Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,167

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
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

Union City, 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 elseís fight, go start your own fight over the ACTUAL laws that are preventing polygamy. Donít worry Prop 8 will be long gone before you get those previous laws overturned.
I know you wont, because you donít 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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189418 Apr 19, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get mad, just get real, hypocrite.
Relax Fruitloops.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189419 Apr 19, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware of the arguments. I have read the brief's cover to cover as well as the Walker and 9th Circuit decisions.
How many pages have you read?
Here, I will even give you a link to one so you can start catching up.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131248871/Perry-Pro...
IDIOT!
Interesting reading, I've just started it. Thank you, at least, from me.
:-D
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189420 Apr 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
"If wishes were fished we would all..." WTF? Get serious....
Too funny! Big D attempts eloquence and depth. Fails. Looks stupid.

Today he told me I don't compress him. WTF?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189421 Apr 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting reading, I've just started it. Thank you, at least, from me.
:-D
Big D don't need to read no stinking arguments or decisions. He already knows everything and we don't.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189422 Apr 19, 2013
Boy I gotta admit that jackass Big D gets on my last nerve!

What a jackass!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189423 Apr 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it is because you say so?
apparantly, no one else does. at least not those that have filed law suits to allow same sex marriage.
You have that backwards, allow me to help, by cut-n-paste. "you say so" "because" "it is". There, that makes sense, now...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189424 Apr 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What he needs to do is bring forward the legally married poly group that was harmed by Prop 8
Then he would have a case, that they were affected by it
Of course, there isnt any
And, you think to be clever, with that? Let's also bring forth the SSSB abortion statistics, shall we?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#189425 Apr 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again to what? To tell an idiot that polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage?
I did that 50 times. The idiot didn't listen 50 times. He doesn't get it. He's stupid.
Oh! You're that idiot. Woops.
Please keep track of your idiots. Thank you.

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
corruption with Riverside county CPS 59 min gmaliscious 6
Hemet - The worst city to live in california 3 hr Joe Hemet 13
Water main Break Shadow Mountain Way 4 hr Joe Hemet 1
Marinello Schools of Beauty in Hemet is a Rip... (Jan '11) Fri fairplay 6
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Fri SJ THEBOy 9
Residents Of Hemet, San Jacinto Still Cleaning ... Fri Chris 2
bums on bikes Thu kmnine 5

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:48 pm PST