And you're the son of EP!!!

just like there have been a bunch of crazy left wing cases brought before the court....there are weirdos on both sides, take me for example that doesnt mean that most of the religious people would go for that sort of thing.

+1

Yes it was, and that is the problem! I'm all about birth control - we have a sixteen year old daughter and she will not get in the family way on our watch!!!

why dont you just encourage abstinence instead? i wish i had been better at that when i was a whippersnapper....i could have focused more on fishing.

"why dont you just encourage abstinence instead?"

Yeah that's worked so well....Nancy.

oh i know....didnt work for me. it would have been nice though. i was definitely too young for that sort of thing.

See, masturbation does cause blindness!!!

nancy? really?

That would be Ron & Nancy Reagan. Just say no to drugs as well.

you cant make me

I didn't think this thread could get any more retarded.

It's rare, but I'll admit it...I was wrong. It got a lot more retarded.

Arguing about abortion rights is about as productive as a Martian arguing with a Venusian about the price of tea on Jupiter.

I'm going fishing for a couple of days...I suggest the rest of you do, too.

Fish on...

Todd

If men are from Mars and Women are from Venus then I would agree that arguing with a women is never a good idea and almost always ends badly for the Martian.

Good luck fishing.

That's the beauty of "the dark side"

Good luck fishing with Hankster's customized hooks

It's green...........it's currency.

Okay, let's get back to the supreme court then.

Is same-sex marriage allowed under the constitution of the US? How would Sotomayor vote?

Fire in the hole!

Aunty!

if you get any more "teste", I'm gonna start calling you Hillary!!!

I am not trying to fit you into any mold, just looking for more perspectives, ludicrous to laudible.

Mike,

I agree with Aunty. The Constitution is silent on marriage. That makes it a state's rights issue. However, when a state like CA creates law prohibiting same sex marriage, that seems to violate equal rights and protections or amendment 9 protections. The SCOTUS should vacate any such state law.

It gets back to the singular interest the state has in marriage in the first place: who is financially responsible for any children resulting from uniting a couple? Anything else regarding marriage is none of the state's damn business. The church however, is free to meddle in the marriages of its members as much as it wants or as much as its members allow. Separation of church and state; it's the only alternative that works in the US.

Sg

That law was created thru a vote of the citizens of CA and they spoke. I don't care if gays can marry, it doesn't change my life one iota, but to say it's a states rights issue but then complain to SCOTUS when the states don't support the priveledge of marriage thru a referendum is ludicrous and anti-American. The issue is not about equal rights for gays because many states now insure that, but rather it is about having a word applied to their status to validate for them, their union.

What I do find ironic is that the institution of marriage is primarily a religious invention and those who seek to have it sanction their unions are historically the ones who have shunned religion the most.