Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184796 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is like they are only getting skewed information, Lost Cause arguments, and conspiracy theory websites and Faux News and nowhere else.
Says the idiot that thinks it's a good idea to shoot dangerous chemicals in babies to prevent them from getting the flu when there is no epidemic. LOL

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184797 Mar 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
akpilot wrote:
How sad is it that there are generally 6-8 people who have no life, and spend their lonely days trolling the thread to post judge-it's not based on the content of the post, but based on the name attached to the post?
How much sadder would it be if there was only 1 person?
Seriously, look at the judge-its. With near 100% accuracy you will see page after page, 6-8 judge-it's.
So sad.
<quoted text>
He is not 'right here with us', he makes one of the most reasoned, respectful and thoughtful responses found here.
No matter what he says, there are 6 to 8 'judgits' that deem it 'hate'. Mindless responses like yours that simply reveal bigotry.
Grow up.
Smile.
<quoted text>
So your justification of childish troll behavior towards another poster is that I am on 10 forums and supposedly lie? Wow, that is 'logic' beyond normal...
Please quote where I claimed science reached a conclusion about epi-markers. I'm calling you a liar. Again...
Smirk.
On Monday, March 24, post#184434 you said:

"More BS gay twirl lies.

THE LATEST SCIENCE SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A (sic) EPI-MARKER MISTAKE.(emphasis added)

Moreover, the most intimate imitation of natural sex, anal sex, is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. I've posted that fact from a gay friendly medical site many times if someone doesn't have the common sense to know the anus is not a vagina.

Could be just a couple reasons why it's so hard for every culture in all of human history to get...

Snicker."

----------

The latest science DOES NOT say that homosexuality is an "epigenetic mistake". If you search Google, you will not find the words "epigenetic mistake" written with regards to homosexuality by anyone other than you.

So you continuously lie to people on here.

Scientist who theorize that homosexuality is related to epigenetics use words like "might be" or "could result in" or "further study is needed".

No one has came up with a final answer as you suggest over and over again.

Scientist have come up with a theory that "on paper" appears to suggest a connection. They've conducted NO clinical work in the laboratory.

Furthermore, scientists are not suggesting that this is a "defect" or a "mistake". They are simply saying that there appears to be a connection--that it might explain why homosexuality exists. They haven't made a judgement as to whether or not homosexuality is a mistake by using this theory.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop lying.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184798 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there really any misunderstanding as to what "consummation" means? I understand legal SSM has brought forth efforts to render certain words non gender specific, or gender less, but some words just ain't gonna change.
Consummation - Noun - the completion of marriage by sexual intercourse.(I see nothing about genders listed here)

And "marriage" in states that recognize "marriage" between same-gender partners is called "marriage". It isn't called "same-gender marriage" or "same-sex marriage". The certificates and licenses for couples of the same gender are no different than the certificates and licenses for opposite gender couples.

With that in mind, the term "consummation", in those states that recognize marriage between couples of the same gender, would be complete once they have had sexual intercourse.

I haven't seen any definition of "consummation" that indicates a penis must penetrate a vagina. As you know, even with heterosexual couples, "intercourse" can involve any number of acts.

Finally, consummation concerns are typically only used to annul marriages. If the couple doesn't consummate their marriage with sexual intercourse, it isn't like the government is going to bust down their door and force them to divorce one another.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184799 Mar 26, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>the civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. There were so many reasons.
worng, and you are not likely to ever know better
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184800 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they really? The entire Supreme Court, or just a few justices, or was some people in the court room?
one justice made the joke and just about everyone laughed including the other justices

They said perhaps California should prohibit people older than 55 from being able to marry if procreation has anything to do with the legal right to marry.

Or something like that… it was the end of that line of argument
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184801 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
one justice made the joke and just about everyone laughed including the other justices
They said perhaps California should prohibit people older than 55 from being able to marry if procreation has anything to do with the legal right to marry.
Or something like that… it was the end of that line of argument
that was their best arguement and it was compleatly laughed out of court by everybody...

ill bet they ARNT playing that audio clip on faux news!!

there were some real gems....

i cannot wait for tommorow....

same same, but different???

im refering to these two cases, not same sex marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184802 Mar 26, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
that was their best arguement and it was compleatly laughed out of court by everybody...
ill bet they ARNT playing that audio clip on faux news!!
there were some real gems....
i cannot wait for tommorow....
same same, but different???
im refering to these two cases, not same sex marriage.
I am amazed their lawyers were stupid enough to try and use that line of argument. They had to really be digging in the bottom of a barrel to come up with that.

I mean I expect that crap from people in a forum like this, but we are talking lawyers, and THAT is what they come up with, It deserved to laughed down.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184803 Mar 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What I don't comprehend is your continued misreading of my position.
<quoted text>
I did not say it would.
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you looked past your own inflated ego, you'd see I never stated it was a requirement for a marriage license. It is however part of marital jurisprudence. As I pointed out several post ago, which you ignored.
<quoted text>
Do u understand I never said it was. Probably not, you'll more than likely continue to pontificate about the secular sacred cow know as same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
The All Wise and Powerful Big D has spoken, all hail the Big D. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
The bottom line is that SSM is, again, the secular sacred cow, of the left, and there's no possible argument against it, for everyone who opposes it, including those self hating traitor gays, are homophobes, bigots, and anti gays. Your continued pontificating on the matter only proves that.
I see no compelling reason for it. However different situations, different solutions. Several states, and countries have acknowledged this, and same sex couples, by granting them civil unions. Your turn, let's see if you respond with what I think you will, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.
what an excellect solution.

we can further sort out the bigots(rightwingers) by corraling them all off into three distinct regions of the country....the south, the great plains and Idaho, utah and wyoming.

that is another reason why i recommended utah...

youd feel more at home there, politically.

the rest of the states will allow gay marraige

and benefit from tourist dollars from other tolerate populations from other tolerant(blue) states.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184804 Mar 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
The real question is why do hater’s always digress to references of a sexual nature? Why do they feel compelled to focus on what people do to express their love and affection for their lover? Don’t they realize that regardless of sexual orientation we all have very diverse sexual desires and needs?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184805 Mar 26, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
what an excellect solution.
we can further sort out the bigots(rightwingers) by corraling them all off into three distinct regions of the country....the south, the great plains and Idaho, utah and wyoming.
that is another reason why i recommended utah...
youd feel more at home there, politically.
the rest of the states will allow gay marraige
and benefit from tourist dollars from other tolerate populations from other tolerant(blue) states.
The problem is that as more and more states do the right thing there will be less and less room for the bigots and the idiots

however it is still a good idea, education does sink in after a while and there will eventually be fewer of them.
Smackerals

La Puente, CA

#184806 Mar 26, 2013
Blind leading the blind in Glendora, California.

The puppet master has brought two feeble minions tot he city council and has them posted as Mayor and Mayor pro tem.

Joseph Santoro and Judy Nelson - the real crooks on the city council have saddled these two boobs with the failure of the other three,

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184807 Mar 26, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
The real question is why do hater’s always digress to references of a sexual nature? Why do they feel compelled to focus on what people do to express their love and affection for their lover? Don’t they realize that regardless of sexual orientation we all have very diverse sexual desires and needs?
At this point, it's the only card they have to play.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184809 Mar 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that as more and more states do the right thing there will be less and less room for the bigots and the idiots
however it is still a good idea, education does sink in after a while and there will eventually be fewer of them.
it is true...

a tea party meeting here in the north state isnt at ALL diverse in anyway.....

it resembles a reverse mortgage seminar....

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184812 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
On Monday, March 24, post#184434 you said:
"More BS gay twirl lies.
THE LATEST SCIENCE SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A (sic) EPI-MARKER MISTAKE.(emphasis added)
Moreover, the most intimate imitation of natural sex, anal sex, is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. I've posted that fact from a gay friendly medical site many times if someone doesn't have the common sense to know the anus is not a vagina.
Could be just a couple reasons why it's so hard for every culture in all of human history to get...
Snicker."
----------
The latest science DOES NOT say that homosexuality is an "epigenetic mistake". If you search Google, you will not find the words "epigenetic mistake" written with regards to homosexuality by anyone other than you.
So you continuously lie to people on here.
Scientist who theorize that homosexuality is related to epigenetics use words like "might be" or "could result in" or "further study is needed".
No one has came up with a final answer as you suggest over and over again.
Scientist have come up with a theory that "on paper" appears to suggest a connection. They've conducted NO clinical work in the laboratory.
Furthermore, scientists are not suggesting that this is a "defect" or a "mistake". They are simply saying that there appears to be a connection--that it might explain why homosexuality exists. They haven't made a judgement as to whether or not homosexuality is a mistake by using this theory.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop lying.
I love it when you bust his clitty. And by clitty I mean his micro-schwanz.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184813 Mar 27, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You’re not smart enough or qualified to make a sweeping generalization about what “normal” people do. You’re posts are more to insult than to impart any wisdom on anyone. You do realize that the definition of normal doesn’t say anything about how people privately show love and affection for each other? Why do you think about or care what other do sexually?
A gay troll attack followed by an accusation of me being a troll followed by this post;

"I’m sure she’s learned to endure your once or twice a year five minute interlude."

Not included was the impartation of wisdom in any way, shape or form...

As to what is normal or loving, natural intercourse was never outlawed (and still is in many places). Sodomy was.

Intercourse does not need major modification to make it even marginally 'safe'.

By the way, you do know that the definition of 'normal' does not specify a number of normal things, right. Oh wait, it's clear you don't...

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184814 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
Since ss marriage did not exist, and never will, the word 'spouses' was clear and concise.

Are you really that stupid??????????

This is why I keep trying to warn you that your position would be better served by your silent gay twirl...

Bazinga!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184816 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, do these benefits end when the children are raised? What if the couple are sterile, don't want kids, or are too elderly to have kids? Do they not get these tax benefits as well?
Of course. Never been a problem.

If ss friendships deserve those benefits without ever being capable of mutual procreation and it's special needs, then legally EVERYONE deserves them.

Apparently you think two men need the protection and provision that women and children do... Man up VV, man up!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184817 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Consummation - Noun - the completion of marriage by sexual intercourse.(I see nothing about genders listed here)
Sexual intercourse, aka coitus. Serious VV, both genders are needed for that. Legal ssm doesn't suddenly change the meaning of such words.
And "marriage" in states that recognize "marriage" between same-gender partners is called "marriage". It isn't called "same-gender marriage" or "same-sex marriage". The certificates and licenses for couples of the same gender are no different than the certificates and licenses for opposite gender couples.
Are both genders listed on the license?'Nuff said.
With that in mind, the term "consummation", in those states that recognize marriage between couples of the same gender, would be complete once they have had sexual intercourse.
Do I need to be crudely explicit here and speculate as to what ss sexual act, male and female, would substitute for coitus?
I haven't seen any definition of "consummation" that indicates a penis must penetrate a vagina. As you know, even with heterosexual couples, "intercourse" can involve any number of acts.
Did your Dad ever have "the talk" with you? If he had, I doubt you'd make a statement like that.
Finally, consummation concerns are typically only used to annul marriages. If the couple doesn't consummate their marriage with sexual intercourse, it isn't like the government is going to bust down their door and force them to divorce one another.
I never said it would. Don't start acting like Big D, and claim I did. We've had a respectual discussion and debate here VV, capeesh!?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184818 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
again I don’t need to read any further, you still don’t comprehend
and annulment requires one of the married couple to desire an annulment, it is NOT something the state will step in against their wishes and terminate the marriage.
You still have not been able to separate it in your tiny little mind so we will go over it again
Consummation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in any conceivable from, even fundamentalist Churches have performed marriage ceremonies for veterans that could not consummate the marriage, let alone the legal aspect that it is not in any way any kind of requirement for a marriage license.
Have you got that yet? or do we need to go over it again
No reason for a divorce or annulment is used to deny a couple that requests a marriage license.... do you have that now?
We can go over this dead argument as many times as you like
Procreation is a dead argument, consummation is a dead argument… do you have it yet?
You have no ability or authority to declare what is a dead argument.

Perhaps if you pray, those arguments might die???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184819 Mar 27, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Jon Tester (Mont.) have joined a growing list of U.S. senators that have backed extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Also among the senators clarifying their same-sex marriage support in recent days are Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D), and as the Blade has reported, Virginia’s Mark Warner (D), Missouri’s Claire McCaskill (D) and Ohio’s Robert Portman (R).
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/03/26/kai...
Politicians going against their conscience to save their seat/asses?

I'm shocked!

Smirk.

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
less blks in hmt since ebola 2 hr Kuntakinta 3
City, fire department reach agreement on medic ... 3 hr EastEndResidentnt 1
2 females found dead on Girard St in Hemet (Nov '13) 4 hr Chris 54
ugly women with ugly tattoos!!!!! (Oct '12) Tue Chris 93
more section 8 housing coming soon Mon baby boomer 11
Cal Fire Sucks (Nov '11) Oct 20 EastEndResidentnt 42
Finders Keepers Estate Oct 19 Molly 1

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match

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 ]