Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,977

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
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212287 Aug 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the difference between unrelated folks and relatives?
That's a little scary.
Understanding the difference is immaterial. What can it possibly matter, when discussing marriage?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212289 Aug 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one? Polygamy? Woman as chattel? Child weddings? Go back to banning interracial marriages? Arranged marriages?
Which form of historical marriage do you support? Or, are you willing to admit that the definition of legal marriages changes as society changes, and usually for the better.
No one is trying to change your marriage. Don't prevent mine.
I believe that Karma was making a valid point that had nothing to do with those red herrings that you threw in, in order to confuse the issue.
Even allowing your reds to stand, these include AT LEAST one of each gender.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212291 Aug 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why can't I marry my sister? Or both of them?(I can never choose which one is hotter! They are both SMOKIN' HOT).
Your sister's standards are too high. Nobody can marry someone against their will. Nobody can marry more than one person, so that's not an equal protection issue. Should you be able to marry more than one person? Hey, why not start a forum about that subject?
Ever notice that when you tried to make an argument against gay marriage, you never actually make and argument against gay marriage? You bring up other subjects.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212292 Aug 25, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo.
As readers to this post know full well, I love my Homosexual friends, the lesbians, my fellow dog lovers, and yes, even the Homosexual and non-Homosexual Africans. Even so, the honey of my own choosing has a cute puppy face. When he read your canineophobic post, he asked me to inquire of you what are going to do about it?
To my own mind, the issue is not those who go around spouting obvious canineophobic remarks. The issue is when is the politicized Government high court going to give my honey and I the same RIGHT to "marry" that our Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and the non-Homosexual and Homosexual Africans enjoy.
Ronald
Headline:
Brain eating parasites attack Ronald, starve to death.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212293 Aug 25, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Man, you plot pooper, They said I missed the equal marriage part in the 14th and I was re-reading it to see, and thought it was just me not seeing the marriage part they was talkin 'bout.Dang
No. You missed nothing, as it was not about people with gender identity issues. It was about the slaves.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212295 Aug 25, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>You mean "because I want to" ain't enough?
No. it isn't. Unless, of course, you are gay. Then, "I want" is all that you need....

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212296 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually they shouldn't. Nature has shown us that 2 of the same gender are not complimentary. You should know that. There are obvious differences between men and women. You should know that, too.
iIt takes 1 of each to reproduce. You should know that.*racist slurs removed*.
But, stupid "not complimentary" is meaningless babble. There are obvious differences between any two people, even identical twins. That's not the issue. The issue is the 14th Amendment says all persons should get equal protection under the law. Even you.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212298 Aug 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
For dinner tonight, I'm thinking Chik-fil-A! Pack up the whole fam-damily in the station wagon and go enjoy a delicious meal served by a fine family owned socially aware restaurant! Mmmmm!
Check out the new gay friendly menu! The chicken reach around wrap. The new fudge-packin' brownie for dessert.
Oh boy.
Good, the sooner you folks start dying off from eating that crap, the better!
BTW, most people into "fudge packing" are straight.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212300 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been given plenty. You ignore them. You don't want to acknowledge them. You should provide us with reasons to allow it.
Liar. People just try to change the subject to polygamy or anal sex, or babble some nonsense about "complimentary".
And again, the fact there is no good reason not to allow it is reason enough to allow it.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212301 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sister's standards are too high. Nobody can marry someone against their will. Nobody can marry more than one person, so that's not an equal protection issue. Should you be able to marry more than one person? Hey, why not start a forum about that subject?
Ever notice that when you tried to make an argument against gay marriage, you never actually make and argument against gay marriage? You bring up other subjects.

Here's the most basic one for you, explained without pictures:
No, actually they shouldn't. Nature has shown us that 2 of the same gender are not complimentary. You should know that. There are obvious differences between men and women. You should know that, too.
It takes 1 of each to reproduce. You should know that. The 14th Amendment granted full membership in the human race to negroes. You, of all people, should know that, as well.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212303 Aug 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Frankie's Law.
If a man can marry a woman Rose_NoHo can get a job, quit mooching and pay taxes.
More proof you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage. Keep it up, you help prove my point, and give me another chance to laugh at you sorry homophobes!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#212304 Aug 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? This is a fine marriage equality forum. You don't own Topix you silly old bag.
Why are you a hypocrite?
The subject is gay marriage.
Admit you don't have an argument against it.
If you had a rational argument against it, you'd be able to finish this sentence and make a rational argument.
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because..."
Even if I were a hypocrite,
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because Rose is a hypocrite." would not be a rational argument.
Neither would ""Gay marriage should not be allowed because Frankie can't marry his sisters."
Thanks for the laugh.
Love this town

Murrieta, CA

#212305 Aug 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people have such a hard time distinguishing between the correct usage of the words their, there, and they're? That's kind of clownish if you ask me. If it's not clownish, it's certainly foolish.
You guys gave us the term "gay". It's kind of like the words "faggot", "queer", "Nancy boy", "sissy", etc. You want some pejorative word to use to identify homosexuals. We simply took the word "gay" and made it our own.
The rainbow that we use didn't come from the Hawaiians. Rather a man in San Francisco, Gilbert Baker, created the flag for the LGBT community in 1978. It signifies the diversity of the LGBT community. Each color represents a value cherished by the community: red (life), orange (healing), yellow (sunlight), green (nature), blue (harmony), and purple/violet (spirit).
Where you got that it was stolen from Hawaii is a mystery to me.
Finally, you call us "clownish", "jackasses", and "fools". I could apply the same comments to football, war, dating, any number of celebrations (i.e.: Mardi Gras), getting drunk, getting dressed, etc.
My guess is that you've made a clown or a fool of yourself at some point in your past.
Your post certainly showing us that you're capable of being a jackass.
I feel the love
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212306 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
But, stupid "not complimentary" is meaningless babble. There are obvious differences between any two people, even identical twins. That's not the issue. The issue is the 14th Amendment says all persons should get equal protection under the law. Even you.
Calling a perfectly clear and valid concept "meaningless babble" is....well... meaningless babble, meant to sidestep an obvious and glaring fact. The 14th Amendment was relevant to the rights listed in the Constitution, which does not define marriage. Also, the "protections" of which you glibly speak are simply to prevent the government from removing the basic rights that ARE listed (enumerated, for those wishing to sound high-falutin') in the Constitution. It simply leaves the decision about marriage laws up to the individual states. And, don't call yourself "stupid", I know who I am posting to.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212307 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, the sooner you folks start dying off from eating that crap, the better!
BTW, most people into "fudge packing" are straight.
Most people into "anything" are straight. Even the ones condemning SSM. Have you forgotten all that we have taught you?
Karma

Clearlake, CA

#212308 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject is gay marriage.
Admit you don't have an argument against it.
If you had a rational argument against it, you'd be able to finish this sentence and make a rational argument.
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because..."
Even if I were a hypocrite,
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because Rose is a hypocrite." would not be a rational argument.
Neither would ""Gay marriage should not be allowed because Frankie can't marry his sisters."
Thanks for the laugh.
Wait a minute...Frankie can't marry his sisters under your "new plan"?
Why not?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212309 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject is gay marriage.
Admit you don't have an argument against it.
If you had a rational argument against it, you'd be able to finish this sentence and make a rational argument.
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because..."
Even if I were a hypocrite,
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because Rose is a hypocrite." would not be a rational argument.
Neither would ""Gay marriage should not be allowed because Frankie can't marry his sisters."
Thanks for the laugh.
Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is not supposed to be used to avoid paying taxes and to gain benefits. It is not merelt a business arrangement. 2 of the same gender do not provide balance for any adopted children that may be added to lend validity to a defunct relationship that is, by definition, barren and sterile.

How's that?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212316 Aug 25, 2013
Karma wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute...Frankie can't marry his sisters under your "new plan"?
Why not?
Because, currently, incest is as illegal as SSM was, only a few years ago. But,(this is where it gets difficult to beat a sensible answer out of the SSM crowd) whereas the SSSB crowd got the laws changed, by saying that it was not the job of the government to decide who boffed whom, they now say that incest is illegal, and stop there, instead of continuing the argument that it is not the job of the government to decide who boffs whom. Aditionally, whereas it was said that the SSSB crowd was being told that they were a sterile coupling, they had the audacity to point out that procreation is not relevant to marriage, a little recognized argument (by them) now that they have the laws changed to suit ONLY them. They are now quite happy to use the "Procreation Argument" againt the incest group. And to point out that incest is illegal is all the reason that they have. If pressed, they, then, rely on the "Birth Defect Argument", which ties in most directly to the "Procreation Argument" that they found so inconvenient, only a few years ago. A fine example of the "Disposable Argument".
So, now you have the dizzying arguments that they use to decide who may boff whom. As long as one fits into the "Pre-Formed Mold" that they have decided is relevant.
Their argument is so dizzying, in fact, that I want to know who I may sue, for whiplash....

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#212321 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is not supposed to be used to avoid paying taxes and to gain benefits. It is not merelt a business arrangement. 2 of the same gender do not provide balance for any adopted children that may be added to lend validity to a defunct relationship that is, by definition, barren and sterile.
How's that?
It's pretty silly, of course, as you knew when you posted it.
Of course, there is no part of marriage law that prevents loveless marriage of convenience, and there are folks who enter in to those - I even know a couple of people who wasted their lives that way. Most people, gay and straight do not, and marry for attraction and love and to form supportive and healthy families.
Now as you know, procreation is not required to obtain a marriage license, and infertile folks and folks who don;t want to have kids legally marry every day, so that part of your post is downright silly.
But marriage IS indeed a good place to raise kids in, and the tens of thousands of kids raised by gay couples benefit in all the same ways as every other kid.
Does this make it a bit easier for you to comprehend?

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#212322 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
.. The 14th Amendment was relevant to the rights listed in the Constitution, which does not define marriage......
Like equal responsibility and protections under the law?

Why is marriage law excluded? Can you point out where that exclusion is mentioned in the document?

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 Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 13 hr scoop 2,273
david steidell (Aug '07) 18 hr huhwhathaha 13
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Thu zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Thu Pizza 16,000
HemetHEMET: Firefighters not giving up fight to... Thu West end Resident 2
ugly women with ugly tattoos!!!!! (Oct '12) Wed Bad teachers 90
Why is hemet racist ?!? Sep 17 Chris 26
•••

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 ]
•••