California voids Gay/Lesbian Marriages

Well I guess we can toss California into the same smelly pit Missouri went into a couple of weeks ago. :mad2:

Can't catch a break

Cyber Wolf wrote:

Well I guess we can toss California .........Missouri....

Do you really think the two are of the same political makeup? I don't. California is the most liberal state in the union. There must be a reason for the ruling.

" The seven justices on Thursday all said Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue the licenses and perform the ceremonies violated a 1977 state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman."

But on the other hand, we all know this isn't over.

" The court focused its ruling on the limits of local government authority, and did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage. That question will have to wait as a flurry of lawsuits and countersuits over the gay weddings rise through the state's courts."

I think I'm the only one here that opposes gay marriage. I think civil unions would be better. Yes, this is a can of worms.

I think we spent about 40 pages on it a few months back.

Regardless of CA's political make up, there's something just not right about doing that to those people. CA can go sit in the corner until its courts can fully explain.

Cyber Wolf wrote:

.......not right about doing that to those people.

Now, I think I know where you stand on this but you have to understand, there are many people that just don't think that denying same sex couple's legal marriage is a crime. I am one of them.

I think that eventually it will pass, but I don't think we're ready for gay marriage. I'm not convinced that it's a civil liberties violation.

But then again, who am I. Just some hillbilly. Just one of millions, I guess.

Cyber Wolf wrote:

Regardless of CA's political make up, there's something just not right about doing that to those people. CA can go sit in the corner until its courts can fully explain.

The explanation is pretty simple. A Marriage license is a state issued document. A city official doesn't get to make up the rules about who gets one.

Your mayor can't decide to start issuing driver's licenses to 13-year-old kids. The state gets to set the rules. And in California, they have. The voters approved a referendum that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The court recognized that a single city official doesn’t have the authority to violate that statute. Isn’t that the courts job, to make sure that the actions of our civil servants conform to the guidelines set for them by the people they represent?

-sm

smoothmoniker wrote:

The voters approved a referendum that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

That will most certainly be overturned in the long term. I think eventually it will be changed and gay marriage will be legal.

And then it will be changed some more, and then I'll be able to marry my dog. And then some more......and .....maybe it would make more sense with all the divorces to have a gang of married people into one union.

Once this passes everything will be different for polygamist and everyone else.

I thought that would bring at least one comment from those I see on the board right now.

Look at the bright side Cyber Wolf, there are a considerable number of people that see things as you do. There are most certainly a majority on the board here that do.

That doesn't mean there isn't an opposing viewpoint though.

smoothmoniker wrote:

The voters approved a referendum that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Didn't the voters do the same in Missouri, essentially banning gay marriage in the state? Or did I miss something? In this case, how does that make California any different? Back to the pit!

slang wrote:

Look at the bright side Cyber Wolf, there are a considerable number of people that see things as you do. There are most certainly a majority on the board here that do.

That doesn't mean there isn't an opposing viewpoint though.

Oh yes, I'm well aware. And if there weren't opposing view points, the energy I spend thinking about and debating them would get spent doing something much more destructive :D

My challenge from November still stands: I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriages to present non-religious amoral reasons as to why they should not be allowed.

Okay Slang...I'll bite...how do you figure that gay marriage will lead to marriage between man and beast and polygamy? This oughta be good.

sycamore wrote:

My challenge from November still stands: I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriages to present non-religious amoral reasons as to why they should not be allowed.

Because marriage is a state of union whereby a man and woman can procreate and then teach the boys to belch and fart, and teach the girls to bitch and whine for jewelry. :p

I can't even remember if I brought this up.

There are tangent issues that have nothing directly to do with religion that may come into play.

Would you agree that there are people that would like to isolate themselves from gay marriage? Would you agree that there are large number of these people? Would you agree that a significant number of these people have kids?

Would you agree that if they were to home school or take their kids out of the public school that it would influence the total?

Home schooling is becoming more popular, is it not? In which of the two situations would tolerance and acceptance be more likely......home schooling, where the kids are basically not dealing with any kids outside of the parent's circle of friends.......or the public school?

sycamore wrote:

Okay Slang...I'll bite...how do you figure that gay marriage will lead to marriage between man and beast and polygamy? This oughta be good.

Let me field one of your challenges at a time.

The mayor who gave the marriage certificates is wrong, but so is the court for annuling these marriages. There are several cases pending regarding the legality of homosexual marriage. These marriages should have remained valid until those cases are completed.

Are people who argue for "gay rights" specifically pushing for the term "marriage", or do people mostly want the rights and authenticity associated with marriage, regardless of what term is slapped on it?

I ask because I can understand where people who want to keep marriage separate are coming from (isn't it a fairly fundamentally religious institution?) What I don't understand is any opposition to an otherwise identical legal bond. I was going to go on one of my rants-against-an-enemy-who-doesn't-exist, but in rereading it sounded as though I was pushing a 'separate-but-equal' agenda as a middle ground.

I'm not sure such a compromise is good, both because it probably doesn't change the fundamental issue of bigotry towards homosexuals and because it starts us down a more probable slippery slope than any that end in marriage between man and dog. "Separate but equal" and such. Would it be justified in this case, because there are more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites, to keep them separate?

Great questions, Skunks.

Skunks wrote:

Are people who argue for "gay rights" specifically pushing for the term "marriage", or do people mostly want the rights and authenticity associated with marriage, regardless of what term is slapped on it?

Percecption is everything. Isn't that what is often said?

From many Christians' perspective, gay rights activists are trying to harm the Christian cummunity for their non-exceptance of them now, and for their persecution of them in the past. Right or wrong, they are threatened by making the the institution of marriage anything other than what it is now....one man, one woman. The "moderate" Christians or even "moderate" Catholics tend to be sympathic to giving gays rights under the law but are uncomfortable with including gay marriage with the traditional definition of marriage. Might this be why the consitutional amendment failed while the majority of Americans seem to oppose it?

NPR Poll: Gay Marriage Sharply Divides Likely Voters

"The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it."

Enter Stage Right - Traditionalists must revise gay marriage lexicon

"Similarly, what we seek is not so much to "ban" anything as to preserve the existing, traditional definition of marriage. This is a debate between those who want to change what marriage means and those who believe there is value in keeping it the way it is."

Skunks wrote:

I ask because I can understand where people who want to keep marriage separate are coming from (isn't it a fairly fundamentally religious institution?) What I don't understand is any opposition to an otherwise identical legal bond. I was going to go on one of my rants-against-an-enemy-who-doesn't-exist, but in rereading it sounded as though I was pushing a 'separate-but-equal' agenda as a middle ground.

If the term marriage is more a religious term than anything else, why would having two separate but equal terms be so terrible? Because the phrase infers some kind of illegal descrimination? I don't know?

Skunks wrote:

I'm not sure such a compromise is good, both because it probably doesn't change the fundamental issue of bigotry towards homosexuals and because it starts us down a more probable slippery slope than any that end in marriage between man and dog. "Separate but equal" and such. Would it be justified in this case, because there are more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites, to keep them separate?

I'm not sure what you mean by "more tangible differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships than there are between blacks and whites". It would seem to me that the reverse is true. One would normally be more likely to tell a person's skin color than what their orientation is. I must be missing something here.

The difference is skin color is not something you can change or choose. To the Christians, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If it's a choice you can chose not to do it. If you chose not to do it, you wont get grief from them.:)

Tangible is the wrong word. Significant?

Ultimately, I'm wondering if one could create a "separate but equal" homosexual version of marriage without being a bigot. Segregating minorities is frowned upon, but I think there might be room to argue that it's justified in this case.

There are differences between people of various skin colors, but ultimately they're relevant only in limited contexts. A genetic predisposition to this or that, neither of which is 'cooties.' Skin color is a very in-your-face identifier, which makes it easy to group people by. But it doesn't carry much meaning in general, except as a side effect of the groupings (culture by forced association, at least in America).

Homosexuality is more significant. As you said, any visual clues stem from action; it's not something you'll necessarily pick up on right away. Strictly speaking it carries meaning in the context of pair-bonding. Stereotypically, fashion, hygeine, etc follow. These are broader, if still not very general, contexts.

If we say that racism is bad because it takes a visual identifier that is linked only with minor differences and applies it outside the scope of those differences, it follows that "good" segregation would be based on major differences and would be limited to the scope of those differences. Racism in the US was a minor difference applied to everything.

But if there are significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, ones that would influence marriage, it would be a good reason to create a separate version of marriage for them.

I guess this is what everybody's been arguing all along. I just took a "shortcut", as it were. And I spent a lot of time writing this, so I'm going to tw it up (beware the vulcans with smoking aluminum gun barrels!), except he typically doesn't change his mind at the last paragraph:

I don't think there is enough of a distinction. The relationships are certainly different, but the difference doesn't matter. Unless there would be a functional, and not descriptive, difference between a homosexual civil union and a heterosexual marriage, creating the alternative version would be a superficial waste of time and, by my earlier definition, bigoted.

slang wrote:

Would you agree that there are people that would like to isolate themselves from gay marriage? Would you agree that there are large number of these people? Would you agree that a significant number of these people have kids?

Nobody's asking them to have gay marriages themselves. If they want to pretend to live in a world without gays, I see no need to help them do so. Your argument would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.

"The study, conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, found that 56 percent of respondents are opposed to gay marriage, while 30 percent support it."

So, what we have here, is a situation where 30 percent support the legalization of something which could help about 10% (or so) and harms none. Sounds like a reason to legalize it.

If the term marriage is more a religious term than anything else, why would having two separate but equal terms be so terrible? Because the phrase infers some kind of illegal descrimination? I don't know?

It is not more a religious term than anything else. Civil marriage is not associated in any way with religion, except that clergy are among those allowed to file the forms in proxy for a couple.

Here’s a thought. Oh, shut up, I have one occasionally. :biggrindu
Anyway, a dual system of: 1,“Marriage”= religious ceremony. 2,“United”(or something) = civil ceremony.
The trick is, it’s your choice. By having two names it declares to the world what your preference is. Now that some religions will marry queers, both the straights and queers will have a choice, and your choice won’t label (libel) you, by sexual orientation. Nobody should have a “legitimate” bitch.

I think Wolf has had the best solution thus far: replace "marriage" with "civil union" across the board.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice...well, unless you're bisexual. Think about it...why would anyone CHOOSE to be ostracized or discriminated against?

Slang using NPR to back him up...Goddamn...I've seen everything now. :)

The real issue seems to be the term "marriage." From what I've seen, civil union support and opposition is almost evenly divided, but when it comes to marriage, it becomes lopsided against. My concern with "civil unions" for gays and lesbians and "marriage" for straights is that it smacks of "separate, but equal," which worked really well with Blacks back in the day.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice...well, unless you're bisexual. Think about it...why would anyone CHOOSE to be ostracized or discriminated against?

Oh yeah? Explain Goths, then. :biggrin:

"A phase"...besides, being a Goth is cool again. :)

slang wrote:

Do you really think the two are of the same political makeup? I don't. California is the most liberal state in the union. There must be a reason for the ruling.

You bring up an interesting part of this discussion to me anyway. Modern liberalism and conservatism are at fault here. We have the collision of two statist mindsets with this and many other issues. The same kind of thinking that prevents Slang from leaving his pistol in his glovebox when driving into NY, finds a role for government in marriage beyond enforcing the contract. It's more wide open in California because CA, moderate Republican governor not withstanding, has more statist extremists of both camps than other states. This is what the LP needs to take advantage of. Once we get people to respect each others rights and preferences the Libertarian Party suddenly looks like the home of moderation.

sycamore wrote:

"A phase"...besides, being a Goth is cool again. :)

Uuummm... When was goth ever cool?

Awww...look at Griff showing his age and hillbillyness!

Actually the hills a full of these pathetic Goth types... sad really. :(

Griff wrote:

Once we get people to respect each others rights and preferences

And this is the most difficult part of the problem...and I don't think it's possible...ever.

Griff wrote:

Actually the hills a full of these pathetic Goth types... sad really. :(

Well, if I wasn't a fan of the country, and I lived in the middle of fucking nowhere and had nothing to do but drive around town on Saturday night and listen to Siouxsie and the Banshees or Bauhaus CDs, I'd probably be goth too. :)

So if I started distributing bus tickets to Philly, I'd still be respecting their preferences? :)

Absolutely...we'll take 'em! They'll fit in nicely with the skaters at LOVE Park.

We should all just live and let live.

Off topic: I can't believe how many of us are from the Philadelphia area.

Whenever the court acts on a divisive issue, there are always sore losers. I will say that at least the left has not coined the phrase 'activist judges' to explain away valid judgements like some conservatives have.

The ruling simply states that the mayor overstepped his authority in the situation and ignored the law in the face of his own convictions. In a way it is similar to the judge with the large statue of the ten commandments on display who refused to remove it.

IMO, as a civil authority, the mayor could not perform an illegal ceremony. However, if the mayor had been a clergyman the issue would have been much more interesting because of the 1st amendment. In fact, when interracial marriage was illegal, the church had a proud tradition of flouting the law and even in some cases keeping a second set of books to record marriages.

In this case the court had the responsibility to uphold the law. Whether they had to void the marriages already performed is a seperate issue. IMO, they should have issued an injunction against further marriages and left the marriages intact pending appeals.

Have I ever told you how much I actually like many of the things you post here, Happy Monkey? I mean this quite seriously.You will often add a source to back up your arguments and tend not to come across as being the self appointed Oracle. Whether you care or not, that encourages people to actually read and consider you comments. :)

That doesn't mean that I agree with your positions, but I appreciate many of the things you post.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Your argument would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.

This is interesting to me. You quoted the second paragraph from my post.

The point of that whole post was to present some possibilites that may not have been condered. Non religious or moral possibilites that seem to be the focus of the debate.

That's why is posted this sentence:

"There are tangent issues that have nothing directly to do with religion that may come into play."

The series of "would you agree" questions are not intended to bring credibility to excluding gays from being married. They are to establish the reality that there are large numbers of people that are influenced by religion, they have kids, that many would see the passage of gay marriage as "the last straw" and take their kids out of public school, and that doing so in large numbers would effect eveyone no matter where they stand on the issue.

The last paragraph of that same post asks the question:

"In which of the two situations would tolerance and acceptance be more likely......home schooling, where the kids are basically not dealing with any kids outside of the parent's circle of friends.......or the public school?"

If the Christian masses decided to take their kids out of public school to be home schooled or entered them into a private school , it would be their right to do so for whatever reason it might be. They would not be denying anyone's rights by doing so. The same is true of the migration from private school to homeschooling. Having read my entire post, I can't imgaine anyone coming to the conclusion that this would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.


I'm sure I'm wrong though and that someone will chime in to tell me why.


There's more I have to add to this argument, but I can't get credit for a Cellar debate over gay marriage. Oh well.



Syc, Bruce, Griff, Skunks, Snake, RichLevy....great comments in there too. I don't have the time now to reply as I would like for the lack of time.

A few more months and I should have more time.

I'm going to stop coming in for a while again. Maybe I can do it, maybe not. Anyway.....see you all later. :thumbsup:


:rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat:

slang wrote:

Have I ever told you how much I actually like many of the things you post here, Happy Monkey? I mean this quite seriously.You will often add a source to back up your arguments and tend not to come across as being the self appointed Oracle. Whether you care or not, that encourages people to actually read and consider you comments.

Thanks. I also have a tendency to occasionally phrase things in a more accusatory and harsh way than I intend. I hope my post didn't come off as an accusation of bigotry, though I expect it did.

"In which of the two situations would tolerance and acceptance be more likely......home schooling, where the kids are basically not dealing with any kids outside of the parent's circle of friends.......or the public school?"

If the Christian masses decided to take their kids out of public school to be home schooled or entered them into a private school , it would be their right to do so for whatever reason it might be. They would not be denying anyone's rights by doing so. The same is true of the migration from private school to homeschooling. Having read my entire post, I can't imgaine anyone coming to the conclusion that this would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.

I do, however, think it fits. I'm sure that many people changed schools to avoid integrated schools, and I'm sure that many people felt that forcing integration "too soon" would decrease support for the civil rights movement. It hasn't been perfect, but I think it was the right move. Likewise, I think that the best way to decrease homophobia is to have a few gay families in schools, being normal.

I'm going to stop coming in for a while again. Maybe I can do it, maybe not. Anyway.....see you all later.

Come back soon!

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Because marriage is a state of union whereby a man and woman can procreate and then teach the boys to belch and fart, and teach the girls to bitch and whine for jewelry. :p

So if I don't ever intend to breed, I shouldn't be able to get married? If that's your argument, we gotta make all childless couples divorce right away.

- Pie

sycamore wrote:

I think Wolf has had the best solution thus far: replace "marriage" with "civil union" across the board.

This remains my position. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS contract, and should remain so. What's really at issue here is a civil contract ... a union/division of property rights, really. The Marriage license presented by most states is the civil permission for a union, that's not in effect until someone pronounces the necessary holy words (of the religion(s) of the couple's choice). There are people who are married religiously, not civilly. I know that my coworker's Quaker Meeting has solemnized several gay unions.

Homosexuals are as entitled to the misery of divorce as straight people. But don't call it marriage.

wolf wrote:

The Marriage license presented by most states is the civil permission for a union, that's not in effect until someone pronounces the necessary holy words (of the religion(s) of the couple's choice).

That's not true. A marriage license is in effect when completed, whether or not clergy is involved. Someone does not need state permission for a religious marriage, or religious permission for a civil marriage.They are legally separate things, though a religious marriage greases the wheels for a civil marriage. No change in terminlogy would be necessary.

Pie wrote:

So if I don't ever intend to breed, I shouldn't be able to get married? If that's your argument, we gotta make all childless couples divorce right away.

- Pie

Either divorce or a fight to the death, winner gets the HBO special proceeds. ;)

Question- Is a marriage license, a license to get married, or a license to be married?

I'm thinking get ... because you still have to have someone authorized by the state, be it clergy or judge, JP, mayor, or ship's captain pronounce some words over the couple to seal the deal.

That's the way I see it. The county clerk gave(sold) me the license at "The $2 window, where everybody loses", but I had to get a Justice of the Peace to do the actual deed. :)

It's a license to get certain legal benefits. Al you need to be married is to believe you are, but you gotta do the paperwork to get the rights associated.

Happy Monkey wrote:

That's not true. A marriage license is in effect when completed, whether or not clergy is involved. Someone does not need state permission for a religious marriage, or religious permission for a civil marriage.They are legally separate things, though a religious marriage greases the wheels for a civil marriage. No change in terminlogy would be necessary.

This is what I am thinking too. The "ceremony" is just that..a ceremony. You will be married, ceremony or not. As far as I'm concerned, the ceremony is a lot of fuss that is more than likely be diminished with the couple getting divorced in a matter of years (isn't the divorce rate like 51% or something? No one seems to mention that when it comes down to respecting the institution of marriage...isn't it 'till death do you part?)

At any rate, I'm getting quite sick and tired of this, "Well, these people over here can have all these rights, but those over there can not". At least, that's how I see it.

:mad2: :mad:

ladysycamore wrote:

No one seems to mention that when it comes down to respecting the institution of marriage...isn't it 'till death do you part?

Not anymore. Even in traditional catholic ceremonies the statement has become "as long as your love shall last" or some such bullshit. I think that escape hatch has made divorce a whole lot easier ...

"Till love or life shall leave" is one formulation I've heard. Maybe it does make divorce easier; I don't think that's bad thing.

Happy Monkey wrote:

It's a license to get certain legal benefits. Al you need to be married is to believe you are, but you gotta do the paperwork to get the rights associated.

Not in PA or MA (I haven't gotten married in any other states yet). The license just means you've cleared the hurtle of convincing the state(county?) that you can legally marry, such as you bothered to get a divorce after the last one and had your rabies tests.
Then with license in hand you have to have a clergy, Justice of the Peace, Judge or some other person with the power vested by the state, actually do the deed. Otherwise your not legally entitled to all those wonderful benefits, like the marriage tax penalty and divorce court
No matter what they tell you, bellhops, bartenders and river ferry captains, can't. ;)

slang wrote:

Now, I think I know where you stand on this but you have to understand, there are many people that just don't think that denying same sex couple's legal marriage is a crime. I am one of them.

I think that eventually it will pass, but I don't think we're ready for gay marriage. I'm not convinced that it's a civil liberties violation.

The Constitution assures all citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....all men are created equal (under the law) and have this right. By denying marriage, nay, changing laws so as specifically to deny marriage, to a group of people merely because the religious majority, or anyone else, does not agree with their lifestyle, the government is engaging in discrimination--like making black people sit at the back of the bus, or not allowing women to vote because they're female.

Gays aren't asking for MORE rights, just EQUAL rights, and that includes the right to marry the person they love, just like a straight, and including all of the legal perks that go with that piece of paper.

What goes on in someone's bedroom between them and another consenting adult isn't my business, your business, or the government's business. Denying rights due to lifestyle is denying someone liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in re the Constitution, and thus is violating their civil rights.

I mean, what does it matter who sleeps with whom, so long as it doesn't negatively affect YOUR ("your" in the general sense) life? Gays being able to legally marry doesn't change the price of tea from China. It won't make me lose my job. It affects me ZERO. It's purely a religious objection, and religion has no place in politics.

Churches wanna get into politics, then they should be taxed just like everyone else. Otherwise, keep the preaching and bigotry in the pulpit.


Sidhe

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Not in PA or MA (I haven't gotten married in any other states yet). The license just means you've cleared the hurtle of convincing the state(county?) that you can legally marry, such as you bothered to get a divorce after the last one and had your rabies tests.
Then with license in hand you have to have a clergy, Justice of the Peace, Judge or some other person with the power vested by the state, actually do the deed.

The Justice, Judge, clergy, etc. are part of the paperwork. Don't they sign the license?

No, they issue the Certificate of Marriage that makes you eligible for the bennies. I don't know if they keep the license on file or send it back to the County. :)

OK, I had the terminology messed up. They sign the certificate. In any case, all you need for the benefits of a civil marriage is paperwork, which you can get without clergy. And a church can give a religious marriage without filing any paperwork, and you won't get the legal benefits. Or you could do both. The systems are separate already.

Yes, you made a mistake and must be punished. I sentence you to marriage. No,..wait,......that's too harsh,.....just flogging and hard labor. :lol:

Happy Monkey wrote:

OK, I had the terminology messed up. They sign the certificate. In any case, all you need for the benefits of a civil marriage is paperwork, which you can get without clergy. And a church can give a religious marriage without filing any paperwork, and you won't get the legal benefits. Or you could do both. The systems are separate already.

The objection is religious, though. There are a lot of benefits you get being married that you don't get with a civil union. Gays are being denied these benefits merely on the basis of sexual orientation. Wasn't that long ago when gender and color were used to deny rights to people, as well.

My point is that religion, along with its moral objections to individuals' private lifestyles, (which, incidentally, affect no one) should not be used as a basis for laws. Religious laws are always persecutory to those who don't follow the religion, at least as far as I've seen.


Sidhe

Correct. Including gays in civil marriage would have no effect on religious marriage. Religions would still have the right to deny them, and the gays would get their civil rights. Winners all round.

Yes, yes, I know many disparage the source, but I saw this here first.

"It is also a sobering indication of where we are heading if the radical homosexuals have their way with hate-crimes legislation."

Heh. Idiot.

Idiot?

"Homosexual activists leave no room for free speech. They arrogate to themselves the authority to determine who may and may not speak, and what language they must use," he added.

Maybe he's a idiot but he called this one right.

Brian Fahling, a senior trial attorney for the CLP, said, "The term 'homosexual' is the proper term for an individual such as Mr. Rawls, who admits that he is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.

Rawls acted like they called him a fudge packing, cocksucking, faggot, or something. The man is out of control and I don't want him determining what is permissable behavior. We already have too many laws against offending the sensibilities of the politically correct. :mad:

Rawls is an idiot, too. Crampton compounded it by, instead of treating him as such, pretending he was part of a conspiracy to take away our right to use the word.