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
144,441 - 144,460 of 200,361 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago
Parkerfu

Shingle Springs, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163859
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Way to go!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163860
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?
Writing your memoirs?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163864
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...since you asked...
The question was: Does not society have a right to set certain standards, by which we all live ?
Not if those rules violate the basic equal rights of individuals.
R Hudson wrote:
Same-sex marriage proposes the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage.
Hallmark crap. Marriage is a legal contract. Marriage is a right.
R Hudson wrote:
It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.
Another is that it always denies a child either a father or a mother. It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Gay couples can raise children without getting married.
R Hudson wrote:
Another is that, in the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
What a bunch of BS.
R Hudson wrote:
The whole purpose of same-sex marriage , objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
Again, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children,
Rose's Law...
R Hudson wrote:
and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? It is already being promoted as the next barrier to be bridged. Where does it end ?
Hope that answered your questions.......Because I cannot state it any more clearly than that. "Whew"
LOL. Slippery slope fallacy.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163866
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
The one where you claimed to be educated.
LOL. If you only knew...
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163868
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
We know you don't like facts.
No problem with facts. But you are just nit-picking, arguing semantics, and playing word games.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163871
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
I pass gas that is better educated than you are.
We do know, you childish posts speak for themselves. But keep at it Rose, you will get that GED, I have faith in you.

And we know, when you pass gas it most certainly is the smartest thing in the room.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163872
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So you produce ad hominem as a defense against the refutation of your claim ? That rape does not occur in nature ? I see you are again sidestepping, as you do so often, instead of admitting that you were erred. But think no more about it, it would only place you into an unrecoverable loop.
Your kitty porn site doesn't prove that animals have the concepts of consent and rape.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163873
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem with facts. But you are just nit-picking, arguing semantics, and playing word games.
Pointing out something that was presented as Quote in fact wasn't, is not nit-picking, it is fact checking.

But most of the time you don't know fact from fantasy, so I understand why this concept is foreign to you.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163874
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Kindly attempt to divert your limited attention to post #163847..If any of the bigger words confuse you, I will draw pictures....
I ripped that to shreds. You didn't make a single rational argument against gay marriage.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163875
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Pointing out something that was presented as Quote in fact wasn't, is not nit-picking, it is fact checking.
It's nit picking, just arguing semantics.
You do that because you don't have real arguments.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163877
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nit picking, just arguing semantics.
You do that because you don't have real arguments.
Kind of like your nonsense about quoting the Declaration of Independence is presenting a "religious" argument.

You really are an idiot Rose.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163878
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I ripped that to shreds. You didn't make a single rational argument against gay marriage.
The only thing you "rip to shreds" is common sense.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163879
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, Mike, give a guy a minute to get home and read his posts after 14 hours+ on the road....
She wouldn't do me anyway. Says I have gas. But it's not me, it's wafting over from Rose_NoHo's place. It's smart gas though.
milhouse

Irvine, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163883
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
She wouldn't do me anyway. Says I'm too much of a queen because of the pink pleated skirt I like to wear and my silver colored lip gloss. That's how I roll.
So, you aren't the "masculine" leather kind of homosexual? You "swish" fem queero-sexuals are the worst kind of gay. Even the lesbians are higher up on the pecking order over types like you.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163886
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I ripped that to shreds. You didn't make a single rational argument against gay marriage.
Danth's Law.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163888
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

milhouse wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you aren't the "masculine" leather kind of homosexual? You "swish" fem queero-sexuals are the worst kind of gay. Even the lesbians are higher up on the pecking order over types like you.
Nope. Not homosexual at all. Are you?

What kinds are there? You're the expert.

What a dope.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163890
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
Rights, as defined by..........who ? You ?
The Constitution and the Courts. Didn't you pay attention in 8th grade Civics?
R Hudson wrote:
Marriage is an institution.
It's also a civil right, or haven't you been paying attention now too?
R Hudson wrote:
Procreation is traditionally the endgame of marriage.
And yet throughout all of recorded history there have been marriages which going in are never ever going to be a part of that tradition. If you are talking Christian tradition, you also didn't bother to pay attention in History, either. Marriage wasn't a requirement of the faith until the Middle Ages, you got a blessing for your betrothal, which gave you the go ahead to consummate to your heart's content, marriage was left to local law and custom. The Church did offer an optional blessing in the way of religious ceremony, but for the common folk, not only did you have to pay for it, you had to walk in with live proof that your betrothal had been consummated. The Catholic Church coming out with the requirement that the faithful be married in the Church was one of the catalysts for the Reformation, with Luther, Calvin and others opposed to the Church interfering in that way.

Let me break it down for you hon. We the people have a right to be married in the eyes of the law and according to the common law on that subject, it is a right which can only be denied to we the people, when a compelling interest of the state is served in doing so. Your hang ups about having to share the title of marriage under the CIVIL LAW are of no interest to the state whatsoever. In the case of those who wish to marry someone who is legally eligible to marry, but not legally approved to marry, because they are not of the "right" sex, there is no interest of the state, compelling or otherwise, being served in their denying we the people, our right. In real terms this means, California's amendment is toast, probably without so much as a hearing, the Court will likely announce this shortly after the election when they are going to finally have a case they can kill DOMA with, on election day, marriage equality is likely to be approved by the voters in three states and a constitutional amendment killed in a fourth and all before Christmas.

Thanks for playing, but we've already gotten past you.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163891
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Be fine if she looked like her picture. But it's probably some fat old pervert dude in pink bra and panties. Maybe Rose_NoHo. Yecch.
Fantasize much?
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163892
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simply incapable of comprehending rationality. Leave it to the grown-ups.
Close the dictionary, Rock. No cheating.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163893
Oct 18, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

4

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice one, Mike, Nice.
Danth's Law (also known as Parker's Law) states:
“If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.”
It was formulated on the popular Roleplaying Game forum, RPG.net and named after the now-banned user who inspired it. As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say. In this case, declaring victory and moving on may be legitimate and excusable.
Unfortunately, the majority of the time, declaring victory is just spin: a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course). Sometimes, the individuals declaring victory may well be convinced that they're right; often they'll have gone into the discussion knowing that they're right and with no possible option that they might be wrong. When combined with the ability to expel someone from the discussion, Danth's Law takes on a more sinister tone - indicating that a group or individual can only defend themselves on their own terms, through the medium of extreme deceit.
More specifically, the person declaring themselves victorious against strong opposition generally cites the quantity of opposition as why they won and no longer have to argue to prove their point - after all, if they weren't so right, why would people be so desperate in refuting them with post after post? This may consist of complaining about the opponent's 'way' of arguing, or just the amount of arguing, number of points brought up, or number of people arguing against them as evidence of their victory, as nonsensical and contradictory as that assertion logically is.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth%27s_Law
This explains ross-no-hope/a.k.a. Chongo perfectly....
It should be renamed Rose_NoHo's Law.

It's the real "Rose's Law". Forget that dopey one about morons and children she thinks is even smarter than her stinky farts.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

6 Users are viewing the Monterey Forum right now

Search the Monterey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL COOL DUDE 68,440
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 4 hr Commander Bunny 4,897
Seaside In-N-Out should be ready by summer '15 18 hr Watchdog 2
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 28 snodder 2,252
Tim Grobaty: Rock acts once reigned at old Mari... (Jun '10) Jul 27 harry king 4
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Jul 27 Twilight sun 7,848
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 27 Facts facts 15,927
•••
•••
•••
Monterey Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••