Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,977

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
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183798 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait.
You fked up. I was talking about the 14th Amendment and marriage, you copy/pasted stuff about slavery.
LOLSER!
Rose_NoHo.

Actually, the founding fathers had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. When the Republicans imposed their infamous 14th Amendment, it effectively overturned the Constitution the founding fathers gave us. Its purpose was to punish non-Homosexual White Christian males who objected to the Republican invasion. As you know, the Republican's 14th Amendment enfranchised the Africans while at the same time the Republicans disenfranchised non-Homosexual White Christian males, as well as denying their right to be elected to or to hold public office. Our non-Homosexual founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew the right of two persons of the same SEX to marry one another - including the lesbians - was being promoted on "constitutional grounds".

Ronald

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183799 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an idiot aren't you.
Since you can't seem to remember your own nonsense. My response was in regards to your comments regarding- Loving v Virginia, the 13th Amendment and Slavery, and how the Founders would feel about each of them.
This is your post you moron:
"LOL. Actually, the don't matter at all. They are worm poop now, and have been for centuries. Things have changed. Slavery is no longer allowed, 13th Amendment. Women can vote, 19th Amendment. Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA. Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967."
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fairfield-ca/...
No mention of the 14th Amendment in your post, just mentions of Slavery and the Loving v Virginia decision, hence my response.
Try to keep up moron.
Well, dummy, I said:
"Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA.(no mention there of slavery) Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967."
The 14th Amendment was sited in Loving v VA. Anybody familiar with the case knows that, there was no need to mention it. Study the case.
"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Your fixation on me is amusing.
Why don't just admit you messed up?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183800 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an idiot aren't you.
Since you can't seem to remember your own nonsense. My response was in regards to your comments regarding- Loving v Virginia, the 13th Amendment and Slavery, and how the Founders would feel about each of them.
This is your post you moron:
"LOL. Actually, the don't matter at all. They are worm poop now, and have been for centuries. Things have changed. Slavery is no longer allowed, 13th Amendment. Women can vote, 19th Amendment. Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA. Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967."
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fairfield-ca/...
No mention of the 14th Amendment in your post, just mentions of Slavery and the Loving v Virginia decision, hence my response.
Try to keep up moron.
akpilot.

You are right. Until the Republicans imposed their infamous 13th Amendment, slavery was never expressly permitted by the Constitution.

Ronald

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#183801 Mar 18, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo.
Actually, the founding fathers had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. When the Republicans imposed their infamous 14th Amendment, it effectively overturned the Constitution the founding fathers gave us. Its purpose was to punish non-Homosexual White Christian males who objected to the Republican invasion. As you know, the Republican's 14th Amendment enfranchised the Africans while at the same time the Republicans disenfranchised non-Homosexual White Christian males, as well as denying their right to be elected to or to hold public office. Our non-Homosexual founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew the right of two persons of the same SEX to marry one another - including the lesbians - was being promoted on "constitutional grounds".
Ronald
I have to chuckle a little when I read you racist, bigoted, haters whining like a little biotch. How does it feel to be powerless to stop the progression of the human race? BTW, you have no idea what our founding people had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Try educating yourself so you don’t sound like such a sniveling idiot.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#183802 Mar 18, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
akpilot.
You are right. Until the Republicans imposed their infamous 13th Amendment, slavery was never expressly permitted by the Constitution.
Ronald
By the way; your not so cunning bigoted, racist way of attempting to insight Rose only shows how inferior she makes you feel. The same is true for akidiot, although I must admit I don’t read most of it’s posts as they are completely devoid of substance and logic.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183803 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, dummy, I said:
Hey Dummy, we know what you said, I posted it for all to see. I even included a link to the original text.

You have been crying on and on about how you were talking about the 14th Amendment and I posted some nonsense about slavery, when in your post you didn't mention the 14th Amendment ONCE!! You did however mention SLAVERY and LOVING v VIRGINIA.

So yes Rose, you fk'd up, and you should admit it.

But we know you won't, you are just too damn ignorant.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183804 Mar 18, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
akidiot, although I must admit I don’t read most of it’s posts as they are completely devoid of substance and logic.
Yes, for you, quotes from the founder's, citations of court cases and direct references to the Constitution do not constitute "substance."

This most certainly is a result of your inability to comprehend such topics and references.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183805 Mar 18, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dummy, we know what you said, I posted it for all to see. I even included a link to the original text.
You have been crying on and on about how you were talking about the 14th Amendment and I posted some nonsense about slavery, when in your post you didn't mention the 14th Amendment ONCE!! You did however mention SLAVERY and LOVING v VIRGINIA.
So yes Rose, you fk'd up, and you should admit it.
But we know you won't, you are just too damn ignorant.
I didn't have to mention the 14th Amendment, anybody familiar with Loving v VA knows it sites the 14th Amendment.
And I said: ""Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA.(no mention there of slavery or the 13th Amendment) Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967."
I was only wondering about how they would feel about Loving v VA. That's why I didn't mention slavery in that part.
LOL! This is so much fun.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183806 Mar 18, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to chuckle a little when I read you racist, bigoted, haters whining like a little biotch. How does it feel to be powerless to stop the progression of the human race? BTW, you have no idea what our founding people had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Try educating yourself so you don’t sound like such a sniveling idiot.
Marram.

What are you babbling on about? If our non Homosexual founding fathers "had in mind" the "legalization" of unnatural "marriages" between two persons of the same SEX, the African and non-African Homosexuals - as well as the cute little lesbians - would be quoting them, rather than relying on the Republican's dastardly 14th Amendment, an Amendment that was imposed long after the founding fathers had died.

Ronald

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#183807 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't have to mention the 14th Amendment, anybody familiar with Loving v VA knows it sites the 14th Amendment.
And I said: ""Wonder how they would have felt about Loving v VA.(no mention there of slavery or the 13th Amendment) Doesn't matter, what mattered was how the Supreme Court felt about it in 1967."
I was only wondering about how they would feel about Loving v VA. That's why I didn't mention slavery in that part.
LOL! This is so much fun.
Dance puppet dance.

I would call you a tool but that would imply that there was something useful about you. So I will just stick with fact- You're an idiot.
commonpeeps

Monrovia, CA

#183808 Mar 18, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Fk the majority of society. The Constitution promises all equal rights. Do you understand that so far? And you morons keep saying it's just about "the benefits and insurance benefits". Well, if that were the case, gay people would just marry a friend of the opposite sex.
Oh my gawd how funny is mo ho. Does more good for the anti gays than anone else. Shows how narcisstic and self centered (besides just plain stupid) that self pleasing, self centered, skank, alley walking, transgendered, sausage cankle legged, back door tramp is. Whew! Need to wash my mouth after that.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#183809 Mar 18, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Marram.
What are you babbling on about? If our non Homosexual founding fathers "had in mind" the "legalization" of unnatural "marriages" between two persons of the same SEX, the African and non-African Homosexuals - as well as the cute little lesbians - would be quoting them, rather than relying on the Republican's dastardly 14th Amendment, an Amendment that was imposed long after the founding fathers had died.
Ronald
We are not limited to those beliefs held by the founding fathers.

Our freedom of the press is not limited to only ink presses, but has been extended to include the internet.

Freedom expands.

In the history of this country there has been one amendment which sought to curtail freedom. It is also the only amendment we've had to repeal.

Gay marriage is a done deal. Conservatives lost.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183810 Mar 19, 2013
Another fair-weather friend:

The question of marriage is one that historically has been left to the states....
I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal...
Hillary Clinton
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM42_benhrc.pdf

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183811 Mar 19, 2013
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 

March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.

I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183812 Mar 19, 2013
Dr. Lamb was cited by the district court for the broad and unqualified conclusions that the “gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment” and that “having both a male and female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.” At trial, however, Dr. Lamb had conceded that his own published research concluded that growing up without fathers had significant negative effects on boys, and that there is data indicating that there are significant differences between men and women in their parental behavior.

At trial, he also conceded that there is considerable research indicating that traditional opposite-sex biological parents appear in general to produce better outcomes for their children than other family structures do.

http://theacru.org/Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry...
Keep marriage as is, one an and one woman; keep it simple. Don't risk harming children for imaginary acceptance. Demand acceptance because you are a human being, not for other political reasons.

Reason 21 for keeping marriage as is: KISS, keep it simple.
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#183813 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Another fair-weather friend:
The question of marriage is one that historically has been left to the states....
I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal...
Hillary Clinton
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM42_benhrc.pdf
I applaud Hillary for realizing that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and be accepted into a society that has been very unfair and brutal to themm. I used to believe that civil unions were the answer, but homosexuals want to be married in order to escape redicule and not be treated as second class citizens.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183814 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 
March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
No one is bound by your religion or traditions other than the people that choose your region or traditions, they are NOT the law of the land, this is the land of the free, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, orientation or national origin.

It isn’t a characterization, the polls show clearly who is opposed and it is mostly upon religious grounds.

Marriage remains marriage, a commitment by a couple to one another, to pledge their lives, their love and fortunes together, to be partners in this life.

That is certainly what my marriage is about, my wife is my partner, not my property, she means much more to me than merely a child bearing appliance.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183815 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon XBox, use your head for something other than a hat rack. Remove the sexual procreative aspect of the marital relationship, and what else is there to generate a compelling state interest? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying? Its because they might have sex, and make a baby, named Xavier Breath....just kidding.
<quoted text>
That reason was made long before you, or I were born. Do you think its a fluke that SSM never, other than a few scattered historical examples, existed before in the West, or around the globe for that matter?
<quoted text>
Scientifically proven on untold numerous studies conducted on husbands AND wives. There's not sufficient numbers or studies to conclusively prove such studies are applicable to SSM, male or female. If a study shows that married men live longer because of their wife, would that study be applicable to a female SSC? Male SSC? What about plural marriage? If what you are saying is true, there's no reason not to allow that. It would benefit plural marriage practioners too.
You are incorrigible. How many fucking times do we have to go over these points before it sinks into your head? There are other State interests in marriage than just procreation. Longer life, better health, stability, financial independence.... Argue against it all you like.... it's about the same as a creationist arguing that evolution isn't scientific.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183816 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 
March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
Avoid using appeals to tradition?????????? hellooooooooooooooooooo
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183817 Mar 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoid using appeals to tradition?????????? hellooooooooooooooooooo
Yeah that had me laughing too, tradition is all they have to stand on, but tradition is a choice, not a law.

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 10 hr scoop 2,273
david steidell (Aug '07) 15 hr huhwhathaha 13
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 23 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Thu Pizza 16,000
HemetHEMET: Firefighters not giving up fight to... Thu West end Resident 2
ugly women with ugly tattoos!!!!! (Oct '12) Wed Bad teachers 90
Why is hemet racist ?!? Sep 17 Chris 26
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
Hemet Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hemet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hemet
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••