This makes sense to me. I hope the state of California rules for gay marriage soon.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Damn, that's unfortunate. The damn State of California just told a bunch of married people that they were no longer married.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/25/cheney_splits_with_bush_on_gay_marriage_ban/
"Cheney's remark was the first time the vice president has taken note of his daughter's sexual orientation in public, officials said . "
I think that's sad, but it is positive that he finally spoke out, even thought the way he did it is pretty carefully worded
"Cheney's remark was the first time the vice president has taken note of his daughter's sexual orientation in public, officials said . "
I think that's sad, but it is positive that he finally spoke out, even thought the way he did it is pretty carefully worded
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
oliveu2cm
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I mentioned to my friend I don't know how Mary can help fundraise for her father and Bush when the administration clearly does not support, actually slanders, her lifestyle.
My friend pointed me out to this:
http://www.dearmary.com/
My friend pointed me out to this:
http://www.dearmary.com/
Salome
you are what you is
it doesn't prevent anything indeed, but it is a disheartening decision anywayDreadsox said:
I only have experience with court decisions re. tax issues etc
but (at least over here) courts don't seem to have too many problems to taking into account that following one law is in contradiction with another law (discrimination against gay people)
I don't think the same intent for flexibility and justice was shown here
re. Mary Cheney
I don't expect her to not support Bush/Cheney in public
but to even help in fundraisers makes me
Last edited:
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I probably shouldn't even bring this topic back up again
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over same-sex marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.
Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. They declined, without comment.
In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."
Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.
The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
State legislators will decide whether to put the issue before Massachusetts voters in November 2006. Voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in November elections. President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowly ruled that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
The nation's high court had stayed out of the Massachusetts fight on a previous occasion. Last May, justices refused to intervene and block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.
The case is Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts, case no. 04-420.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over same-sex marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.
Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. They declined, without comment.
In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."
Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly told justices that voters can overrule the Supreme Court by adopting a constitutional amendment.
The lawsuit was filed by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.
State legislators will decide whether to put the issue before Massachusetts voters in November 2006. Voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in November elections. President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowly ruled that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.
The nation's high court had stayed out of the Massachusetts fight on a previous occasion. Last May, justices refused to intervene and block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.
The case is Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts, case no. 04-420.
Stonewall
The Fly
Oh, yes, U should, Mrs.Springsteen -- and U did! 
Let's give a big hand to "THE SUPREMES" who have their latest
pop hit!
Let's give a big hand to "THE SUPREMES" who have their latest
pop hit!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
with this issue, and medicinal marijuana in front of the Supreme Court, and all this red/blue divide, i have only one word:
federalism.
there's a vast cultural chasm between the good people of Mississippi and the good people of California. why force them to live as if they were the same?
federalism.
there's a vast cultural chasm between the good people of Mississippi and the good people of California. why force them to live as if they were the same?
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
As far as the medical marijuana debate... I just hope the legal marijuana users are nowhere near operating a moving vehicle. We have a bad enough problem with drunk driving, and we also have a bad enough problem with people using vicoden legally when they have no need for it, just an addiction.
- Status
Similar threads
