06-03-2012, 06:41 PM
(06-03-2012, 06:31 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]You also have to include all NAMBLA members in your support, good job!!
You need help, professional mental health help. You have a serious problem.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
06-03-2012, 06:41 PM
06-03-2012, 06:43 PM
+1
06-03-2012, 06:46 PM
(06-03-2012, 06:41 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ](06-03-2012, 06:31 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]You also have to include all NAMBLA members in your support, good job!!
You need help, professional mental health help. You have a serious problem.
he doesn't believe that, he's just trying to stir shit 
don't fall for it.
06-04-2012, 03:51 AM
(06-01-2012, 06:50 AM)pspence Wrote: [ -> ]I hear ya Aussie.
Thanks pspence I hear ya too. These very vocal loud people do not speak on behalf of me.
Just look at Dick's argument, it comes apart in here based on some of the statements he has made.
Your government is not legislating morality but law, completely different components to our society.
It threatens Dick because he is a white patriarchal male.
Back off the gays people, who else is going to do my hair?
06-05-2012, 02:27 AM
Don't have a problem with it and even if I did, how or why should that be their concern or something they need to deal with? Gays living two doors down from me want to get married? How does that have anything to do with my marriage and if I thought it did, why should they be hassled with my opinions?
06-05-2012, 02:02 PM
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...bcpolitics
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.
The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.
Advertise | AdChoices
Watch US News videos on msnbc.com
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.
Attorney Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, told msnbc.com that no decisions on legal strategy have been made.
“But we have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed,” he said.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the court agreed with the couples that it is unconstitutional because it takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.
"We’ve been working on this issue for so many years, and for the court to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legally married, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary," said Lee Swislow, GLAD’s executive director.
Earlier: Illinois same-sex couples sue for right to marry
During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DoMA.
An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
More than 1,000 benefits in question
Two California federal judges earlier said the act violated constitutional standards.
Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled May 24 that the law legalized bigotry by withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits -- such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship -- from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.
Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco also declared DoMA unconstitutional and ordered the government to provide family insurance coverage to the wife of a lesbian court employee. White's ruling has been appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the case in September.
President Barack Obama withdrew his administration's defense of the law in February 2011, saying he considered it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.
On May 9, Obama declared in an interview with ABC News his unequivocal support for gay marriage, becoming the first president to endorse the idea.
Obama said, "I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient." He added that he "was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."
Now, he said, "it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married."
Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Judge Michael Boudin, who wrote the decision, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.
The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.
Advertise | AdChoices
Watch US News videos on msnbc.com
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.
Attorney Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, told msnbc.com that no decisions on legal strategy have been made.
“But we have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed,” he said.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the court agreed with the couples that it is unconstitutional because it takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.
"We’ve been working on this issue for so many years, and for the court to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legally married, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary," said Lee Swislow, GLAD’s executive director.
Earlier: Illinois same-sex couples sue for right to marry
During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DoMA.
An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
More than 1,000 benefits in question
Two California federal judges earlier said the act violated constitutional standards.
Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled May 24 that the law legalized bigotry by withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits -- such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship -- from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.
Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco also declared DoMA unconstitutional and ordered the government to provide family insurance coverage to the wife of a lesbian court employee. White's ruling has been appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the case in September.
President Barack Obama withdrew his administration's defense of the law in February 2011, saying he considered it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.
On May 9, Obama declared in an interview with ABC News his unequivocal support for gay marriage, becoming the first president to endorse the idea.
Obama said, "I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient." He added that he "was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."
Now, he said, "it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married."
Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Judge Michael Boudin, who wrote the decision, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.
06-05-2012, 02:34 PM
Too bad obama can't speak for the States.
What will be found unconstitutional is Obama's attempt to circumvent the the USSC.
Undermine the Constitution"anything that is not specifically mentioned reverts to the States"
For the evolutionists redefining Marriage undermines millions of years of evolution and History.
For the Christians redefining Marriage undermines 2000 years of History.
For the reincarnated it is just down right screws up Karma and it's circle of power.
many ghosts and spirits are pissed, dogs are changing their barks to a softer more delicate less DB's and hoping for pink collars for Christmas.
Nancy Pelosi think she was right again and she is sure she should have been a man.
But one thing is certain Obama can't make changes in anything but his own opinion, I congratulate him on his evolution toward gays and gay Marriage.
What will be found unconstitutional is Obama's attempt to circumvent the the USSC.
Undermine the Constitution"anything that is not specifically mentioned reverts to the States"
For the evolutionists redefining Marriage undermines millions of years of evolution and History.
For the Christians redefining Marriage undermines 2000 years of History.
For the reincarnated it is just down right screws up Karma and it's circle of power.
many ghosts and spirits are pissed, dogs are changing their barks to a softer more delicate less DB's and hoping for pink collars for Christmas.
Nancy Pelosi think she was right again and she is sure she should have been a man.
But one thing is certain Obama can't make changes in anything but his own opinion, I congratulate him on his evolution toward gays and gay Marriage.
06-05-2012, 02:41 PM
+3
(Just thought it was 3x better than most of Senor's posts).
(Just thought it was 3x better than most of Senor's posts).
06-05-2012, 03:20 PM
I enjoy Dick's posts. I find him brain stimulating and thought provoking.
06-05-2012, 04:02 PM
(06-05-2012, 03:20 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy Dick's posts. I find him brain stimulating and thought provoking.
He's a meatball.
06-05-2012, 04:17 PM
I wanna stab him with a fork.
06-05-2012, 04:36 PM
(06-05-2012, 04:17 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I wanna stab him with a fork.
Were even then because I want to skewer you.
Then I want to give you small little kisses on the shoulders and neck while I tickle your stomach just below the belly button with my finger.
06-05-2012, 04:42 PM
(06-05-2012, 04:36 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ](06-05-2012, 04:17 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I wanna stab him with a fork.
Were even then because I want to skewer you.
Then I want to give you small little kisses on the shoulders and neck while I tickle your stomach just below the belly button with my finger.
*fans self*
Geez, Dick. Cut it out!!!!
06-05-2012, 04:51 PM
Gross.
06-05-2012, 05:03 PM
@Ma: Is there an ass you won't kiss? Damn dude, show of dignity. The award's already yours.
06-05-2012, 05:15 PM
(06-05-2012, 04:51 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]Gross.
Her knees aren't gross they are just bumpy, I can deal with them better than I could deal with your adams apple.
06-05-2012, 05:17 PM
(06-05-2012, 05:03 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]@Ma: Is there an ass you won't kiss? Damn dude, show of dignity. The award's already yours.
Since I'm the only one that knows the criteria you might actually be in the lead.
I damn sure don't want you to turn me in for discriminating against a fag.
You might get to win one just so you can't do that shit.
06-05-2012, 05:24 PM
@Dick is that the same 2,000 year old tradition where marriage was a purchase of woman as property from the father of the woman? Or the 2,000 year old tradition that dictated men could purchase more than one wife as a show of wealth? Or the one that said any divorce was a sin and any sex after divorce was adultery? The tradition where the woman cost about the same as a couple of goats? Or the one where men could divorce a woman at any time for any reason because she was considered chattel? Or maybe it was the rules and traditions set down about procreation and following god's will to multiply, set down by Paul and Jesus, a couple of confirmed bachelors who according to canon had neither wives nor children?
06-05-2012, 05:29 PM
(06-05-2012, 05:17 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]bla bla faglame bla
I'm still not coming to your frilly pirate party. Stop begging.
PS helpful tip: if you do a reacharound and you find yourself tickling her belly button...you're doing it wrong. Whattaya you got, T-Rex midget arms or something?
06-05-2012, 05:34 PM
(06-05-2012, 05:24 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]@Dick is that the same 2,000 year old tradition where marriage was a purchase of woman as property from the father of the woman? Or the 2,000 year old tradition that dictated men could purchase more than one wife as a show of wealth? Or the one that said any divorce was a sin and any sex after divorce was adultery? The tradition where the woman cost about the same as a couple of goats? Or the one where men could divorce a woman at any time for any reason because she was considered chattel? Or maybe it was the rules and traditions set down about procreation and following god's will to multiply, set down by Paul and Jesus, a couple of confirmed bachelors who according to canon had neither wives nor children?
The one consistent and obvious fact that jumps right out at the audience is that when dealing with Marriage you only mention men and women.
I will give you some time now to re evaluate your own true view of Marriage and then you can apologise, I will accept it and of course rub your electrolysis denuded face in it every chance I get.