Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188644 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Still stuck on stupid, I see.
What part of polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8 don't you understand? It will remain illegal after Prop 8.
The same part that had Sodomy Laws in effect. The part about Non-traditional pairing off of redundant couples. Still stuck on wearing blinders, eh?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188645 Apr 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope didn’t mention Polygamy either but it did mention Man and Woman, a direct slap in the face of those that want to marry Space Aliens of different sexes :)
So we are settled, prop 8 was as much about Marrying Space aliens as it was about poly
So decrees the "Super D", with his arms folded, and eyes all ablaze, like Frylock... The pontification is concluded.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188646 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>There is the difference. I have never, 99.99 % of all straight guys would have said none and never will. Yet you feel remorse for never trying. Very telling. Hey Framkie its never too late. Did you win any medals for bull shitting?
No, I feel no remorse for never sucking a d!ck, you shouldn't either.

I won my medals for suiting up, showing up and doing my job. You should respect them. The US government does.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188647 Apr 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it bans things that were already banned like poly and marrying space aliens of sexes other than Man or Woman
Why don't you get off the meds, and slip back into reality, for a moment?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188648 Apr 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, neither Cameron, nor Rekers, are to be discounted, as they were right on the money, regardless of you claims that they are faulty.
X-Box says they lack credibility because they are gay.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188649 Apr 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So decrees the "Super D", with his arms folded, and eyes all ablaze, like Frylock... The pontification is concluded.
Too funny!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188650 Apr 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that Dr. George Rekers had to bow out of the Family Research Institute after he was found to have employed the services of a paid male escort (i.e.: prostitute) to accompany him to Europe?
The escort spilled the beans--including the nude massages and sex that took place.
Your dear Dr. Rekers is a big, old queen, honey! He's a self-loathing queen, but he's a queen nonetheless.
And Dr. Paul Cameron is so far up the Family Research Institute's ass that he can't be taken seriously.
I mean really... Is this the best you can come up with?
And his homosexual activities were disapproved of? Tsk-tsk. How bigoted. Why should he be ostracized? Because of his activities? Or, perhaps, because of his unpopular views, within his own circle? It would seem that not toeing the National Agenda has it's consequences, in the land of the free, and the home of the brave, and all that disappearing claptrap. 1st Amendment be damned.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188651 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior? Wow? Did we invent something new? I don't think so.'Sexual behavior' is an adequate phrase, unless, of course, your intent is to demonize.
Such as when using words like: "Homophobe", "Bigot", "Hater", "Racist", "Antifeminist", "Non-American", "Communist", "Fascist", "Nazi" and the myriad of terms that you use, in order to marginalize and demonize. Then. demonization is "Cool beans" and such? Your hypocrisy is showing, there, purple-passion.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188652 Apr 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In Olson’s view, the state may not officially prefer heterosexual marriage by a policy so mild that it does nothing other than to leave same-sex couples alone while declining to formally recognize their unions. By what reasoning, then, could it have a right to prefer some definition of marriage by actually punishing those who choose to disregard it?
Moreover, in his summary of what the Supreme Court has “said” about polygamy, Olson omitted to mention the single most famous case dealing with this question, Reynolds v. United States. In that case the Court upheld the federal law forbidding polygamy in the territories of the United States, and declined to find that the free exercise clause immunizes those who practice it for religious reasons.
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe .. and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice. This raises a serious problem for the defenders of same-sex marriage.
A number of the Court’s precedents defending a “right of privacy” have already strongly undermined the idea that the majority’s moral convictions are a sufficient basis for law. If the Court finds a right to same-sex marriage, it will practically dismantle the whole concept of morals legislation. But if moral preference for heterosexual marriage cannot be a reasonable basis on which to afford it a formal recognition denied to other unions, then how can moral disapproval be a reasonable ground on which to forbid and punish polygamy?
Let us turn now from the distinctions Olson overlooked to the ones he emphasized. In the first place, Olson contended that polygamy raises serious concerns about “exploitation,”“abuse,” and “patriarchy” that aren’t relevant to same-sex marriage. Presumably he was referring to the “abuse” and “exploitation” of the children and perhaps wives of plural marriages. Yet, under the constitutional theory of marriage Olson has tried to sell, none of these considerations would be sufficient to forbid polygamy. Olson insists that marriage is a fundamental right. Standard Supreme Court doctrine holds that fundamental rights can only be infringed to defend a “compelling state interest” and that the regulations made to protect that interest must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
Everyone would concede that prevention of abuse and exploitation of children and wives is a compelling state interest. On the other hand, nobody would contend that such abuse and exploitation is the very essence of polygamy. After all, abuse and exploitation can be found in monogamous marriages, too. The most one could say is that these problems are dangers to which polygamous unions are more or less prone. In any case, under the “fundamental rights” doctrine on which Olson relies, the least restrictive means to remedy such dangers would be to recur to already existing laws punishing such abuse and exploitation, rather than going so far as to ban polygamy altogether.
Olson may also have been hinting that the state could reasonably fear that abuse and exploitation of children is more likely to arise in families where the children are not related by blood to all of their parents. This is a reasonable concern, but it could be raised just as easily in relation to same-sex marriages, where at best, only one parent can be biologically related to each child.
Careful, buddy, don't confound them, with irrefutable logic, you'll get banned.
:-D
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188653 Apr 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Just the facts" accused Rock of making "SSSB" up. I showed it was in use as an abbreviation. "sexual behavior" is too vague. Really, intent to demonize? Paranoid much?
"just the facts" is an idiot.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#188654 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I googled it and found not one matching use. I stopped looking after 26 pages
Well that proves it then!

Ah, what is it that you are you trying to prove? That the acronym "SSSB" is not an acronym? How will that help your dumb argument Jizzy?

What a dope!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188655 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it speaks to their motivation to lie. Damn, are you completely stupid?
You must be, to tie homosexual behavioralists to lying. It shows what you think of your own. And, illustrates your own propensity, for same.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188656 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>n your case, stupify.
How delightfully evasive of you.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188657 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>How many guys have you blown?
And you, too. Wonderful show of flagrant irrelevancy. Truly typifying...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188658 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>There is the difference. I have never, 99.99 % of all straight guys would have said none and never will. Yet you feel remorse for never trying. Very telling. Hey Framkie its never too late. Did you win any medals for bull shitting?
How can your gay ass claim that it hasn't snorked on some stiffie? Come on, now, be honest, we're all friends in here, it can be our little secret.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188659 Apr 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Just the facts" accused Rock of making "SSSB" up. I showed it was in use as an abbreviation. "sexual behavior" is too vague. Really, intent to demonize? Paranoid much?
Not paranoid, at all. Just a damn liar, is all.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188663 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I googled it and found not one matching use. I stopped looking after 26 pages
Do you mean THESE "non-existent" search results? These, that I CUT-N-PASTED, in a laughably easy manner...These don't exist? ROFLMAO @ your stupid ass. I'm sorry to laugh, but you make it SO easy to laugh...

"SSSB sexual behavior" (goes into the searchbar)

OhioLINK ETD: Corbley, Chad
Participants were also asked about same-sex sexual behaviors (SSSB), sexual orientation identity, and attitudes towards lesbians and gays.
rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view... - Cached

Components of Sexual Orientation: Attractions, Behaviors, and ...
Participants were also asked about same-sex sexual behaviors (SSSB), sexual orientation identity, and attitudes towards lesbians and gays.
drc.ohiolink.edu/handle/2374.OX/107063 - Cached

Oppose WA HB 1515
Will they be taught that same-sex sexual behavior and relationships are ... there is no credible evidence that such feelings or same-sex sexual behavior (SSSB)...
www.cmda.org/wcm/.../Sexuality1/.../Oppose_WA... - Cached

Safer Sex Skills Building (SSSB)| Best-Evidence ...
Decrease unsafe sexual behaviors; ... Safer Sex Skills Building (SSSB) is a group intervention consisting of 5 sessions, approximately 90 minutes each,...
www.cdc.gov/.../research/prs/resources/factsh... - Cached

More results from cdc.gov »

Safer Sex Skills Building (SSSB)- NE Florida Counts ...
Ranking: Evidence-Based Practice: Description: The goal of the Safer Sex Skills Building intervention is to decrease unsafe sexual behaviors among heterosexually ...
www.nefloridacounts.org/modules.php... ...- Cached

Myths vs. Facts
... 22 Brain tissue is actually changed by habitual patterns of behavior, making SSSB sometimes difficult to treat. 14 ... The sexual behavior of men in the United ...
www.cmda.org/wcm/CMDA/Issues2/Other1/Sexualit... ...- Cached

Healthy San Bernardino :: Promising Practices :: Safer Sex ...
Safer Sex Skills Building (SSSB)... The goal of the Safer Sex Skills Building intervention is to decrease unsafe sexual behaviors. Results / Accomplishments:
www.healthysanbernardinocounty.org/modules.ph... ...- Cached

[PDF]
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY KATHERINE VARNUM ...
Adobe PDF
could be classified under the umbrella of same-sex sexual behavior (SSSB), same-sex sexual attraction (SSSA), or a mixture of same-sex desires and/or behavior (SSSAB).
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/Analysisof... ...

Healthy Arizona :: Promising Practices :: Safer Sex Skills ...
Safer Sex Skills Building (SSSB)... The goal of the Safer Sex Skills Building intervention is to decrease unsafe sexual behaviors. Results / Accomplishments:
www.arizonahealthmatters.org/modules.php... ...- Cached

Safer Sex Skills Building (SSSB)- Health Matters in San ...
Ranking: Evidence-Based Practice: Description: The goal of the Safer Sex Skills Building intervention is to decrease unsafe sexual behaviors among heterosexually ...
www.healthmattersinsf.org/modules.php... ...- Cached

Ad

Adolescent Problems
Help for parents dealing with adolescent behavior problems
www.discoveryacademy.com

Ad

Adolescent Problems
Help for parents dealing with adolescent behavior problems
www.discoveryacademy.com
See your message here...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188664 Apr 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that proves it then!
Ah, what is it that you are you trying to prove? That the acronym "SSSB" is not an acronym? How will that help your dumb argument Jizzy?
What a dope!
As you can see, I felt an obligation to instruct "LilJizzy" to lie better. His slip was showing...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188665 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Run that by Frankie, he has remorse. Why are you into sodmy?
"Sodmy" with the opposite sex is cool beans. "Sodmy" with ones own gender is redundant, and wrong. OK? Clear now?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188667 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Still dreaming up war stories hey Frankie. Stop ridding the coat tails of service men and women. You never served a single day.
I'd serve with him on any front. You...... Well, you'd probably end up somewhere that you shouldn't have gone. Enough said.

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
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Sep 26 Regolith Based Li... 153
News Teens protest legislation (Mar '06) Sep 25 Indo frank 213
Anything to do in Hemet for teenagers? Sep 25 David F Miller 3
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) Sep 25 Nasty spill 483
Hemet Domestic violence. . bad and getting worst. Sep 24 Vic_Rode 58
Man assaults kids at McDonalds-east florida on ... (Jul '13) Sep 24 Vic_Rode 290
Hemet wife beaters (Jul '14) Sep 24 Dr Kruer MD 37

Hemet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages