Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#163006 Oct 14, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It's fair that the genders are segregated, if that was what you were getting at!!!
Did my post mention rape at all? I don't believe it did!!!
I know.....everyone who makes a post that you don't like makes it some gay twist or twirl.....what a true idiot you are!!!
Gays and Lesbians DON'T put our Nation or our Military at Risk.......but people like you should be considered a threat to National Security!!!
Honey, go back and read what I wrote slowly. Think about it before you respond. Then think about again before you respond.

Here is some help;

-Genders are separated because of orientation.

-You are right, you didn't mention rape. You sanitized the issue by talking about 'gays and straights behaving'. My point is they don't and are not. There are already cases where gays in authority have violated their position. Or, maybe you missed the Navy vet politician who talked about 'pillow fights' with his subordinates BEFORE the repeal of DADT! Not to mention the horrendous problem with heterosexual rape occurring right now because of the mix of heterosexuals in the military setting.

The distinction of how the female POW was dealt at the beginning of the war with Iraq and male POW's since is a example of unintended and unplanned consequences that these idiotic decisions incur.

Your blissful and deliberate ignorance is putting the US at risk and makes you a traitor.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#163007 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, go back and read what I wrote slowly. Think about it before you respond. Then think about again before you respond.
Here is some help;
-Genders are separated because of orientation.
-You are right, you didn't mention rape. You sanitized the issue by talking about 'gays and straights behaving'. My point is they don't and are not. There are already cases where gays in authority have violated their position. Or, maybe you missed the Navy vet politician who talked about 'pillow fights' with his subordinates BEFORE the repeal of DADT! Not to mention the horrendous problem with heterosexual rape occurring right now because of the mix of heterosexuals in the military setting.
The distinction of how the female POW was dealt at the beginning of the war with Iraq and male POW's since is a example of unintended and unplanned consequences that these idiotic decisions incur.
Your blissful and deliberate ignorance is putting the US at risk and makes you a traitor.
Genders are separated STRICTLY because of the physical difference......nothing to do with their sexual orientation!!!

They actually do and can behave........and I was HARDLY sanitizing anything......as for your comment about Gays in authority violating their position......that has been happening by males in authority towards women for over 40 years......so, please don't make it sound as one is worse than the other.....both are equally wrong!!!
You have some proof to back up this story that was told, right?

Have you served? or are you just talking BS out of your azz?
DorN

La Puente, CA

#163008 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that homosexuals don't have the same degree of sexual attraction that heterosexuals do? So it is fair that heterosexuals are segregated, but okay for homosexuals to not be?
You are saying that there is no risk of rape by homosexuals (in a overtly authoritarian setting), like the current problem in the military with heterosexual rape?
In my opinion, you are a lying idiot. Your gay twirl puts our nation and military at risk.
----------
If men and women were quartered together, pregnancy would result.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163009 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'.
It is a simple denial of reality,
A foolish attempt to impose an imposter relationship on the single and only birthplace of every single other type of relationship.
Attitudes change for right and wrong reasons and there will always be idiots.
Ive seen two gay guys together many times......

it doesnt seem like they are in denial to me ...

by being together I dont think they are "imposing" anything on you.

try to explain that one a little better(but ill bet you cannot)

yes there will always be idiots...

those who cant roll with the changes (because of phony religious values) are the first to come to mind.

and from another lame post of yours??

people in power abusing their power??

ive never heard of that happening before(sarc)
I cant believe a gay guy was the first to abuse his power(sarc)

you sound a little sheltered.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163010 Oct 14, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, go back and read what I wrote slowly. Think about it before you respond. Then think about again before you respond.
Here is some help;
-Genders are separated because of orientation.
-You are right, you didn't mention rape. You sanitized the issue by talking about 'gays and straights behaving'. My point is they don't and are not. There are already cases where gays in authority have violated their position. Or, maybe you missed the Navy vet politician who talked about 'pillow fights' with his subordinates BEFORE the repeal of DADT! Not to mention the horrendous problem with heterosexual rape occurring right now because of the mix of heterosexuals in the military setting.
The distinction of how the female POW was dealt at the beginning of the war with Iraq and male POW's since is a example of unintended and unplanned consequences that these idiotic decisions incur.
Your blissful and deliberate ignorance is putting the US at risk and makes you a traitor.
so now we're traitors because we want parity for those who serve.??
you need to pull yow head outa yow azzz..

Im sure id cringe to hear any more of your arcane values.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163012 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The only issue/concern I see with the tossing of DADT is the effect it will have on housing.
We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one should be allowed to serve openly.
The only part which concerned me was the housing of troops. In Basic there are many troops housed in open bays together. In that situation we separate male from female for obvious reasons. We do the same in the dormitories and tents.
This was simple when gender was the only issue, as sexual orientation was assumed- albeit foolishly. The answer isn't as simple when we are dealing with homosexuality. How should they be segregated? Or should they?
I don't really know the answer to this question, and one could say since there have been no issues, publicly at least, that it is a non-issue. But I am not so sure that the lack of issues doesn't have more to do with homosexuals self-employing their own DADT policy?
But I do agree that sexual harassment occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual community, and is not an argument either for or against this policy. But it did seem simpler when the answer was simply the separation of the sexes, which could be employed to at least attempt to quell and head off the issue before it occurred.
wow you finally hit the nail on the head!!

since we havnt heard of any instances of problems from gay soldiers bunking with straight soldiers??

you can pretty much chalk it up to a "nontroversy"....(li ke the nyc mosque)...

if I had a dollar for every thing that rightwing thought was gonna end up being a huge issue(but wasnt) id be ready to retire.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163013 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
theyll never understand what civil rights are.
I loved michael in the green mile and "the island"
I was very sorry to see him go.
my condolences
You say "theyll never understand what civil rights are". Well help us out then. Are you claiming it's not against civil rights to murder our citizens in Benghazi but it is to deny someone gay marriage?

Is that what you're saying toots?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163015 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually am very sorry....
but im not buying YOU freaks on the right being sorry about an embassy that wouldnt have been much of a blip on the radar(esp for you isolationists) if it werrnt for an election being less than a month away...
im sure you were rooting and cheering as the bushites invaded IRAQ.
where was your simpathy for the powerless then??
same deal with BUsh';s invasion of afghanistan...
im sure you were crying rivers(not)
"On the right" So you have my politics all figured out? Based on what toots?

Geez lady you're barely literate. It makes your posts look even dumber than they are.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163016 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You say "theyll never understand what civil rights are". Well help us out then. Are you claiming it's not against civil rights to murder our citizens in Benghazi but it is to deny someone gay marriage?
Is that what you're saying toots?
well on this particular issue, mike, civil rights are all that matter......we dont veiw the lgbts issue(s) as a moral issue, but a civil rights issue....

this is what iwas getting at, first the right needs to drop the moral thing!! because it is a religious veiw, and our founding fathers??(whether you wanted them to or not) didnt want the church represented in congress....

but here we are, 236 later??

one side of the aisle is unduely influence by religion...

and with regards to libya?? im very sorry for those families??

but you didnt answer my question did you??

what was your mood during shock and awe?? when millions of iraqs were being terrorized and (some)killed??

bush started an un-needed, fabricated war, that left iraq in civil war.

the death toll is disputed, but if you averaged out the estimates of iraq's killed??

it is around 100000 dead.

why did we need to go to iraq?? WMD?? NON existant!

when you key in on that bengazi incident just weeks before an election??

while showing only war monger bluster, during offensive moves by the Us miltary???(like chanting usa, usa, as innocent civy's die?)
no one(with half a brain) can take you seriously.

just sayin
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163017 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
"On the right" So you have my politics all figured out? Based on what toots?
Geez lady you're barely literate. It makes your posts look even dumber than they are.
I like how you assume im female, because I explain things a little more than you do....

you should try to explain your foriegn policy veiws if you are going to bluster about libya here...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163018 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how you assume im female, because I explain things a little more than you do....
you should try to explain your foriegn policy veiws if you are going to bluster about libya here...
I assume someone with the name "Lyin Ayn Ryan" is female, silly me.

You assume you know all about my politics based on my sympathy for American citizens killed in Libya. That's dumb.
Winston Smith

Falls Church, VA

#163019 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a choice? I'm still looking for the difference.
Depressing isn't it?
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#163020 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
what was your mood during shock and awe?? when millions of iraqs were being terrorized and (some)killed??
bush started an un-needed, fabricated war, that left iraq in civil war.
But you like joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, they both voted for the Iraq war. Here are some more YEA votes: Baucus (MT) Bayh (IN) Biden (DE) Breaux (LA)Cantwell (WA) Carnahan (MO) Carper (DE) Cleland (GA) Clinton (NY) Daschle (SD) Dodd (CT) Dorgan (ND) Edwards (NC) Feinstein (CA) Harkin (IA) Hollings (SC) Johnson (SD) Kerry (MA) Kohl (WI) Landrieu (LA) Lieberman (CT) Lincoln (AR) Miller (GA) Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Reid (NV) Rockefeller (WV) Schumer (NY) Torricelli (NJ)

Obama doesn't bother with his intelligence briefings. If he had, he might have noticed that 48 hours before the attack there were credible reports of an attack, according to news stories.
The Marines on guard were unarmed -- another Obama administration policy, so as not to offend the barbarians who want to murder as many Jews and Americans as they can.
The Libyan guards entrusted to protect our diplomats apparently were in on the plot, and ran when the shooting started.
It was also clear that the barbarians knew the location of a safe house for our diplomats.
All of it was timed for Sept. 11.
The cover story was supposed outrage over some goofy movie. That just doesn't fit the facts.
The mobs burned and looted the building, taking secret documents that may expose Libyans who have helped America, and other vital information, to our enemies.
Afterward, a confused Obama, trying to bluster his way through, said Egypt was not our ally, which his own State Department had to "clarify." They are.
This Keystone Kops performance would be funny if it were not for the lives lost.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163021 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
well on this particular issue, mike, civil rights are all that matter......we dont veiw the lgbts issue(s) as a moral issue, but a civil rights issue....
this is what iwas getting at, first the right needs to drop the moral thing!! because it is a religious veiw, and our founding fathers??(whether you wanted them to or not) didnt want the church represented in congress....
but here we are, 236 later??
one side of the aisle is unduely influence by religion...
and with regards to libya?? im very sorry for those families??
but you didnt answer my question did you??
what was your mood during shock and awe?? when millions of iraqs were being terrorized and (some)killed??
bush started an un-needed, fabricated war, that left iraq in civil war.
the death toll is disputed, but if you averaged out the estimates of iraq's killed??
it is around 100000 dead.
why did we need to go to iraq?? WMD?? NON existant!
when you key in on that bengazi incident just weeks before an election??
while showing only war monger bluster, during offensive moves by the Us miltary???(like chanting usa, usa, as innocent civy's die?)
no one(with half a brain) can take you seriously.
just sayin
"just sayin"? You're just sayin you have me all figured out. Well you're way wrong toots.
Winston Smith

Falls Church, VA

#163022 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The only issue/concern I see with the tossing of DADT is the effect it will have on housing.
We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one shouldn't (corrected in accordance with your subsequent posted) be allowed to serve openly.
The only part which concerned me was the housing of troops. In Basic there are many troops housed in open bays together. In that situation we separate male from female for obvious reasons. We do the same in the dormitories and tents.
This was simple when gender was the only issue, as sexual orientation was assumed- albeit foolishly. The answer isn't as simple when we are dealing with homosexuality. How should they be segregated? Or should they?
I don't really know the answer to this question, and one could say since there have been no issues, publicly at least, that it is a non-issue. But I am not so sure that the lack of issues doesn't have more to do with homosexuals self-employing their own DADT policy?
But I do agree that sexual harassment occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual community, and is not an argument either for or against this policy. But it did seem simpler when the answer was simply the separation of the sexes, which could be employed to at least attempt to quell and head off the issue before it occurred.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, there is no need for separate berthing just because someone is Gay or Lesbian......that would be the same thing as when we separated troops based solely on skin color.
Gay men and straight men should be grown-up enough to handle the situation, besides.....it's not like Gay men are attracted or will hit on straight men and if straight men think they will, well, they shouldn't flatter themselves!!!
AK, NorCal Native sums up my feelings quite nicely, but if I may elaborate.

The comparison to skin color is valid as there was a time when whites didn't want to serve along side blacks and this was SOP. It wasn't rational (sadly it is a feeling that persists in some/many individuals). Likewise there are those in the military that don't want to serve with homosexuals. These feelings are based upon irrational thoughts. One of the yammering idiots in here brings up rape. I can just see that one in an open barrack. I wouldn't think that the percentages would change in the service as compared to the general population. That means, depending upon what you believe, 2 to 10% of the military is gay. This ought to be a fairly constant rate all the way down to a single barrack. Soooo, 2% are going to launch an assault on 98% in an open barrack. I seriously have my doubts about any sort of assault going in that direction. OTOH, it isn't unreasonable to think that a gay man might get the shxt beat out of him under those same numbers.

All that said, it is a hurdle that needs jumping. Eventually we'll get there, but it'll probably involve a few bloody noses.
TunaCharlie

Covina, CA

#163023 Oct 14, 2012
Haven't had chance to throw this topic overboard yet.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163024 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume someone with the name "Lyin Ayn Ryan" is female, silly me.
You assume you know all about my politics based on my sympathy for American citizens killed in Libya. That's dumb.
you should not assume so much.

lyin ryan is a nickname for paul ryan.

and I interjected his hero, ayn rand into it.

it fits too! kinda rolls right off the tongue.

sometimes i call romney-ryan, romney/rand

because if you dont know who paul ryan is?? but DO know who ayn rand is??

you can see the connection better.
and understand where he is coming from.

Ive heard what you have to say on the bengazi incident...

now lets hear where you stand on the last decade of US foriegn policy in the middle east..??...... you know the rest of the countries over there??

im not assuming anything now, im just giving you the opportunity to explain your positions........ on iran, the wars in iraq and afghanistan and of course syria.
Winston Smith

Falls Church, VA

#163025 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume someone with the name "Lyin Ayn Ryan" is female, silly me.
You assume you know all about my politics based on my sympathy for American citizens killed in Libya. That's dumb.
You assume someone is a woman based upon a name that they adopt for a topix forum? Some folks actually put a little thought into their handles when they choose them. I'm surprised you haven't got a grasp of the guy's forum name as of yet. I'll give you a hint. Google is your friend and the search terms you want are Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan. The irony in Ryan's affections for Rand's philosophy is hilarious. He's had a turn of thought recently. I suppose it took him a while to get a grasp of Rand's religious belief.

So, instead of using your noggin in order to figure out why he'd use the name he chose you made an assumption. That's dumb.
Olive

Berkeley, CA

#163026 Oct 14, 2012
Has it occurred to every gay, lesbian, transsexual who advocate for same sex marriage - you wouldn't even had existed if your Dad mated with a man or your Mom mated with a woman. Until the day humans defy God by creating mankind with 2 sperms or 2 ovums, do same sex marriage and u can adopt another straight family's child, but mind you - this will be the beginning of a dwindling human count in the next thousand millennia. Our founding fathers sure didn't have this type of marriage in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Right federal judge?
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#163027 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
you should not assume so much.
lyin ryan is a nickname for paul ryan.
YOu should grow up, you sound like an immature rat on government assistance. So proud of making up a nickname. I never see any links to back up the stuff you make up. You need to post one thing at a time and back it up instead of posting crap off you mind. This is not twitter.

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 3 min Me O My O 7,969
RB Man Arrested in Fake ID Scheme (Nov '11) 12 min Manama 3
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 40 min King Kong 19,289
Voto Latino: African Americans and Latinos Unit... (Mar '12) 7 hr gulf 897
L.A., Glendale seek injunction against Toonervi... (Nov '08) 9 hr oso 119
Charges dropped for man who sold rhino head 12 hr Kid_Tomorrow 5
Los Angeles commercial roofing services (Jul '08) 16 hr walkerwilliam91 3

Fire Warning for Los Angeles County was issued at October 01 at 8:19PM PDT

Beverly Hills News Video

Beverly Hills Dating
Find my Match

Beverly Hills Jobs

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]