Would much prefer The State get out of the marriage business entirely because I consider it to be a religious ceremony. I would rather see civil unions, then spiritual marraige through the church...if that's want you want, and can find a church that will marry you.

I think the gay and lesbian community has approched this from the wrong angle, and it leaves out all those in non-traditional relationships that need to have the same legal rights that they seek.  

-dale     

 

 

I was censored by M* !!!!

Honestly, I did not use any vulgar slang in my previous post, but now I look like a boorish moron because my word was replaced with asterisks.

Thanks a lot Morningstar !!!!

-dale 

Edit: I see I've now been uncensored, and look like a moron for originating this post !!! Thanks again Morningstar !!! 

  

 

Dale, you have never behaved like a boorish moron.  What could you have possibly said?  Something quite innocuous I'll bet.   I once used the word for the turkey's chest and found it censored.  Yet I mentioned the city of Brest and it went through.

Someone typed magna kummm laude (I've changed the spelling here) and got bluepencilled too.

Let's see what happens with this post now!

;)

Hetty

Village Idjitesse 

 

I feel the institution of marriage should be open to all, regardless of gender orientation.  Why should heterosexual couples be the only ones allowed to suffer? :)

Lets see shall we.

Magna - Great

laude - expression of approval

makes sense to me....:)
 

drymartini:

Lets see shall we.

Magna - Great

laude - expression of approval

makes sense to me....:)
 

He typed laude, Sir Dry, not loudly. 

;)

Hetty 

ahem...it all makes perfect sense. :) who censored it and why? LOL ROTFL.

drymartini:

ahem...it all makes perfect sense. :) who censored it and why? LOL ROTFL.

Now if we can figure out how to turn this thread around and bring it back to subject of Myra's OP.

Be vewy, vewy careful there, Sir Dry.  

;)

qh1 the wicked of mind 

Back OT, at your service.

Myra, Myra, Myra.  You have not thought this one through.  Not a well-timed tactical decision on the California Supreme Court's part.  They weren't thinking either.  The way to advance the left's aganda is, indeed though the courts rather than the people's representatives.  But you have to do it at a time that you don't arouse and disturb the people enough at the wrong time.  They might just decide to be heard.

All the court had to do was wait.  All that four vote majority had to do was wait six months - until after November 4th.  Then they would have been home free.

But they didn't.

Now this whole thing again becomes an "issue".  It is, in fact, a quite legitimate issue for the fall campaign. 

You think not?  I suspect that quite a large percentage of the American public will disagree with you - quite vehemently.

I personally am waiting with great anticipation for our three presidential candidates are going to have to say about this.

I already know what two of them are going to say.  That "this is just a distraction from the real issues".  I can hear them say it already, and suspect those words will be quoted on the evening news NLT tomorrow night.

Not an issue?  Just a "distraction"?  Well, we shall see.

;-)

MWL

If it is a basic legal right to marry whoever you want, then why are incestuous marriages and polygamy, between consenting adults, still illegal?  The only difference is societal standards, and the court is taking it upon itself to decide which standards are correct are which are ridiculous.

MWL

Why is standing up for individual rights a "left agenda"?
Are not individual rights a concern of the right as well?

 

The radical left must be feeling cocky. Usually they wait until after an election to advance their agenda.

Might make things inter