Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 9,210)

Showing posts 184,181 - 184,200 of200,217
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212300
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212301
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212303
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212304
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212305
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212306
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212307
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

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

Kelseyville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212308
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212309
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212316
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

11

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212321
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

9

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?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212322
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212324
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people into "anything" are straight. Even the ones condemning SSM........
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.

Geesh.

However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212326
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.
Geesh.
However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
Why do you want to deny people who are not law-abiding Americans?
Quirks

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212329
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quirks are better suited to be doing this?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212330
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
1) Like equal responsibility and protections under the law?
Why is marriage law excluded?
I don't know why that is so.
2) Can you point out where that exclusion is mentioned in the document?
Silly question, pointing to where an exclusion is mentioned. But, in an effort to help you out, I'll say that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention marriage (or an airforce, CIA, or a Department of Education). It has left the question of the laws up to the states through this omission.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212331
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.
Geesh.
However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
But, I was answering Rose's claim about fudge-packing. And, I wish to point out that, although there may be a larger number of straights involved in the act, this is not the same thing as the question of percentage. Much to the dismay of Chongo, who wishes to imply that everyone engages in this aberrant behavior.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212332
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No need, you keep proving it over and over. Besides, all they have to do is read back a couple pages and see for themselves.
However, the bottom line is this; Big changes are coming. Science is quickly dealing with sexual disorders. Transgendered can be fixed. Now they may be able to address homosexuality and bi-sexuality before birth with epi-genetics. In a decade, this could all have been a pointless exercise of futility.
Either way, it will be futile.
I think what you'll find in the next decade or so will be a diagnosis for bigots and homophobes. I mean think about it... A person who tries to make other people's sexual attraction their business. That has pathology written all over it.

I'm not sure what they'll call it--maybe something like "naziosis". Or perhaps they'll name if after you.

Fingers crossed!

The THEORY of epigenetics will likely not come to pass. One of the links you provided to the epigenetics THEORY indicated that determining it to be a fact will be near impossible. And even if they do determine that epigenetics play a role in orientation, there is no indication that there SHOULD be a "cure" or WILL be a "cure" as a result.

I think your epigenetics THEORY will turn around and bite people like you on the ass. Homosexuality will be seen as normal--a naturally occurring event that epigenetics explains.

You know nothing about homosexuality, with the exception of men's asses. And you certainly have shown yourself to know nothing about gender identity.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212333
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a choice, not a regulation
The Volcano, or the "Big D" action figure?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#212334
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.
Geesh.
However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
But that's just the point Questy, you ALREADY ARE. The same that cover all other law abiding Americans.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 184,181 - 184,200 of200,217
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

13 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 11 min The right is wrong 2,225
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 30 min Ronald 4,854
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 2 hr RiccardoFire 7,816
Do you approve of Jerry Franchville as Mayor? (Apr '12) 7 hr Becki Fire 5
Why is hemet racist ?!? 7 hr Becki Fire 26
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 23 hr This topics peaked 15,911
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) Fri Vicky 473
•••
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
Hemet Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••