Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Read more: www.cnn.com 201,862

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.

Read more
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186863 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Self-indulgent whining?" Why do you have to be so insulting?
Look, you may not think that we have the constitutional right to marry, but the last time I looked we sure as hell have the right to free speech.
Should the blacks have kept their issues to themselves? Should they have forgone public demonstrations and sought the help of their therapists?
What about women? Maybe they should have just bucked up and kept quiet too.
I'm sorry that you're disturbed by homosexuality. But that is your issue--not mine.
Man up and stop complaining. If you don't want to hear about us, by all means stop coming to this site. Don't watch television. Stop reading the newspapers.
But we're not going to drop our voices for your convenience.
As long as folks like you continue to believe that we are less equal than you, we're going to keep talking, and marching, and protesting, and suing.
We will have our voices heard by those who make decisions about our lives. We will politely request equality. But when it's refused, we will demand it.
Damn man; how can you honestly believe that gays are inferior to straights? How is that possible? This is the 21st Century!
Science has already declared us to be normal. Medicine took us off the list of disorders FORTY YEARS AGO!
You've had ample time to wrap your head around this fact.
I am a tax paying, law abiding citizen of the United States. There's no law against me seeking the rights that I believe I'm entitled to.
Yes, self indulgent whining. "I'd like the whole world to know I am mixed up"... Please. You certainly have the right to free speech, and so do I. Negroes were being denied basic human rights, not a little issue about marriage. Different argument here. Theirs was a fight to be considered human. Not, at all, what your argument is about. You have no right to intrude upon us. I will not close myself up into a little box, merely to let you get away with misuse of the public media, in order to announce your inclusion into the new "Hip Kids Club". I will exercise my freedom of speech to call it what it is. And that is telling your sexual business to the public, vastly inappropriate. Borders on sexual harassment, if you ask me. You attempt misdirection. Dropping your voice is not the same as refusing to trumpet your faulty wiring. You aren't being asked to drop your voice, you are being told that you are shouting, and you do not like being told so. Then stop it. Behave with more class. Which would be the decent thing to do. I did not say inferior, I said that they are not the same as a heterosexual couples. Are boys inferior to girls? NO, of course they are not, but they are most assuredly different.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186864 Apr 5, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>I stopped going to school
Why?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186865 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does history scare you? History has shown us that any society that casually allowed same sex coupling has disappeared. Greece, Rome, Turkish Empire, etc. Modern medical findings show us that the vagina and the penis are multi-use organs, and that a nasty old puckered-up anus is a single purpose organ. That should be the basis for any decisions to be made, concerning validation of marriage.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Randy, but studies are pretty much show that heterosexuals enjoy anal sex about as much as homosexuals. In fact, anal sex has been used throughout history by heterosexual couples as a means of birth control; you know, like back in the days before condoms... It was also (still is) used to "preserve virginity" of women who wished to remain "intact" for their future husbands.

Heterosexual anal sex is also in the Kama Sutra--a collection of sexual positions that dates back to 400 BC.

And contrary to what you say, according to the info I've read on the internet (just Google it), there are more nerve endings in the anus than there are in the vaginal walls.

Having never seen a vaginal wall, I wouldn't know.

Sometimes it's better to do a little research before posting something that you're not really sure about.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186866 Apr 5, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>honey this girl rocks the house
I hope that you truly dance, and don't simply resort to the tired old "pose to the music" tactic. It is the mark of the fake dancers, to simply pose to music, and call it dancing.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186867 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
In the pursuit of alacrity, I will address the first one, only. Loving V Virginia was a decision about interracial marriage, not sexual behavior.
As you know, each decision of the court can contain multiple findings, on which future conclusions may be drawn.

Just because "Loving" dealt with interracial marriage, one aspect of the case found that marriage is a fundamental right of U.S. citizens.



Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186868 Apr 5, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>i mae perfect sence... your the one who is confuscing
Don't be confused. It isn't hate, it is propriety. Can't put wheels on my granny, and call her a wagon. Even if she IS all stiff and shit...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186869 Apr 5, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>what happened in your life to make you hate so much
Nothing. Come on, you know it's how we do it, in here.... Did I hate when you broke up with Jerry? No, I got all soft about you, then, didn't I? I stopped with the hate then. We come in here to be all Springer, you know that. It's why Frankie said that to VV, "out of place in here"... We don't communicate, we hurl insults. Any real communication would be lost in the wind...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186870 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, self indulgent whining. "I'd like the whole world to know I am mixed up"... Please. You certainly have the right to free speech, and so do I. Negroes were being denied basic human rights, not a little issue about marriage. Different argument here. Theirs was a fight to be considered human. Not, at all, what your argument is about. You have no right to intrude upon us. I will not close myself up into a little box, merely to let you get away with misuse of the public media, in order to announce your inclusion into the new "Hip Kids Club". I will exercise my freedom of speech to call it what it is. And that is telling your sexual business to the public, vastly inappropriate. Borders on sexual harassment, if you ask me. You attempt misdirection. Dropping your voice is not the same as refusing to trumpet your faulty wiring. You aren't being asked to drop your voice, you are being told that you are shouting, and you do not like being told so. Then stop it. Behave with more class. Which would be the decent thing to do. I did not say inferior, I said that they are not the same as a heterosexual couples. Are boys inferior to girls? NO, of course they are not, but they are most assuredly different.
I will say it again--will keep saying it until you "get it"... Announcing that I am attracted to men is in NO WAY telling you or anyone about my sexual business.

It is no more inappropriate that you holding hands with a woman, stealing a kiss, or announcing an engagement.

In school there are all kinds of social structures where heterosexual preteens and teens are ushered into expressing their age-appropriate attractions to one another.

Do you not remember your own childhood?

Would you have found it inappropriate for two guys or two girls to have held hands in the hallways of your high school? Would it have been inappropriate for two guys or two girls to have attended their 8th grade dance?

Until recently, we have been invisible. The same social structures available to heterosexual teens and preteens were not available to us.

It has been through vocal homosexuals that we are now reaching a time in our history where gays are able to begin living a normal life; without fear of being outed, rejected by family, or rejected by society.

Obviously, we have a long way to go before we are totally and openly integrated into larger society.

When a sports figure or another celebrity announces that they are openly gay--that they have no shame of their attractions--they are setting an example for young gays and lesbians.

Our community does not want them to be burdened by the closet.

As I have said repeatedly, as time goes on, this will become less and less of an issue. Already I see young gays and lesbians who have no interest in being vocal or political. They already feel fully integrated. Their families and friends are aware of who they are and are totally accepting. So it's not a big deal to them.

But they only got where they are because of a bunch of loud-mouthed homosexuals who refused to continue living in the shadows.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186871 Apr 5, 2013
Your Futures Yesterday wrote:
<quoted text>
Then please list the ways same sex marriage has damaged his marriage or anybody else's for that matter! Can't wait for this and please make these reasons one's that actually do and not the usual B.S. you're so famous for bigot boy! Talk about dense,you're at best laughable and at worst a major dic! Notice what,your fantom reasons?
I already posted it.
Diminished respect for the institution.
Soon, marriage won't mean anything special, it will simply mean mated to someone, "baby mama" etc.
That is enough damage, if you ask me. I never said that people cannot be gay, far from it, but marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman. The basic family unit. The damage to the family unit is passed on to the children of such sham "marriages". This has been documented. The children of such unions are deprived of the balanced input from the complimentary union. And I am glad to make such merry for you, and yours. Can't say that it is a surprise, I enjoy mauling Chongo, and am glad if you are able to derive some small enjoyment from my presence. It's nice to be noticed.
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186872 Apr 5, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>
You are certainly very afraid of something Randy, the last 10 or so pages are posts primarily by you. You even make up names to talk to yourself WTF??? So yeah, I picture you cowering in a corner...get a hobby dude.
I have many hobbies, this is just one. the last 10? My, i have certainly been a busy little beaver tonight. Just getting caught up, wouldn't want to be forgotten. Made up names? Whatever are you talking about?
:-D
Would I resort to anything like calling myself "Chong..." Wait a minute, did you see through that sock puppetry? Oh damn, I thought I'd had everyone baffled and bamboozled. Drat and fiddlesticks. Do you think that "Wooster, Ohio" was a giveaway? I should have known that I'd never fool a seasoned veteran like you. You're a sharp cookie, aren't you?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186873 Apr 5, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
There was a ban ?!
There must have been, Super Big D said that if we made guns legal, we'd be building backyard nukes next....Must've been something that I wasn't told.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186874 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing. Come on, you know it's how we do it, in here.... Did I hate when you broke up with Jerry? No, I got all soft about you, then, didn't I? I stopped with the hate then. We come in here to be all Springer, you know that. It's why Frankie said that to VV, "out of place in here"... We don't communicate, we hurl insults. Any real communication would be lost in the wind...
Rules were made to be broken. I still believe it's possible to communicate with one another in a respectful manner.

Did you know that I used to live in the same town as Kimare? I still only live a few miles away.

At one time I offered to meet with him, face to face. I wanted him to know me personally. I wanted him to look into the eyes of the person he had such animosity towards.

I was hopeful that we could come together and have a conversation.

But he wouldn't meet. Instead he became increasingly nasty towards me.

I'm not shrinking violet. I can get down in the gutter too.

I've all but written him off.

My "bleeding heart" won't let me give up on him entirely. I am the "forever optimist".

And I like to use quotation marks. I'm also a big fan of the ellipsis.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186875 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I already posted it.
Diminished respect for the institution.
Soon, marriage won't mean anything special, it will simply mean mated to someone, "baby mama" etc.
That is enough damage, if you ask me. I never said that people cannot be gay, far from it, but marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman. The basic family unit. The damage to the family unit is passed on to the children of such sham "marriages". This has been documented. The children of such unions are deprived of the balanced input from the complimentary union. And I am glad to make such merry for you, and yours. Can't say that it is a surprise, I enjoy mauling Chongo, and am glad if you are able to derive some small enjoyment from my presence. It's nice to be noticed.
:-D
I've got to tell you, me amigo; the "marriage" that you're worried about being diminished kind of bit the dust when people started spending more on them than my parents spent on their first house. And those bitter and expensive divorces hasn't helped the institution much either.

Can't blame that on us.

Might not have been your personal decision to make marriages into spectacles, but it was the heterosexual community that created such monstrosities.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186876 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me correct one little bit of your "comment".
"Fag hags" hang around gay men because we treat them with respect. They have no concern that we're going to come on to them. They feel a certain amount of safety around us. They can let their guards down.
Unfortunately, straight guys tend to get very jealous of us when we're around your girlfriends or wives. You observe that we can have a level of comfort around women that you cannot.
I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say that. It's just the facts.
I've had "girlfriends" all of my life. They totally understood our friendship. And I've had to deal with my share of jealous boyfriends--guys who just HATED my being friends with their women.
I, personally, hate the word "fag hag". It's demeaning to women. No woman is a "hag". And just for the record, I hate the word "fag". It's been carved into the bodies of too many young gay men by hate-filled assholes.
I swear to God, I thought you were different. I honestly did. Where did I get that idea?
Are you really so shallow? Are you really that mean-spirited? Do you really have that level of disdain for gay people? Do you dislike gay women with the same intensity as you dislike gay men?
I really do hope that the nasty back-and-forth that takes place on this forum hasn't made you more bitter toward gay people.
You're not being a jerk, at all. I do not dislike gay men or women, regardless of how we play this game, in here. Don't you understand the true nature of this forum yet? It is not about communication, it is a version of the Springer Show. We all have roles to fulfill, and mine is to be the "easily hateable bad guy" for my side. i actually have that same level of comfort around the women that you have, because I respect my marriage and my wife. I am a 1-woman man, and that is a rare thing in today's world. I also trust my wife around other men, for the same reasons. I am old school. "Fag Hag" is a term that is commonly used in this world. Not a declaration of how I feel. And, I am not bitter towards gays, but the hearing about "semen cocktails" on the public radio today rattled my cage badly, it is extremely inappropriate, to say the least, and I do hate the "Coming out" in the media. I despise it.
As to the back and forth in here, it is why we collect here and throw down. Hell, if it wasn't for that, many of us wouldn't come here, at all. We get to vent.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186877 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Randy, but studies are pretty much show that heterosexuals enjoy anal sex about as much as homosexuals. In fact, anal sex has been used throughout history by heterosexual couples as a means of birth control; you know, like back in the days before condoms... It was also (still is) used to "preserve virginity" of women who wished to remain "intact" for their future husbands.
Heterosexual anal sex is also in the Kama Sutra--a collection of sexual positions that dates back to 400 BC.
And contrary to what you say, according to the info I've read on the internet (just Google it), there are more nerve endings in the anus than there are in the vaginal walls.
Having never seen a vaginal wall, I wouldn't know.
Sometimes it's better to do a little research before posting something that you're not really sure about.
I'm being censored again...Don't know why. I posted "Research the purpose a butthole? Might have to look into that.... Actually, I won't. It is Biology 101. Perhaps it is you who needs to brush up on it, and look up the word "Misuse" while you're at it." and got censored, so I will edit a bit.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186878 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I will say it again--will keep saying it until you "get it"... Announcing that I am attracted to men is in NO WAY telling you or anyone about my sexual business.
It is no more inappropriate that you holding hands with a woman, stealing a kiss, or announcing an engagement.
In school there are all kinds of social structures where heterosexual preteens and teens are ushered into expressing their age-appropriate attractions to one another.
Do you not remember your own childhood?
Would you have found it inappropriate for two guys or two girls to have held hands in the hallways of your high school? Would it have been inappropriate for two guys or two girls to have attended their 8th grade dance?
Until recently, we have been invisible. The same social structures available to heterosexual teens and preteens were not available to us.
It has been through vocal homosexuals that we are now reaching a time in our history where gays are able to begin living a normal life; without fear of being outed, rejected by family, or rejected by society.
Obviously, we have a long way to go before we are totally and openly integrated into larger society.
When a sports figure or another celebrity announces that they are openly gay--that they have no shame of their attractions--they are setting an example for young gays and lesbians.
Our community does not want them to be burdened by the closet.
As I have said repeatedly, as time goes on, this will become less and less of an issue. Already I see young gays and lesbians who have no interest in being vocal or political. They already feel fully integrated. Their families and friends are aware of who they are and are totally accepting. So it's not a big deal to them.
But they only got where they are because of a bunch of loud-mouthed homosexuals who refused to continue living in the shadows.
It is, if you stand up in front of an audience, collected together for another purpose (usually a sports outing)(or an award ceremony)(or a political rally), and use the newspaper, or the radio, or the TV, to get your message across to half of the country, in one fell swoop.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186879 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Rules were made to be broken. I still believe it's possible to communicate with one another in a respectful manner.
Did you know that I used to live in the same town as Kimare? I still only live a few miles away.
At one time I offered to meet with him, face to face. I wanted him to know me personally. I wanted him to look into the eyes of the person he had such animosity towards.
I was hopeful that we could come together and have a conversation.
But he wouldn't meet. Instead he became increasingly nasty towards me.
I'm not shrinking violet. I can get down in the gutter too.
I've all but written him off.
My "bleeding heart" won't let me give up on him entirely. I am the "forever optimist".
And I like to use quotation marks. I'm also a big fan of the ellipsis.
I would have met with you, invited you for a drink and gotten to know you. Hell, we could have been pals across the lines, who knows? No need to hate ones adversary. Some people are wound up too tight. I don't get all uptight about what we say in here, I've had my Mrs. insulted, I've had my kids dragged in, etc. All water on a duck's back.
:-D
Don't hate me because I throw down, enjoy me for it. Throw back.
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186880 Apr 5, 2013
Catch you tomorrow, or so, VV good night, Mon ami.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#186881 Apr 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
No, in no law in any state is ability or intent to have children any kind of requirement for a marriage license. I donít know how many times you will need to have this pointed out to you, but I can continue as long as you can.
Then inbreeding isn't a justification to not license incest unions, so the only other explanation for the ban on incest marriage is religion. Religion can be a valid justification to keep marriage one man and one woman. And not just one religion, every religious text that mentions marriage defines it as a male/female union.

Thanks for your help.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#186882 Apr 6, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
some do get emotional about it - on both sides of the debate.
That's cute:

1. I make the argument incest laws are based on religion and they are valid reasons for government to restrict marriage.

2. I'm challenged, incest laws are based on the problem of inbreeding, not religion, therefore my argument is invalid.

3. I respond, if inbreeding is a legitimate reason to ban incest marriage then marriage and procreation are related; therefore government has a valid reason to restrict same sex marriage.

4. I'm challenged, marriage "marriage has nothing to do with procreation", thus the challenge in step 2. is void and religion can is a valid reason to restrict same sex marriage.

5. heartandmind loses track of the argument and claims the arguments are based on 'emotion'.

BTW, the British Actor Jeremy Irons makes an interesting point about father/son marriage to avoid estate taxes and same sex marriage here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/04/je...

Speaking to Huffington Post Live host Josh Zepps, Irons asked: "Could a father not marry his son?"

When Zepps reminded him of incest laws, Irons responded with: "It's not incest between men", because "incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed."

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
News Kanye West pleads no contest in battery case (Mar '14) 18 hr fartbox 7
News Will Suzanne Somers Ever Join The Real Housewiv... 18 hr fartbox 1
News Iggy Azalea's shopping excursion in Ferrari tur... 20 hr Bobby T Canada 6
News John Singleton Drops Out Of The Tupac Biopic Be... Sat Cody 2
the music thread (Apr '12) Thu Musikologist 19
News William Mulholland: L.A.'s original champion of... Apr 15 Abie 1
Poll Do you support police brutality or murdering of... Apr 14 Pollister 0
More from around the web

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]