Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184208 Mar 23, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
So,I guess what you're saying is you'd be fine with a gay man marrying your daughter or a gay women marrying your son? LoL,
Orrrrrrrr....a gay man marrying a gay woman. See, legal gay marriage, valid in all fifty states.
Sorry but not the same! Not equality,don't be ridiculous! Bottom line,marriage equality is coming and you can't do anything to stop it,rightfully so!
Of course its the same silly. Man marries woman, and vice versa. Equality. Simple enough.
And it will do nothing to harm your marriage and it will do nothing to harm my marriage!
Ahhhhhhh....the ole "it will do nothing to harm your marriage....." argument. Of that's true, plural marriage would also not harm my marriage, so why not legalize that too?
And it will be of great benefit to the 10's of thousands of children being raised in same sex marriages and family's,Great isn't it!
It'd be greater if those "10's of thousands of children....." were being raised by their OWN married mother and father. Great isn't it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184210 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level.
Your position is a farce.
Smile.
You say, "Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

If that is true then:

"Infertile couples are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

"Elderly couples who are incapable of reproducing or have no desire to reproduce are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

"Any couple who is unwilling or unable to reproduce is a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

Maybe it's you have an epigenetic related inability to understand how children and marriage are not always tied to one another.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184211 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your argument? Another vulgar ad homoan attack?
VV, you are an embarrassment to humanity...
Sad.
You can't come up with an argument against what I say, so you accuse me of attacking you.

Girl, you'll know when I'm attacking you.

I'm still rubbing the sleep out of my eyes. Haven't even had a cup of coffee.

I'm hardly in attack mode.

You'll know I've attacked you when you have to go into therapy to deal with the PTSD you'll encounter from a REAL attack by me.

To put it another way, I don't attack you. I hold back. I hold WAY back.

Stop frettin' Miss Thing. You don't got nothin' to worry about from this old queen.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184212 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
This response is why I posted the original post. Youíre just too stupid to realize how transparent you are.
Tsk tsk....that's not very nice. Temper temper!
Is English your first language?
So signora.
BTW, I do know how a human life is created, but, reproduction does not equal superiority
Very good, I see your Dad had "the talk" with you. Reproduction does equal functional superiority.
. And a coupleís ability to reproduce or not reproduce has no bearing on a right to marry. Why would you think reproduction has anything to do with marriage rights?
Reproduction is the reason marriage exists in the first place. Sadly far too many people are reproducing outside of marriage.
Itís these types of bigoted viewpoints that are convincing more and more Americans to support Gay Marriage Equality.
You give far more emphasis on that motivation, than it merits, as to why "more and more Americans...support Gay marriage equality". It might just be indifference. It depends on who you ask, and what questions are asked. Besides, Americans as a whole aren't marrying at the sane rates as they did 30 years ago. If they were do u really think SSM would have any significant support?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184213 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Just goes to show that you don't vote with your dick...
It's complete and utter hogwash.
He, like anyone, can express an OPINION. But where are his numbers? Where are his statistics? Where is any study that would back up his claims?
The sounds of crickets chirping are overwhelming...
Here's a game we can play... For every queen you find who is firmly against same-sex marriage, I'll show you a heterosexual Christian who is in favor of it.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chick-fil-a
Two different points of views expressing different perspectives. The first piece addresses the negative effect SSM could have on marriage, as in husband and wife, and on society as a whole in that regard. The second addresses the issue of rights, prejudice, boycotts, etc.

The first author illustrated that not every gay person is marching lock step behind the rainbow flag, and can oppose SSM for the same reasons that straight people do, the negative effect it will have on marriage as a whole.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184214 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Just goes to show that you don't vote with your dick...
It's complete and utter hogwash.
He, like anyone, can express an OPINION. But where are his numbers? Where are his statistics? Where is any study that would back up his claims?
The sounds of crickets chirping are overwhelming...
Here's a game we can play... For every queen you find who is firmly against same-sex marriage, I'll show you a heterosexual Christian who is in favor of it.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chick-fil-a
Well, that's a slam-dunk victory, because there are a millioin-fold more Christians who support SSM than there are LGBT people who reject it.2904

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184215 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse. com/2013/03/9622/
Sweet Jesus, a Pea Tardy member explaining to us the difference between chess and checkers.

I'll bet he'd love your completely lame apples/oranges/nut analogy too.

Fools seldom differ.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184216 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Divorce maintains consent in marriage; if same sex marriage was licensed I believe the left would attack the consent standard next.
Same sex marriage could harm homosexuals with suits of alienation of affection. Imagine what would happen if every homosexual would become liable for financial damages after a casual tryst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_af...
Same sex marriage is bad because it harms gays.
Why do you feel a need to protect gays from something a "danger" that is available to all heterosexuals? Imagine what would happen if you expose all heterosexuals to the hazards of an alienation of affections suit? Oh wait, we're already exposed to it.

Oddly enough, until you mentioned it I'd not been aware of this scurge. I'll just have to assign it to the same heap of nothingness that the epidemic of forced same sex prison marriages in Canada you entertained us with in the recent past. Oh BTW, do you ever bother reading your own links? I found the second paragraph to be quite informative:

"Alienation of affections was first codified as a tort by the New York state legislature in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states, including New York.[1] Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah."

This is vintage law that fell out of favor in all but 6 states by 1935. So the only gays that need to worry about it are those living in those six states. I'm sure they shake in fear over the prospect.

"Divorce maintains consent in marriage..." Divorce mainains a casual approach to the notion of marriage. It deletes the bit about parting only in death from the vows. Abolishing divorce doesn't abolish consent in marriage, it might make people take it a little more seriously. Not that I'm advocating doing away with divorce by any means. I'm all for the availability of divorce. I wouldn't be married to my wife without her being divorced from a p previous marriage.

I would like to hear you expand on your fear that liberals would attack "consent standard next." However, I'm almost certain you won't provide a supporting argument for the notion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184217 Mar 23, 2013
"Oh wait, we're already exposed to it."

Should be "Oh wait, we're already exposed to it in the six states that haven't done away with it."
TEAPARTY KNOWS

Sonoma, CA

#184218 Mar 23, 2013
We wanmt you to know that Bachman showed that the wife owns all the factories where this is being done. DO NOT REPORT nothing as that just makes them mad. We nee our bags and our cigarettes and GUNS and want her to stop gays from theses here entittlements and having abortions in our schools where god should be instead of stupid stuff nobody understand and they get mad when you dont get it right again so what. Vote NO NO NO on everything and stop the great satans medicare and social security chex to freeks and stop unions as they dont get it right and only demand more wages which pistes off the bosses and makes them mad and no picnic this year. Vote NO NO NO until 2016 when we are in the WHITE HOUse. Get back to basisc. GOD is my

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184219 Mar 23, 2013
xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Your position is a lie.
And your basis is your opinion?

Fail.

It only bothers you so much because you have no defense of simple unadulterated truth.

Smile.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184220 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And your basis is your opinion?
Fail.
It only bothers you so much because you have no defense of simple unadulterated truth.
Smile.
Spoken by someone whose marriage is so fragile that they are afraid it will be damaged by someone else being able to marry.

I really pity you people

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184221 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
the only math that adds up is that marriage is between two people who love each other.
and next let's battle for 3 people that love each other! Go andy.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184222 Mar 23, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Why stop there? Perhaps we're living in an ant farm as entertainment for our "god" who lives in a bigger ant farm as entertainment for a bigger "god" who lives in an ant farm as entertainment for an even bigger "god"....
Perhaps, but isn't it interesting to contemplate the possibilities?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184223 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
so i take it you still dont have a decent arguement why people shouldnt have all the rights you do??
So I take it you still don't have anything interesting to say?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184224 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
you are clearly on the wrong side of history, as most young people(like myself) veiw this as a civil rights issue, not a moral one, as you do.
I doubt that history will judge him as the person who was "in the wrong." That would apply for World leaders not normal citizens. I didn't vote for the great Oblama, am I on the wrong side of history? Most likely I won't care if a history book writes that I didn't vote for him. Is Obama on the wrong side of history about fast and furious or Benghazi? Or his drone attacks on American citizens?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184225 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
YES? So you claim that the provision set forth by Article II sec 1 of the constitution preventing a naturalized citizen from becoming President is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment? You really are an idiot.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184226 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And your basis is your opinion?
Fail.
It only bothers you so much because you have no defense of simple unadulterated truth.
Smile.
Isn't it odd, Kuntmary, that everyone's opinions are lies, but your opinions are fact?

That's incredible. I thank the baby Jesus for your wisdom every day.
Jeff Kugel

La Puente, CA

#184227 Mar 23, 2013
I like mine just fine, the former wife didn't.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184228 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You say, "Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."
If that is true then:
"Infertile couples are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."
"Elderly couples who are incapable of reproducing or have no desire to reproduce are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."
"Any couple who is unwilling or unable to reproduce is a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."
Maybe it's you have an epigenetic related inability to understand how children and marriage are not always tied to one another.
Well VV, at least you shifted from your ad homoan attacks back to silly stupid logic.

You attempt to equate a direct, absolute desolate sterility to those rare heterosexual genetic or accidental exceptions.

Or even sillier, the consequence of age! I suppose you expect married couples to get divorced when they can no longer procreate too?

But the stupidest 'reasoning' is a couple who is fully capable of mutual procreation, choosing not to (for the time being, an option that usually changes) with a ss couple who is absolutely mutually desolate.

By your reasoning, any relationship qualifies for marriage. Moreover, marriage is so dumbed down, we might as well eliminate the term as meaningless.

The bottom line is that my analogy already exposed the silliness of your claim.

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;

An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smirk.

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.

Modesto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bodies found in burned car (Sep '11) 4 hr Ugiftedgirl 36
1980's Restaurant; Rax or Arbies? (Jul '06) Sun xsturgeonx 3
Hearing aids (Dec '13) Nov 13 Felicity 3
Turlock candidate has long history in Stanislau... (Oct '06) Nov 7 Joe 6
Walmart in Oakdale? (Aug '07) Nov 2 Riverbank resident 13
Any Milfs In The Modesto-Merced Area? (May '13) Nov 1 missymarie 9
1 1 marriage (Mar '13) Oct 31 nik_James 2
Modesto Dating
Find my Match

Modesto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Modesto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Modesto

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:58 pm PST