Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#189398 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don’t watch Faux news or MSNBC, when a news caster has an opinion, I change the channel. I read the transcripts of the arguments
You obviously have not
A large part of their equal right challenge is the fact that same sex couples are being treated differently under the law than other same sex couples.
You are in for as much of a surprise as when Faux news reported that Obama would lose in a landslide days before the election :)
You should stop posting, it just makes you look dumb.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#189399 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
coloring books would help.:)
I agree, Rose, BigD, and youself would certainly benefit if the arguments were presented in picture format with a box of crayons.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#189400 Apr 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ronald.
I agree, today the cops are automatons, Mindless robots carrying out a script. The have no minds of their own and simply act out a pre-scripted program.
Back "in the day" The cops used their own discretion and treated each situation as they thought best. As would give the best result for the community. For example if a ruffian acted up in a bar abusing other patrons the cop would take him outside behind the dumpster and rough him up good. Give him a dose of his own medicine and that would be the end of it. No script, no resources wasted.
These days they process the amateur n'er-do-well into the system where other criminals will teach him a life of crime.
Say hello to your honey for me! Arf! Looking forward to the day the haters allow marriage equality for you two!
Frankie.
Frankie Rizzo.

Thank you. I extended your good wishes to my honey. He said that, while he admires those who serve in the K-9 corps with the cops, he will always be my faithful companion. Both he and I look forward to the day when we can marry the honeys of our own choosing. He said he sends heartfelt Arf Arfs.

Ronald
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189401 Apr 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Don't confuse the fight for same-gender "marriage equality" with any other marriage movement. We're not fighting for under-aged marriage. We're not fighting for incestuous marriage. We are fighting for the right for consenting, unrelated, adult U.S. citizens to choose their partner.
2.) Where do you get the ridiculous idea that our movement's goal is to shatter the monogamous (husband and wife) marital standard forever? Clearly, heterosexual couples will continue to marry. And they will outnumber homosexual couples who marry.
3.) "Privileged union"?!? What the heck is that? Are you seriously whining about losing a special label? Could you get any more immature?
4.) It does not stand to reason that if SSM is legalized throughout the country then fathers will be marrying their daughters, men will start to marry furniture, or any other such ridiculous claim.
If same-gender marriage is legalized, then that's all that's going to happen. Period.
Heterosexual marriage hasn't led to plural marriage or any other silly union. Why would homosexual marriage lead to such things?
Your logic is totally flawed.
1) We understand your desire to separate yourselves from every other "equality" based type of marriage, you are selfish.
2)Um......her. Lesbian Paula Ettelbrick. "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.……… We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality. As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's views of reality."

http://www.albatrus.org/english/lien_of_oz/ho...

3) "Privileged union" is that which you covet, remember?
4) No, it sure doesn't. But incestuous marriage, and polygamy, is as equal as anything that you wish to deny.
Heterosexual marriage has included polygamy, up until relatively recently. Homosexual marriage would help to alleviate the unfair restrictions upon other alternative types of marriage. Easy, do you fail to grasp logic?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189402 Apr 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that you're OK with us creating our own "relational identity and rights" as long as we don't call it "marriage"?
How juvenile... Shirley, you can do better than that.
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>It is the word that frightens them
Calling ss couples married will always be an oxymoron, not matter who asserts otherwise. That is simply reality. A man and woman united as one for life will always stand unique among all human relationships. There will never be an equal to the family created by that union. Reality dictates that marriage and family are unique and deserve that special designation.

The atrocity here is that you would equate the creation of God, a man and woman, united as one, the bastion of family, birthing and nurturing the fruit of their union with the perverse image of a duplicated barren half.

Not just idiotic, but diabolical.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189403 Apr 19, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You should stop posting, it just makes you look dumb.
Yes. Big D would do best to remain quiet and simply appear dumb. Instead of posting and removing all doubt.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189404 Apr 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie Rizzo.
Thank you. I extended your good wishes to my honey. He said that, while he admires those who serve in the K-9 corps with the cops, he will always be my faithful companion. Both he and I look forward to the day when we can marry the honeys of our own choosing. He said he sends heartfelt Arf Arfs.
Ronald
Arf!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189405 Apr 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it... Answer these questions and I'll be satisfied.
1.) How can a same-gender couple, who is not legally married, file a joint income tax form?
(The U.S. Internal Revenue Service does not allow same-sex spouses to file joint federal income tax returns, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act.)
2.) How can a member of a same-gender couple, who is not legally married, receive protection under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for his or her terminally or seriously ill partner?
(The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does not recognize same sex marriages; therefore, federal FMLA leave is not available for same sex partners/spouses.)
3.) How can a member of a same-gender couple, who is not legally married, receive Social Security and/or Medicare benefits of a deceased partner?
(Because DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, these couples are thus excluded from the same benefits offered to heterosexual married couples in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.)
1) File your own.
2) Contractual stipulation.
3) They shouldn't.
Answered. Satisfaction supplied.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189406 Apr 19, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Polygamy isn't an equal rights issue. I'm not arguing for or against it, just pointing out a fact. Everybody has the same rights when it comes to getting married to more than one person. Equal. Should people be able to marry more than one person? Start a forum about that subject and talk about it. OK?
Of course it is. I've illustrated that before. Remember? When I asked "if a woman can marry a man, then, why can't another woman?" See how that works? All the women should have the same access to that man.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189407 Apr 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A duplicated barren desolate half of marriage is not 'equal'.
That is simple reality.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I guess you didn't like the point, made you trollish again.
No confusion by anyone. You know a ss couple will only ever be a sterile duplicated half of marriage. Everyone know that, even children.
In fact, all you can offer a child, at the most, is dad and 'dad', but never mom. Again, a duplicated half, but missing a parent that every child wants, needs and deserves.
How do you ever justify that to the child???
Smirk.
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i understaood your implication.
you failed to understand what i said. but let me put it a bit more bluntly.
not all of us has a lousy marriage like you do kimare. some of us are quite happy in the relationship we're in. we don't seek your approval. your silly little opinion doesn't matter.
You clearly don't understand honey. There is no 'implication' in what I said. And you clearly have no reasoned response. Because there is nothing you can say against the simple truth.

Nor do I need to impose any 'approval'. I simply expose reality, and it annoys the hell out of you.

Snicker.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189408 Apr 19, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>What you are telling me is this. You wish to have two sets of laws, one set for heterosexuals and one set for homosexuals. The laws would then benefit one group more than the other.
Negative. One set of laws, covering all types of "alternative" marriages, or only covering the accepted, proper type of marriage. The "1 man/1woman" type. Easy, see?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#189409 Apr 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is fighting for under aged marriage?
<quoted text>
Adult U.S. citizens can choose their partner, if they desire a partner or just a friend, without state involvement. What you asking is for the state to label a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".
<quoted text>
That's is the objective. Monogamous conjugal marriage of husband and wife is no longer the legal standard. I'm not arguing that opposite sex couples will no longer marry, but the standard will no longer be the standard. Why maintain the number of the marital relationship, two, if the nature, opposite sex, no longer matters?
<quoted text>
It simply means society recognizes the monogamous male female, husband and wife, above all other adult intimate relationships.
<quoted text>
"Fathers marrying their daughters"? " Men marrying furniture"? Who is claiming man and sofa must mate.....well.....maybe man's female mate thinks he spends too much time with the sofa so he might as well be married to it.
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh huh....so you have a crystal ball? Social movements have a tendency to travel in directions the movement's proponents might not have intended, or anticipated.
<quoted text>
Let me see if I understand this. You argue that the standard, of one man and one woman joined together in legal matrimony as husband and wife, is discriminatory, arbitrary, and/or should be "expanded" to include same sex unions, and yet state that no other changes should be made to accommodate others, such as plural marriage practitioners. Yes? We both know the polygamy issue has been raised in relation to the issue of SSM, even at the Supreme Court. So why do you think it won't or can't happen? I don't understand why you don not embrace the "expansion" of legal marriage to included it?
What bothered me about the jackass' angry post was his reference to poly marriage as among "other silly unions".

Perhaps polygamists might think same sex marriage is a "silly union"?

But they don't. Most polygamists support same sex marriage. Most SSM advocates do not reciprocate.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189410 Apr 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The man is a one trick pony. He honestly believes we give a damn. Such a narcissist...
You forget the lesbian trapped in the straight man. How could you???

Smile.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189411 Apr 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ridiculous to say that EVERYTHING an animal does a human must also do.
However, scientists have proven time and again that there are similar behaviors between man and animal.
Sex for the sake of pleasure or procreation is one such commonality. This would include gay sex.
Eating one's young has nothing to do with one's sex drive.
Procreation and pleasure are 2 very different reasons to engage in sexual behavior. Procreation is not the goal of SSSB. Hence, it does not deserve the same protections that procreational-based behavior, or "MARRIAGE" between opposite gender couples, does. As per the barren opposite gender couples, at least they are welcome to try, they bring all of the requisite equipment to the table. You're trying to play baseball, with nothing except a pair of knee-pads...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189412 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do you, homosexuality is common in many mammals
It is an aberration, not a commonality. It has no rewards to show, it does not result in procreation, therefore, it is a dead-end, as far as mating goes. It leads to extinction of the line practicing it. Nature tolerates it, but does not approve of it.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#189413 Apr 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one gives a sh!t what you think either jackass. See how that works?
The bottom line is that you are a bigot and a hypocrite and I am not.
My "boyfriend" (I am not gay but you are by the way, dummy) Mr Hudson is not a hypocrite like you.
Don't get mad, just get real, hypocrite.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189414 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
If wishes were fished we would all cast nets
Until you overturn those pre-existing laws, the point is totally moot
Illegal before Prop 8, Illegal during Prop 8, Illegal after prop 8 is overturned
You can cry and wine like the terrible victim you claim to be ( and we all know you are lying about that ) but a fact is a fact.
instead of crying victim and trying to pile on to someone else’s fight, go start your own fight over the ACTUAL laws that are preventing polygamy. Don’t worry Prop 8 will be long gone before you get those previous laws overturned.
I know you wont, because you don’t actually give a crap about polygamy.
"If wishes were fished we would all..." WTF? Get serious. It is not moot, and your side is providing us with the precedents needed, to overturn those draconian laws. And, he isn't whining and crying, he is providing rational arguments that you don't like.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189415 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you must have our marriages confused with your own sweetcheeks.
snicker.
don't like the tone? then don't use it with me.
No, we clearly understand the difference between the real thing, and a scam "Accept no substitutes."
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189416 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not an attempt, that is a major part of the case being argued :)
Exactly that, why do new same sex couples not have the same rights as previous same sex couples.
And it is indeed an equal rights issue, that one will eventually be pushed nationally depending on the outcome of DOMA
Silly D, that is because the "previous ones" should not have gotten what they got. Silly. Really, do think that after discovering the grave errors of such a thing, that it should have been repeated? Silly D...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189417 Apr 19, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot because you made the claim that "no court has ever agreed that same sex marriage was not an equal right's issue" and got smacked.
Now you are twisting and spinning as if you had something intelligent to say.
You didn't then, and you still don't now.
-You're an idiot!
Bravo, you are ripping them up. Wish I was as eloquent as you...
:-D

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
Legalized Panhandling @ Stater Bros!!! Menifee (Apr '10) Thu Well Well 10
truth about scientology Dec 6 ex - scientologis... 1
soboba indains beat teen girls 2x while walking... (Sep '09) Dec 3 Hpinkmi 13
News Gay priest from Redlands discusses sexuality, r... (Feb '15) Nov 29 Mike 11
Are black people afraid of if crosswalks? (Jan '12) Nov 28 Regolith Based Li... 22
young gay guys in hemet (Oct '14) Nov 28 tellinitlikeitis 17
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Nov 26 Realest 154

Hemet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages