Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,980

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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190148 Apr 26, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does, but..
One of my points was Marriage and its definitions are not entirely the same now as they once were so where is the fear in updating it once more?
Establish and relish my own? what do you mean by that?
I am not rejecting my family or anyone's traditional family, but I am of the opinion that two people of whatever sex/gender ought to be able to marry if they wish, out of love, not out of a procreation requirement. Gay marriage and even gay adoption will not stop heterosexual marriage or traditional families. Family units also shift in the evolution of society. There was a time when it was almost unheard of to have one-parent families or divorces. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm saying it's how it is. Yes those children's lives would have been different but not automatically better. A lot of psychological stress is caused by unhappy traditional families who stay together when they don't really want to. With some gay couples it will be the same, and if they have children there will be stress. Life is stressful and people hurt each other emotionally. But they ought to be afforded the right to publicly declare their love and intentions in the form of marriage if they wish. Why should one couple be and another not?
Marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You are not 'updating' it, you are undefining it.

Why don't ss couples have the courage and integrity to establish their own defined relationship? Instead, you insult intelligence by demanding everyone equate duplicate sterile couples with marriage.

Societal health has suffered dramatically with the demise of marriage commitment. Children are paying the greatest cost. You want to further that decline with a radical dilution of marriage and family.
HogsHollow

Covina, CA

#190149 Apr 26, 2013
Former police officer in Massachusetts gets two years in jail for extorting prostitutes

Aravanh Lakmany, 32, of Dracut, pleaded guilty to charges of extortion by threat and three counts of solicitation of prostitutes.

Lakmany pleaded guilty to having sexual relations at least 20 times while on duty in his cruiser and other times in his car.

Don't let this happen in Glendora, California or has it already?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190150 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, there are many precedents for overturning laws based on ballot measures, you are in for some serious disappointments pretty soon.
We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.
You assume AK (and everyone else) is as emotionally invested in SSM as you are. From reading his posts, I get that he is interested in the Constitutionality aspects of the issue only and has no emotional investment. In fact he has actively supported the legality of SSM as I have.

In other words, I doubt AK or myself will be "seriously disappointed" no matter the outcome. There are many posters interested only academically and have little or no emotional involvement in this issue. You fail to understand this.

Your dogmatic emotional involvement in this issue makes discussing it with you impossible.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190151 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Societal health has suffered dramatically with the demise of marriage commitment. Children are paying the greatest cost. You want to further that decline with a radical dilution of marriage and family.
No marriages today are actually stronger due to the ease of divorce. People that actually work at their marriages, more of partnerships more equal as the penalty for not working together to make your marriage strong is easily obtained.

Not like the bad old days when people stayed in a bad marriage, being abused, child abuse and a myriad of other issues.

Today people are free to get out of a bad marriage, and there is more incentive to work with your partner to improve your marriage.

The bad old days were good for bad ( or lazy ) people, certainly was not good for marriage in general.

You may long for the bad old days, when women were second class citizens, when homosexuals were persecuted, etc etc

Most of us do not
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190152 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath learns English. by Frankie Rizzo

This is a story of an Englishman traveling in the U.S. going to an American service station to get some new windshield wiper blades.

He fills his tank with petrol and asks the dopey looking attendant with a patch on his shirt that says "Xavier B" for some windscreen wipers.

Xavier replies "Golly! What the hell is that for?" The Englishman says "To wipe the rain off the windscreen." Xavier says "Windscreen? It's a windshield,'Mercans invented the car so it's called whatever we say it's called".

The Englishman replied, look jackass, we invented the language. Not only that but we invented windscreen wipers and patented them in 1911 so they are called whatever we say they are called!"

Xavier replied. "Sorry sir! Shall I wash your windshield now?" The Englishman said. "What a queer little man."

Xavier filed hate crime charges and won a civil suit for a million dollar settlement and that is why he now sits on his dopey ass and posts nonsense all day and night instead of pumping gas. The Englishman lost his million dollar fortune and is now at Xavier's old job pumping gas.

The End.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#190153 Apr 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"...depend on what's in your underwear."? Why are talking about bladder control issues?
Logic dictates men are treated like men, and women like women. Urinals aren't put in the women's locker room, and gynocologists don't treat men.
Now I feel like my rights have been violated, thanks P.A. now I'm gonna protest too much.
commonpeeps

Covina, CA

#190154 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You are not 'updating' it, you are undefining it.
Why don't ss couples have the courage and integrity to establish their own defined relationship? Instead, you insult intelligence by demanding everyone equate duplicate sterile couples with marriage.
Societal health has suffered dramatically with the demise of marriage commitment. Children are paying the greatest cost. You want to further that decline with a radical dilution of marriage and family.
Oooh oooh, let me say it while moho is recovering from last night, something about why any one should give a crap about the children or when I don't like what you write I will try and divert your meaning. Dang, guess we will just have to wait for her dumb-a logic, I can't seem to degrade myself enough down to his/her level.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190156 Apr 26, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Oooh oooh, let me say it while moho is recovering from last night, something about why any one should give a crap about the children or when I don't like what you write I will try and divert your meaning. Dang, guess we will just have to wait for her dumb-a logic, I can't seem to degrade myself enough down to his/her level.
Rose's Law = "People who care about children are morons with no real argument." (screamed).

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190157 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No marriages today are actually stronger due to the ease of divorce. People that actually work at their marriages, more of partnerships more equal as the penalty for not working together to make your marriage strong is easily obtained.
Not like the bad old days when people stayed in a bad marriage, being abused, child abuse and a myriad of other issues.
Today people are free to get out of a bad marriage, and there is more incentive to work with your partner to improve your marriage.
The bad old days were good for bad ( or lazy ) people, certainly was not good for marriage in general.
You may long for the bad old days, when women were second class citizens, when homosexuals were persecuted, etc etc
Most of us do not
Your opinion does not fit the factual outcome of no fault divorce.

-child abuse
-domestic violence

To name just a few.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190158 Apr 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of logic, I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
In the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, its about time. Thanks Frankie.
marcus

Los Angeles, CA

#190159 Apr 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, its about time. Thanks Frankie.
Simmer down there, queer-o. You two need to get a room and take it there.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190160 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion does not fit the factual outcome of no fault divorce.
-child abuse
-domestic violence
To name just a few.
actually yes it does, more child abuse and domestic violence is reported because in the bad old days, no one dared report it.

He that does evil, hateth the light ( gee you may know that phrase )

I know children that were saved from hateful and abusive parents, I know what the old days you pine for were, and we as a people free from that tynary are never, ever going back

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190161 Apr 26, 2013
marcus wrote:
<quoted text>
Simmer down there, queer-o. You two need to get a room and take it there.
"queer-o"?. Sounds like something out of the seventies. Relax fruit loops.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190162 Apr 26, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does, but..
One of my points was Marriage and its definitions are not entirely the same now as they once were so where is the fear in updating it once more?
Updating it? How do you "update" it by eliminating one half of it, and duplicating the existing half? There's only two sexes. Marriage is a union of both of them.
Establish and relish my own? what do you mean by that?
I am not rejecting my family or anyone's traditional family, but I am of the opinion that two people of whatever sex/gender ought to be able to marry if they wish, out of love, not out of a procreation requirement. Gay marriage and even gay adoption will not stop heterosexual marriage or traditional families.
Why limit it to couples? Marriage, throughout human history has been either monogamous, or polygamous. Is it fair to deny those who love more than one, marital recognition?
Family units also shift in the evolution of society. There was a time when it was almost unheard of to have one-parent families or divorces. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm saying it's how it is. Yes those children's lives would have been different but not automatically better. A lot of psychological stress is caused by unhappy traditional families who stay together when they don't really want to. With some gay couples it will be the same, and if they have children there will be stress. Life is stressful and people hurt each other emotionally. But they ought to be afforded the right to publicly declare their love and intentions in the form of marriage if they wish. Why should one couple be allowed and another not?
Again, why limit it to couples? Why maintain certain restrictions at all? If two men/women can marry in certain states, and those same states also allow first cousins to marry, why prohibit same sex siblings from marrying? There is no need to maintain such a restriction.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190163 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You are not 'updating' it, you are undefining it.
Why don't ss couples have the courage and integrity to establish their own defined relationship? Instead, you insult intelligence by demanding everyone equate duplicate sterile couples with marriage.
Societal health has suffered dramatically with the demise of marriage commitment. Children are paying the greatest cost. You want to further that decline with a radical dilution of marriage and family.
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?

When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.

Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.

You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.

Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190164 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
actually yes it does, more child abuse and domestic violence is reported because in the bad old days, no one dared report it.
He that does evil, hateth the light ( gee you may know that phrase )
I know children that were saved from hateful and abusive parents, I know what the old days you pine for were, and we as a people free from that tynary are never, ever going back
Yeah right Big D, he pines for hateful and abusive parents, domestic violence and child abuse.

P.S. Learn how to spell tyranny. It's not a typo. You think it's spelled tynary.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190165 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
That was a marketing gimmick.
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
That was proof that love is ageless.:)
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
World record attempt, maybe?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
No, that was correcting a mistake.
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
True. Otherwise "gay marriage" wouldn't be an issue.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another.
They can do that now without the state's involvement.
It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
How do you know this?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190166 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.
Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
I still think they are desperately trying to preserve the holiness of Brittany Spears 3 day "just for fun" marriage

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190167 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
actually yes it does, more child abuse and domestic violence is reported because in the bad old days, no one dared report it.
He that does evil, hateth the light ( gee you may know that phrase )
I know children that were saved from hateful and abusive parents, I know what the old days you pine for were, and we as a people free from that tynary are never, ever going back
Actually, it is far worse, and not just because of better reporting. Nor is it just those two areas.

I like your quote, that's why I corrected your gay twirl.

Smile.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190168 Apr 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Updating it? How do you "update" it by eliminating one half of it, and duplicating the existing half? There's only two sexes. Marriage is a union of both of them.
<quoted text>
Why limit it to couples? Marriage, throughout human history has been either monogamous, or polygamous. Is it fair to deny those who love more than one, marital recognition?
<quoted text>
Again, why limit it to couples? Why maintain certain restrictions at all? If two men/women can marry in certain states, and those same states also allow first cousins to marry, why prohibit same sex siblings from marrying? There is no need to maintain such a restriction.
How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people.

And where is it written that changing one aspect of a law means ALL aspects are required to be changed? It's such a bogus argument. If I thought you had any sense, I'd expect you'd be embarrassed, but somehow YOU think it's a valid point. Yeah, right.....

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 CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 38 min Butterflypie 7,958
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Flaggstaff 5,083
Review: Hemet Eye Care Center Of Optometry (Oct '13) 16 hr hi5432j 2
Re-Elect Tom Fuhrman Menifee City Council 19 hr Jeremy Cronin 23
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sun theos 2,276
david steidell (Aug '07) Sep 19 huhwhathaha 13
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
•••

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 ]
•••