Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Judge Strikes Down Nebraska Ban On Gay Marriage  
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3420 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2489 times:

WASHINGTON - In the first time that a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon on Thursday declared void a provision of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and that banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships.

see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/

I wonder how long before the cries of "Damn those activist* judges" comes from the Far Right?
*activist = making a ruling we don't agree with

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Wooo hooo 'Another "Activist" Judge' Strikes back..

From above link:
"Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions."


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Yes!! Lets hear from some more conservatives who don't know that the legal system in this country is not based upon 'majority rules' and that a fundamental aspect of democracy is protecting the rights of minorities.

[Edited 2005-05-13 03:52:45]


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

It's always a good day when we aren't on the losing end of the gay marriage debate, but I'll be honest, it makes me nervous. Assuming this ruling holds (because it's guaranteed to be appealed), and becomes precedent for every other state constitutional ban on gay marriage, this will give enormous leverage to those pushing for a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution.

Right now the various attempts to amend the US Constitution to bar gay marriage are easy to fight back, and everyone pretty much admits there is no real hope of getting an amendment through. But if this becomes the last recourse of those that oppose gay marriage, it's going to become a real battle. I think there is still enough common sense in America to eventually prevent any US Constitutional amendment from being enacted, but I wouldn't be surprised if, if all of the state amendments are struck down, if it at least got passed by congress.

Going to be an interesting battle!

Rgds
Duane



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 3):
this will give enormous leverage to those pushing for a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution.

Let's not forget, not ONLY does a constitutional ammendment have to pas both houses @ 60+%. THEN it has to be ratified by EVERY state in the US.. not going to happen...


User currently offlineCORULEZ05 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

so does this mean he is in favor of gay marriage? I'm confused

User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
Let's not forget, not ONLY does a constitutional ammendment have to pas both houses @ 60+%. THEN it has to be ratified by EVERY state in the US.. not going to happen...

Which is why I said there was enough common sense to eventually prevent it being enacted, but I'm much more comfortable knowing it can't even get past congress right now, vs. having to fight the battle on a state by state basis.

Don't get me wrong, the ruling is a good thing and I'll take it and any ensuing battles anyday over losing my rights alltogether.

Rgds
Duane



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineLAS757300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

3/4 of state legislatures have to approve an amendment to the US Constitution, not all of them.

These state anti-gay marriage amendments have had really unfortunate consequences. For example, the new amendment in Ohio may prevent domestic violence laws from being used to prosecute men who abuse their girlfriends.

edited for spelling

[Edited 2005-05-13 05:22:34]


KMSP
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
Let's not forget, not ONLY does a constitutional ammendment have to pas both houses @ 60+%. THEN it has to be ratified by EVERY state in the US.. not going to happen...

Constitutional Amendments must pass both the House and Senate with a two-thirds majority and then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
_____________________________________________________________

But getting back on topic. Cases like this are why more and more Americans are becoming tired of activist judges who subvert the will of the people with the stroke of a pen. Anywhere from 60%-70% (depending on which poll you read) of Americans are opposed to homosexual "marriage" and actions like this are why more and more Americans are starting to realize that a Constitutional Amendment is the only sure way to stop activist judges. A handful of blackrobed tyrants should not be able to subvert the will of the people just because they feel like it.

If homosexuals want the right to "marry" then they should convince the people that it is a good idea. Forcing it on people is only going to create resentment and the kind of backlash that no one really wants.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineLAS757300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

B757300 is obviously an expert on the various pertinent state constitutions as well as the fourteenth amendment.


KMSP
User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
activist judges



Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
activist judges



Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
blackrobed tyrants

Ah, good to see some you know whats in here.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Forcing it on people is only going to create resentment and the kind of backlash that no one really wants.

Oh really. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, 753. It was only designed to be forced on us all through the Presidential campaign as a strategy of Karl Rove. The evil genious's plan worked and getting a referendum on the Ohio ballot was just enough to get enough uneducated hillbillies to get out and vote not for love of country or truly important issues for everyone, but jsut cuz they hate 'dem fags.

Please go on with your so called "opinion", its quite entertaining.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
But getting back on topic. Cases like this are why more and more Americans are becoming tired of activist judges who subvert the will of the people with the stroke of a pen.

OK, B757300...I've asked you this before and you've dodged it each and every time, but heck, maybe I'll be lucky for once. Do you therefore believe that interracial marriage should still be illegal because antimiscegenation laws were overturned by the Courts and not state legislatures that, were at the time, populated by bigots? I mean just substitute "interracial couples" for homosexuals in your post and it could be right out of the '50s or '60s when judges were using the Bible to justify their bigoted views against mixed race couples.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineSLC1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 5):
so does this mean he is in favor of gay marriage? I'm confused

It's not a judge's job to be in favor of one idea or another, rather to rule based on what has been passed down in law (notice, I didn't say agree with the legislature and/or president).


User currently offlineJpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
subvert the will of the people just because they feel like it

Or maybe because its wrong. The will of the people for civil rights issues, this is really good stuff. Read my post above for the way things should work. Majority rules does not fly when it comes to Constitutionality, buddy, that should be the first thing you learn. Too bad they didn't hold referendums for womens suffrage and black civil rights issues through the years, eh? It's no wonder the framers of the Constitution put in the electoral college because they didn't want to put this country at the will of the 'majority'. Sure not a position I would enjoy being in right now.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineNYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1384 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 10):
Oh really. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, 753. It was only designed to be forced on us all through the Presidential campaign as a strategy of Karl Rove. The evil genious's plan worked and getting a referendum on the Ohio ballot was just enough to get enough uneducated hillbillies to get out and vote not for love of country or truly important issues for everyone, but jsut cuz they hate 'dem fags.

Please go on with your so called "opinion", its quite entertaining.

amen, brother. respect.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Anywhere from 60%-70% (depending on which poll you read) of Americans are opposed to homosexual "marriage"

Who cares ? Presumably none of these 60-70% of people are planning to marry anyone of the same sex anyway, so how does the issue affect them ? Answer: it doesn't, it's none of their business, so they can f.r.o.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting LAS757300 (Reply 7):
3/4 of state legislatures have to approve an amendment to the US Constitution, not all of them.



Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Constitutional Amendments must pass both the House and Senate with a two-thirds majority and then must be ratified by three-fourths of the states

Thanks for the corrections  Smile

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
subvert the will of the people

No, it's called constitutional law, which is the will of the people before us.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Anywhere from 60%-70% (depending on which poll you read) of Americans are opposed to homosexual "marriage"

Yes, but up to 70% is not enough. this whole point would be made moot if Marriage was segregated from civil unions.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
A handful of blackrobed tyrants should not be able to subvert the will of the people just because they feel like it.

No, it's called constitutional law, which is the will of the people before us.
Please do NOT confuse your will and the will of a few other morons with the will of "everyone" that is wrong.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Forcing it on people is only going to create resentment and the kind of backlash that no one really wants.

How resentful do you think gay people are?
Why can't you just live and let live? Can you PROVE that homosexuals being married/having recognized unions will negatively affect ANYTHING?


User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4878 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

[quote=TedTAce,reply=16][How resentful do you think gay people are?
/quote]

Well, I'll tell you how resentful THIS gay person is:

I makes me damn angry that up to 70% of the people in this country have no problem with creating a permanent, natural born citizenship without the same rights as the majority.

Many of these same opponents of equality wave Old Glory in one hand, hold a Bible in the other then have the audacity to proclaim me UnAmerican and UnPatriotic because I don't agree with thier narrowmindeness.

Have any Republicans came forward and said "Hey you fags and dykes...we're gonna make you second citizens, and in return...as the party of less government intrusion (if you believe this you've consumed way too much GOP Kool-Aid), we're gonna cut your taxes in half since we shouldn't take your money to put our children through school, fund the extra tax credits we have for reproducing and support a military that is not fighting for your particular freedoms, since we made sure you don't have as many as us "normal" Americans."

Of course they haven't.



Next Up: STL-TPA-BWI-PWM-BWI-STL
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 17):
Of course they haven't.

That would require thinking at a level most are incapable of..


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Anywhere from 60%-70% (depending on which poll you read) of Americans are opposed to homosexual "marriage" and actions like this are why more and more Americans are starting to realize that a Constitutional Amendment is the only sure way to stop activist judges.

Since when is "majority rule" the end-all and be-all in ruling the LEGALITY of something? It is not, and that standard does NOT protect the rights of the minority.

And I too am interested in what your views on inter-racial marriage are, considering at the time laws against that were ruled illegal, the prohibition against that enjoyed the support of the "majority".

The ONLY support for banning gay marriage is based on religious grounds, and guess what? Your religion should NOT rule me and my life!


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Quoting SLC1 (Reply 12):
It's not a judge's job to be in favor of one idea or another, rather to rule based on what has been passed down in law (notice, I didn't say agree with the legislature and/or president).

PRECISELY. If B757300 would bother reading the decision, he would see the decision is soundly based on case law, as well as strict interpretation of the 14th amendment.

What infuriates him and other anti gay marriage folk is they know that logic and law is not on their side... and it's only a matter of time before all gays will be allowed the same legal marriage benefits.

Even if a federal constitutional amendement is passed, I'm still convinced it's only a matter of time... after all, prohibition was repealed... and the 3/5's provision was repealed. Equality and progress may take a step back, but this country simply cannot trample on and deny rights to a certain subset of citizens if it expects to continue to be a strong leader and "voice of freedom" in the world.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2249 times:

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 10):
The evil genious's plan worked and getting a referendum on the Ohio ballot was just enough to get enough uneducated hillbillies to get out and vote not for love of country or truly important issues for everyone, but jsut cuz they hate 'dem fags.

Although I understand your anger, you're making the same mistake you're critizicing. What make you think that only "uneducated hillbillies" oppose gay marriage? What make you think that "hate (to) 'dem fags" is the only reason behind their opinion?

As difficult as would be to understand it for you, a lot of people oppose gay marriage out of love, faith and tradition. They don't hate gays, they love their traditional families. Even if it's not "truly important" for you, social issues matter to them because of their faith and sense of community. And you know what, they have every right to uphold their values just as you do with yours.

Gay marriage keeps hurting gays and lesbians everywhere. What a shame most gay activists don't realize it.


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 21):
Even if it's not "truly important" for you, social issues matter to them because of their faith

As I said previously, their faith should not impede my rights.


User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2563 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2229 times:

What smarmy words you say, SFOMEX.

Perhaps you shouldn't marry a person of the same gender since it obviously upsets you so much.

Don't profess to tell me what i can and cannot do. Normally I tend to not get angry with people on this board...and you are certainly not the only one to fall into this "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit mentality...but PLEASE tend to your own life and religion.

Your "loving, kind words" make me redouble my efforts to see that gay marriage will become a reality.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2228 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
Cases like this are why more and more Americans are becoming tired of activist judges who subvert the will of the people with the stroke of a pen.

I'm tired of being subjected to your will. This is America, I'm free, I don't need your permission I need the protection of the law. These "activist" judges are protecting me from you.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 8):
If homosexuals want the right to "marry" then they should convince the people that it is a good idea.

If you and I have to agree on it, then it isn't freedom, is it?

N


25 TWFirst : I see.... so we shouldn't push for equal rights because it will come back to bite us... just shut up and sit in the back of the bus and don't make a
26 MBMBOS : SFOMEX, You know, I really dislike stereotypes and generalizations. People who are anti-gay shouldn't be stereotyped as "uneducated hillbillies." I wo
27 Greyhound : But only if our values are the same. Else, we start becoming nothing more than -- I respect the position of someone who supports gay marriage, even t
28 Post contains images JpetekYXMD80 : I've always contended that civil unions are the way to go at this time, that rights are more important than a word right now. As said before, this sh
29 ConcordeBoy : Other way around bub... Not to be trite, but this is yet another example of the exact same argument used against interracial marriage. Fine and dandy
30 Jaysit : Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 21): As difficult as would be to understand it for you, a lot of people oppose gay marriage out of love, faith and tradition. Th
31 JpetekYXMD80 : As do i, but if you would read my original post you wouldn't take it out of context- I sense a republican barrage coming at me. I did not say that yo
32 N1120A : 2/3rds of both houses then 3/4ths of the states Well, no, he isn't because if he was he would have nothing to say here about "activist judges". This
33 SKYSERVICE_330 : What is a traditional family? Seems to me that term has changed substantially from say, 40 years ago.
34 TedTAce : How many hours after I was corrected and gave thanks for the corrections?
35 ConcordeBoy : Great observation! Back then, a "traditional family" was same-race with female in the home. Times change.
36 JpetekYXMD80 : For what its worth, I know a shitload of 'career' republicans, who vow to not get married. Are you alright with that?
37 SFOMEX : Fine. It's your right. No. Gay activists should realize that they are fighting a lost war. If they really care about their community, they would figh
38 JpetekYXMD80 : That is a very flawed argument. Defined by what? Law. Laws change. There was a time when only male, white, landowners could vote. That was the law. V
39 TedTAce : You could have said this better... I agree that the VERBIAGE needs to be modfied. I think I have said it before, but I don't mind repeating myself in
40 Post contains images N1120A : Sorry about that. I was scanning down picking things up as I went along. Not trying to you The problem with what both of you said is that the term "m
41 Post contains links TedTAce : Damn, I HATE it when you guys make me LEARN!!! http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html
42 KC135R : What an interesting conservative talking point you bring up, but I am glad you did. Explain to me just exactly how gay marriage is an attack against
43 Garnetpalmetto : Radically redfine our society's concept of matrimony? That's precisely what the Court did in Loving v. Virginia when they legalized interracial marri
44 Avek00 : ...Problem is, race is a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment; sexual orientatio
45 Post contains images TedTAce : The 'touchstone' word. My impression is that it's roots are biblical and the thumpers can't have the hypocrasy of the bible saying homosexuality is b
46 KC135R : From the 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of th
47 PacificWestern : How very perfect. So, if Daddy is sneaking into his young daughter's room at night for a bit of fun and Mummy is roaring drunk downstairs knocking Ju
48 N1120A : Actually, according to Lawrence, sexual orientation is now subject to strict scrutiny.
49 Post contains links TedTAce : From: http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend14.htm " Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictio
50 Post contains images KC135R : Yes, there's that too - good point! No doubt that is true. But, when did there become levels of sin? The thumpers constantly excuse themselves for do
51 TedTAce : More like DISGUSTING HYPOCRACY!!!
52 ConcordeBoy : ....you seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention how said analogy is flawed. Let's hear it bub. Defined by what? State law after these discrimi
53 KC135R : Actually, and I know I am reading more into this then what you intended, Bush's proposal of this amendment seemed to be more of a "get out the vote"
54 TedTAce : Anyone who wants to look like a MORON or get FLAMMED SENSLESS!! [Butthead voice]Flammed by a Flamer... that was funny... huhhh hhuhhh
55 ConcordeBoy : While I agree with you, that's not what I intended to convey. Original message has been duly modified.
56 SFOMEX : It's a flawed analogy based on what marriage means as a human institution. The religious or state sanctioned union between a man and a woman has been
57 TedTAce : Once again, verbiage. Who cares?? For Centruies Man thought the world was flat and mixing races was bad too, we know differently now don't we???? Don
58 SATX : It will almost certainly be used to 'get out the vote' for conservative republicans, regardless of what else happens. It's unfortunate that you someh
60 Post contains images TedTAce : Oh how disgusting that this is true here... BEAUTY
61 Falcon84 : Amen. I do not, repeat, do not condone homosexuality, and do not agree with the lifestyle. Having said that, in a open society, I have no problem wit
62 JpetekYXMD80 : Falcon- Thank you for the well written, comprehensive post.
63 ConcordeBoy : Um cher, before I rail you on your display of extreme ignorance of history, and no doubt "earn" myself yet another 1way ticket to LimboLand... ...mig
64 MUWarriors : So loving traditional families and supporting gay marriage are mutually exclusive? Maybe I am dumb, but I still don't see how supporting a traditiona
65 Falcon84 : I don't either. I think the right-wing in this country has become so use to painting every thing in a either/or dogma, where to them, everything is b
66 Post contains images KC135R : What? Gay marriage doesn't affect your family? This confuses me because Dr. James Dobson, who also pointed out to me that Sponge Bob is a big 'ole qu
67 SFOMEX : Well, in the eyes of the majority. I don't know if the majority are conservatives, but it says a lot that even Oregon passed a constitutional ban on
68 Gigneil : Its common knowledge. Any educated person in the United States knows. They are valid. I invite those people to live their lives as they see fit. That
69 ConcordeBoy : ...or even non-land-owning White men. When you boil it all down... tell me this: when have you ever heard of a case filing for divorce, or even amica
70 ConcordeBoy : ...bullsh!t. That could, and now is, just as easily thrown right back at ya bub. I suggested that you check your facts on the statements you proclaim
71 Post contains images JpetekYXMD80 : Well, all your opposition here fails to see just HOW opposing gay marriage is supporting the 'traditional family'. Do you expect the candidates for g
72 Post contains links SFOMEX : OK, you both arrogant A.netters. I did your homework and I will provide you some useful information which wouldn't help your gay marriage agenda, but
73 JpetekYXMD80 : Saying things like, and i quote: DOESN'T really help your case here, buddy. I'm glad to see your moderate views, but you somehow usually manage to say
74 Falcon84 : Gee, Mr. Conservative, what happened to States' Rights, in this case? Conservatives are gung-ho for States' Rights, until they're found not in line w
75 KC135R : What the hell?? I did not say any of that stuff, why is it attributed to me?
76 Post contains images Falcon84 : Not at you-if you see, I use SFO-MEX as my target for the attack, not you. I thought I was using his quote, and didn't double-check that it was from y
77 MUWarriors : The courts are saying the law as it is now (The Constitution) is in favor of gay marriages. I am all in support of the traditional family. When my pa
78 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...cher, I'd devote myself as a vassal of Michael Moore before I ever believe one 10th of the tripe spewed from NPR. And if you think that's only a r
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional posted Tue Nov 18 2003 17:36:03 by Delta777-XXX
Judge Strikes Down CA Gay Marriage Ban posted Tue Mar 15 2005 02:01:46 by Mdsh00
NY Judge Strikes Down Ban On Same-Sex Marriage posted Fri Feb 4 2005 21:13:57 by RJpieces
Help With Input On Gay Marriage Please posted Fri Mar 24 2006 17:53:53 by KaiGywer
Canada Could Do A 180 On Gay Marriage posted Wed Feb 1 2006 06:34:11 by LHMARK
Cheney On Gay Marriage.... posted Wed Aug 25 2004 00:04:19 by Rjpieces
Conservative Site's Poll On Gay Marriage Backfires posted Tue Dec 23 2003 09:54:53 by LoneStarMike
Gay Marriage, The GOP And Dircksen's Speech On CR. posted Wed Jul 19 2006 08:20:13 by SFOMEX
Understanding Gay's Arguments On Church Marriage. posted Wed Sep 28 2005 17:57:01 by Korg747
Mass. Legislature Rejects Gay Marriage Ban... posted Wed Sep 14 2005 22:04:55 by TWFirst