Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,449

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191325 May 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is your personal objection to gays and lesbians?
I have no personal objection to them, but my official stance is that marriage is for 1 man/1 woman. And I object to the use of the govermental mandates and the misappropriation of traditional roles. Some things should just be left as they were. As per your personal relationships, have at it. Knock your socks off. It's not my place to tell you where you may sleep at night. I'll be the first one to say enjoy what you will. But I do not accept the definition of SSC's as "married". Sorry. Marriage is a contract that is intended to benefit 1 man and 1 woman having their own children. Adopted kids can fit into that, but when we start to change too many of the ingredients in a "marriage", it's not that, anymore.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191326 May 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one special right.
Ooops, looks like you are going to have to STFU!
No, it doesn't look like that, at all. Are you on the dope again?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191327 May 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget the voters, they too were dead, or at least their wiil, was, on arrival . Oh wait I forgot, your patriotism isn't invoked for the voters.
Patriotism? Doesn't that involve knowing how the system actually WORKS???????? Judicial review is part of what makes America great. You don't like it? TOUGH!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191328 May 8, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no personal objection to them, but my official stance is that marriage is for 1 man/1 woman.
Wait a minute..... all that whining you did about polygamy was because.......?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191329 May 8, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
There used to be a thing (at least in UK law) called 'common law' marriage where a couple weren't 'married' but were regarded as such because of the nature of their relationship. One thing this meant was they could use it to back up, say, any claim on a Will.
A great many families are either single parent families or those where both partners are not living at the family home. The amount of abuse by (hetero) step parents is very common, as is murder of children by them. From people (Ok, not stats) sharing their experience many site divorce and living with a (hetero) couple who are at odds with one another as deeply disturbing and something which must have effected them strongly enough for them to still be talking about long into adulthood. This is the nature of relationships. It has been said by some sociologists that the family unit although theoretically is the ideal (according to most psychologists) is in fact inherently damaging and dysfunctional to many - ie. it cuts both ways. I might suggest One reason children from SSM are less well adjusted is because of the bigotry their parents face; and beneath the surface is the thought that their family is not to be considered normal. Do you have the same issue with, say a mother and daughter raising that daughter's child, or where the father is in the mother role of housekeeper and primary caregiver because the wife is the one that has a career. Studies (no, I can't reference them, it's been a while since college) I recall conclude that it doesn't directly matter who (or how many) the bond parent or primary care giver is as long as the child does bond and is able to then feel secure enough to become (attach then detach) an independent individual within the family or whatever social setting they are being brought up in.
I would say most couples having children has some basis in narcissism.
I don't see how you can equate the natural biological function with a personality flaw. How can you even propose that?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191330 May 8, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no personal objection to them, but my official stance is that marriage is for 1 man/1 woman. And I object to the use of the govermental mandates and the misappropriation of traditional roles. Some things should just be left as they were. As per your personal relationships, have at it. Knock your socks off. It's not my place to tell you where you may sleep at night. I'll be the first one to say enjoy what you will. But I do not accept the definition of SSC's as "married". Sorry. Marriage is a contract that is intended to benefit 1 man and 1 woman having their own children. Adopted kids can fit into that, but when we start to change too many of the ingredients in a "marriage", it's not that, anymore.
I am opposed to you BIG government types, the ones that want to get into our personal lives and tell us who we can marry and who we cant.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191331 May 8, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
Marriage is a contract that is intended to benefit 1 man and 1 woman having their own children. Adopted kids can fit into that, but when we start to change too many of the ingredients in a "marriage", it's not that, anymore.
Now where have I heard that before? History books? Yep.... it's the same ol' bitter whine....

You are SO afraid of change..... why does it scare you so much? If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191333 May 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
This article DOES NOT conclude that there is no valid purpose for homosexuality. Where do you come up with such nonsense?
And you KNOW that you lie when you say that homosexuality has been recognized as a defective aberration by every culture. Where does the article you cited say this?
Again, I can only be left with one conclusion; namely that pull your ideas from your behind only because your head is so firmly lodged up there.
Are you purporting that there IS a purpose for homosexuality? And, we all know that no society has ever smiled upon homosexuality, except for the ancient Greeks, who no longer exist, and the oh, so decadent Romans, also gone for walkies down the ol' Extinction Trail... It would seem that any of the ancient civilizations that may have engaged in such behavior have fallen, by the wayside. Detrititus on the road...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191334 May 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They are desperate, they are losing the legal battle ( which is the only battle of any importance ), so they are desperately trying to convince themselves that their ignorant bias has an excuse.
They cannot win, they are losing on every front, people are even leaving their churches as they have exposed themselves to be little more than a hate group.
Sometimes I think the Westborough Baptist church has done more for Same Sex marriage than anyone else has. Winston Churchill once indicated that England owes more to the vices of John than to the enlightenment or valor of other kings ( or something like that, I didnít look it up ), I can see his point. It is much the same here.
The ignorant and hateful bias of these people has exposed what they are, and people turn their backs on them. When the pulpit become a political grandstand, they lost their innocence and their way, and it exposed them for what they actually are.
You have it exactly right, they are desperate, and really have no hope left.
Chuckle... The English owe the ability to reign in a tyrant to John. It has nothing to do with dubious sexual preferences. Please....It is not the same at all. We all owe John Soft Sword for the introduction of the Magna Carta, which was the precedent for our own Constitution. John Longshanks wasn't tapping little page boys behind the tapestries... No desperation....not at all. It's kinda funny how you label an equal and opposite reaction as "desperation"... Shows how much you don't understand about the issue. BTW, more thumbs up from the public, in response to my bumper sticker. Don't even have to talk to anyone to gauge the depth of your lies.
:-D
Still getting a laugh about the fool who thought he'd/she'd try to run an 18-wheeler off the road, and almost ending up in a ditch for it.... Shows the lack of reasoning associated with the type...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191335 May 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Patriotism? Doesn't that involve knowing how the system actually WORKS???????? Judicial review is part of what makes America great. You don't like it? TOUGH!
I think he is a recent immigrant, he doesnít understand that the US is not a pure democracy
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191336 May 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"desperate" "hate group" "ignorant bias" "ignorant and hateful" "have no hope" "desperately trying to convince..."
What a drama queen! Too funny. Try and relax tough guy.
Yeah, it's funny. He tries to be seen as Mr. Suave, Mr. Debonair, Mr. Urbane. And come across as Frylock the Enforcer...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191337 May 8, 2013
is Rose divorced yet wrote:
Question for the group.
No-one would marry that, anyway..Trying to pass itself of as a woman, and pulling out the "Midnight Intruder"...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191338 May 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I like it when a minority of them call a majority of Christians.. not Christian ( chuckle ). Each one seems to have personal knowledge of how everything is supposed to be, and anyone that disagrees with them... is not "right with their particular god". Funny part is, they all seem to KNOW what their God is thinking, and it doesnít seem to be the same god.
I have pointed out the thousands of Christian churches that want to preform Same sex marriages, where is the demand for their religious freedom?
No.. it is all ignorant bias, they pick and choose the church that will tell them what they want to hear. Just like they pick a news station that will report what they want to hear, and then they close their eyes to actual knowledge and pick the "facts" they want to believe regardless of reality.
I donít actually hate these people, but I certainly feel sorry for them. But I will not let them dictate to other Americans.
Well, you post lies, everyday, and your biased crowd laps it up, like dogs..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191339 May 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If scientists determine that homosexuality is related to epi-genetics, then that's fine. They will have in their possession an answer to the question, "How are homosexuals created?"
But it will not in any way indicate that homosexuals are a "defect".
In order for someone to be defective, then that person either has to be unable to function in society.
Gays are integrated in society. We do everything that straight people do.
Here's what the American Psychological Association says about homosexuality... "Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience."
Furthermore:
--The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.
--The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized."
--The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts.
--The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981.
--The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians. They also changed their definition of homosexuality to that of a "normal variant" (like being left handed) rather than as a "disease."
--The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.
So I guess scientists HAVE decided that homosexuality is normal after all.
Your arrogance will be your undoing. That you believe you know something that all of these professional organizations do not is the very definition of "delusions of grandeur".
I've said this many times to you... You really should look things up before you get on here and make an ass of yourself.
Seriously?

YOU determine whether it is a defect or not?

Unless a defect totally disables you from participation in society it is not a defect? In other words, a transgendered person doesn't have a defective cross between mind and body?

Once again your denial makes you silly stupid...

Your list doesn't include scientists.

And I've always wondered, how can anyone determine whether homosexuality is normal if they do not know the cause or purpose? Inquiring minds want to know...

Snicker smirk.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191340 May 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they all seem to think they speak for all of them, but none of them do, I have not even found one of them that can speak for a majority of them.
A large Majority of Christians in the world are Catholic for example, but a majority of Catholics in the US approve of the use of birth control for example, against the teachings of their church.
None of them speak for all Christians, and most of them I have talked to pick and choose passages to follow, and specifically disregard others.
How many followers of Christianity in this forum for example give a half seconds thought to "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"
You and I both know the answer to that.
I have the answer to that, and it is that no-one is casting stones when they are speaking up about beliefs. It is misdirection, on your part, and you know it. Unless you think that no-one should have any kind of opinion, hmmm?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191341 May 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
>looks at top of page<
I'm looking for the Judge overturns ban on SSM thread, how did I end up here in the We Hate Christians forum?
Christians are not off topic but if I mention EQUALITY for poly MARRIAGE all hell breaks loose. I'm "OFF TOPIC!!!"
Funny how that works.
Nice.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191342 May 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Was allowing your birth horribly wrong?
Seeing that you are a monster and all.
:)
IOW, you cannot provide any compelling reason to legalize SSM. Thank you for your admission of failing to be up to the task. Accepted.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191343 May 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
You're not into the whole "logic" thing are you?
Maybe you should start learning about it.
Start with looking up the term "non sequitur".
<quoted text>
Now, look up the term "red herring".
There might be good reasons for preventing certain parings.
But there aren't any for preventing same sex parings.
Again, he has nailed you to the wall. And you fail to provide any compelling reasons. Accepted, again. He has nailed you with logic, and you fail to grasp it. Your failure is not his failure. He has presented you with a logical retort, and you respond with insults. Again. Don't you ever get tired of being shown up? Look at all the forums that you haunt, and look at the amount of times that you get your ass handed to you. One would think that it was time to stop trying...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191344 May 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like I'm a tall short fat black woman white gay male transsexual transvestite with a huge member.:)
You forgot to include the word "moron". Additionally, I sense the omission of the word "hater"...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#191345 May 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal protection under the law.... the best argument ever.
Sucks to be you.
It is not protection. It is the gilding of a sexually oriented behavior. NOT the same thing, at all.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atascadero Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Oceano Dunes dust suit can go to trial 4 hr oldswordfighter 1
Review: Artisan Window Tinting (Jan '09) 13 hr tired of getting ... 2
McDonald's a no-go in Los Osos Mar 1 bloren3433 3
DON'T Live or Move to San Luis Obispo - Unless ... (Apr '08) Feb 26 real303 88
Review: Pizzaexpress Feb 23 Mike Bennett 1
Another DA Investigator under suspicion Fred Pflum Feb 23 Kimberly 1
Judicial Misconduct & Corruption in County Cou... (May '13) Feb 22 Kathleen Clifton-... 6
Atascadero Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Atascadero People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:04 am PST