BoogeyMan

Good! Those suckers can kick! I got the scars to prove it! It's good work... if you can get it. Chuck Yup...... That wuz me running past you headed for the freakin' fence.

Did not take it as a dig. As far as "rasslin" cattle..... I'll be over here, watching at a safe distance.

Thx for that post. There appear to be several different layers of attitude at play in this thread. Those who have a vested interest. Those who have a professional interest. And those who have an intellectual interest. Neither a dig or a flame. Simply a question. To answer, or not to, is kool w/ me. Your view? B.

You will simply be on the wrong side of history. Over the past several years, support among the under 35 segment of the country has their support for Gay marriage running close to 70%. One day in the future, when you are much older, your opinion on Gay marriage will be considered nothing more than a pacuilarr oddity of a different time by your young and baffled grand kids. It's not a mater of if, it's just a matter of when. No one knows my opinion of same sex marriage. You presume. My posts relate how the court case, from past events and cases will go.

actually that's where you are 100% wrong. I'm a staunch atheist and I'm here to tell you if when i die I am actually wrong. then I would expect a loving care GOD of the so called chistian understanding, to accept me with open arms. Because I live a life that i consider to be moral and just. I would not expect, your loving and caring GOD to deny me simply be cause I didn't bow down and suffer at an effigy of him or any of he followers. Hah... You impeached your own statement. Brilliant. You display a knowledge that belies your atheism. Everyone needs a plan "B". LOL...... Guess so. A professed "atheist", but a closet "believer". That's gotta be a published first, even on SC. Are you saying you're a doubting Thomas? The one thing I have a problem with is 'tithing'. You hear these preachers and televangelists begging for money. You give and you'll be rich! In the end, that preacher/ televangelist is driving a Rolls Royce and the donaters are on food stamps. Pat Robertson is always having stories on his show how some down and outer found a dollar and donated it to some church and BINGO! Almost over night, he's in the chips living the high life'. It's all legal and tax free! What a crock! The government really needs to tap into this. Chuck Mr. Chuck..... Me? A Doubting Thomas? Weeeelllllll.......! Since the original " Doubting Thomas" was an Apostle, and looked Jesus in the face, I'd say that's not so bad a thing to be called. Thx. BTW...... From another thread... By "rassling" cattle, do you mean to say you have been a Rodeo participant/contestant?

Can't put it any better than that. +1 (we finally agree on something)

What Wendy said....... +1

actually that's where you are 100% wrong. I'm a staunch atheist and I'm here to tell you if when i die I am actually wrong. then I would expect a loving care GOD of the so called chistian understanding, to accept me with open arms. Because I live a life that i consider to be moral and just. I would not expect, your loving and caring GOD to deny me simply be cause I didn't bow down and suffer at an effigy of him or any of he followers. Hah... You impeached your own statement. Brilliant. You display a knowledge that belies your atheism. Everyone needs a plan "B". LOL...... Guess so. A professed "atheist", but a closet "believer". That's gotta be a published first, even on SC.

"There is a method by which we influence things. They are called "elections". Local elections, state elections, and national elections. If you don't like what is going on, get involved. Vote with your wallet, and your time. Be an educated voter, not a drone. Vote for the people who are going to work for your and the USA's best interests." That's how the system is supposed to work. Good to see that someone paid attention in civics class.

actually that's where you are 100% wrong. I'm a staunch atheist and I'm here to tell you if when i die I am actually wrong. then I would expect a loving care GOD of the so called chistian understanding, to accept me with open arms. Because I live a life that i consider to be moral and just. I would not expect, your loving and caring GOD to deny me simply be cause I didn't bow down and suffer at an effigy of him or any of he followers. Hah... You impeached your own statement. Brilliant. You display a knowledge that belies your atheism.

That's funny! What planet are you from? That's the very best you can dream up? Lame & Stooo-pid.

You understand, of course, that if everybody gets a benefit from the government except for one class, it's discriminatory. Unless there either an overreaching, compelling or rational basis for doing it. for example, there are good reasons for excluding men from women's restrooms, such as no man should have to wait in a line like that. Absolutely...... I also believe that overburdening a class of citizen is also a concern. As in Bills of Attainder. Look out 1%-ers.!! It is difficult to have a case certified as a class action. Getting certified as being in a class that is distinctive only in the participation of a certain behavior is going to be some task. Immutability, politically ineffective, and so forth. Agreed, so far.

So far in this thread, you've implied gays are that way by choice, and companies prefer union over non-union labor. Any skepticism on the spherical nature of our planet? Blues, Dave See what I mean about comprehension issues? I relate what goes on in courtrooms involving this topic. Like it or not. This is the way it will go. Large corporations do prefer unions as a means to deal with large groups of employees. What? You're a flat-earth-er looking for a forum to expound on your version of the truth? Go ahead....

"you completely leave out the point that parents that pay for private education have to pay twice, once for their kid, and again for everybody else (including those singles that had the same free ride through school when they were young). " I didn't want to venture that far out in detail. There are some who have major comprehension issues who are also reading these posts. Didn't want to confuse the thread with too many truths.

taxes for schools - an uncomfortable examples for this issue, it's silly. If we want to provide education for the children, then the benefit needs to follow the child, not the school (i.e., choice) - regardless of marital status of the guardians. It's far from silly. There are a great many singles who loudly protest against being taxed for something they do not use. The collective viewpoint is that as a "society" the greater good for the future is achieved for all when citizens provide for the common basic education for all children.

"Wouldn’t it suck to have to file a court action to get every benefit that married people are just entitled to?" Again, there's that distinction between "rights" and "benefits". Corporations prefer to have a union to maintain the work force. Can you imagine having annually to renegotiate every single employee's working agreement?

Do you have anything to post about the 9th Ct's decision?

Your gibberish is unintelligible.

This thread is about the USA and a decision by a United States Court. Either stay in context and stop wasting bandwidth or bugger off.

Do you believe that this decision will withstand a challenge at the SC? The Federal standards are defined and have been restated as to what is a "miniority" or a "class". Everyone seems to think that it's a given that the Supreme Court will take an appeal. The decision today is very narrowly tailored to CA, and as such they may decide that it has no reach on a federal level, much as the other states that have allowed gay marriage. Since the 9th has seemingly disenfranchised the voters of California, this case will likely go to the Supremes.

You are out of the courtroom context in which we were discussing the post.

The mutability of sexual orientation is almost completely irrelevant in the discussion about same sex marriage. bullshit........

Not every citizen gets the same benefits as the next. Look at single persons. They have to pay taxes for schools. As far as the hetero who claimed to be afraid. A lawyer might ask " If you were lying then, are you still lying now?" Let's see if the Supremes grant cert on the appeal.

Good question. Is there any right that same sex couples are denied that cannot be accommodated by a civil contract? Last I checked, you couldn't *marry* by civil contract. But even disregarding that, imagine if interracial couples had to pay an attorney to draw up papers specifying paternity, spousal access in hospitals, and survival benefits, but white couples got each of those presumed by virtue of marriage. If it's more difficult or costly for one couple than another, it's not equal. I'm not sure of the relevance of this. Blues, Dave Relevance? The creation of a special class of person is what is happening. That class is to be distinguished by a "behavior". Do you think that a type of behavior is a protected right?