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
144,601 - 144,620 of 200,554 Comments Last updated 46 min ago

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164088
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>You really are dumb. First that is not true. The studies noted if the straight men had engage in anal sex, as in tried. That does not make mention of regularity. Studies showed that only 2% of straight men and women used anal sex as a primary sex method. Only 2% of the men engage in oral anal sex.
Compare:
91% of gay men engaged in regular anal penile sex.
99% of gay men engaged in regular anal oral sex.
In other words, not only do gay men have a life time "back stage pass", they have an oral fixation on it. Lunch.
I have a feeling you don't know what the meaning of the word "most" is. What percentage of the population is gay?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164089
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So the "creator" just popped of thin air.
<quoted text>
We don't have a creator. The SCOTUS can determine law, but not reality.
<quoted text>
I'm making fun of your making an issue of the use of the word "quote" WRT to something John Adams said, or was it something he wrote, or something....
Were you toilet trained at gun point?
And before you ask...
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Toilet_Trained-A...
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
"LOL. If you only knew... "

Narcissist speak for "I don't have sh!t".

Funny!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164090
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
Pure Bollocks !!! Absolute Fabrication !!! I damn near posted a thesis about the effects on the subsequently adopted children !!! Is this dismissal of evidence, or simply not grasping anything that displeases you and upsets your "righteous" stance ?
My arguments have contained absolutely nothing even remotely resembling religion. Complete Balderdash from you.
Sorry for typo's, this is the intended post.
Removal and correction of your typographical errors aside, this is still a lousy example of a sensible post. I would venture to guess your 'thesis' on the effects (of gay marriage??) on "...the subsequently adopted children," would have been roundly ridiculed by any professor of sociology, psychology, or cultural studies, requiring a thesis of any description.

Dude - the predominant effects on children adopted by (or born to) a loving gay couple, are usually that they have loving parents; and all that circumstance entails. Just like any other kid raised by loving parents. And in fact, these kids have two parent families far more frequently than children born to, or adopted by, heteros do. Look at the records of any state facility for orphaned or abandoned children, to see this for yourself...

Facts matter.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164091
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.
You homophobes tend to be so paranoid it's funny. Wow, you even see some "gay agenda" in our utility bills!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164092
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed my point. I was saying that the only arguments that anyone has been able to come up with are based on religion. Without using false translations of the Bible, the anti-SSM crowd looses any semblance of validity.
And of course, the religious argument fails since the rules of one person's religion have NO bearing on the behavior of people who believe differently.
Beyond that, it simply comes down to the application of the 14th amendment. ALL citizens, INCLUDING unpopular minorities, are entitled to equal protection under the law. Discrimination against a minority requires a compelling state interest, but there is no compelling state interest in denying gays their right to marry.
This would hold true even if sexual orientation were merely a matter of choice, but the current scientific evidence shows that there is a genetic or epigenetic nature to orientation. Thus, the situation is completely analogous to allowing different races to marry, which the courts have already declared a basic right.
Some people vainly attempt to claim that the lack of children (without artificial aid) inhibits the right of gays to marry, yet there is no fertility test for heterosexual couple prior to marriage, not even a question of intent to have children is required. Thus, the lack of intrinsic childbearing capability cannot be viewed as a valid argument against SSM.
There should be a "slam dunk" judge it icon.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164094
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be a "slam dunk" judge it icon.
How about a skanky trampy tranny ho judge it??

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164096
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Ronald wrote:
As regular readers of this thread know, my love for my Homosexual friends, the lesbians, and yes, even the Africans,
Why are fundies such racists? Don't you believe Jesus thought enough of black people to die for us?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164097
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, my dear chap, it was a description of ross-no-hopes tactics...
I am sorry that you chose to misinterpret it, and skew it , in order to try to seem clever.
Even Winston secretly knows Rose_NoHo's favorite tactic is a textbook example of Danth's Law. I think. Or maybe not. He's such a dope.

Funny Stuff!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164098
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be a "slam dunk" judge it icon.
Oh yeah! There should be.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164099
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a feeling you don't know what the meaning of the word "most" is. What percentage of the population is gay?
The Bill Clinton strategy!

TOO Funny.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164100
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are fundies such racists? Don't you believe Jesus thought enough of black people to die for us?
Why are you a fundiephobe?

What about the children?

Why are you so stupid?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164102
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you missed my point. I was saying that the only arguments that anyone has been able to come up with are based on religion. Without using false translations of the Bible, the anti-SSM crowd looses any semblance of validity..
You exclude the argument of State Rights, as well as the right of the people to regulate their society.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164103
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it does NOT change voting from a right to a privilege. It merely indicates that prior to that time, women were categorically DENIED their right to vote, for no valid reason beyond the mere fact that they were of a different gender than the Founding Fathers. Hey, the Founding Fathers were good. Considering that they had to invent all of this from scratch, they were incredibly good. But they still suffered from the prejudidices of their time.
No, it most certainly shows that it is a privilege. Doesn't matter how you try to twist it.
Edgar

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164104
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, for a split second there, it began to look like you were catching on ....
I'm not in a habit of "catching on" to dysfunctional, bigoted, narrow-minded, self-contradicting mentalities.

What you are proposing is either a bubble of cluelessness or the muting of gay people trying to gain rights vocally.

No matter which of the two is what your point resembles, there's no way you'll ever see me "catch on" to it.

(By the way, quite frankly, if you're afraid about homosexual talk infecting minors...walk a day in my shoes. Public school students, at least in my neck of the woods, are the most flaming homophobes you'll ever meet. "Gay" is a synonym for "Dumb" or "Dull" at our schools. I deal with closed-minded people like you every goddamn day.)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164105
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike the Founding Fathers, we now have science that shows that a creator is not necessary for our existence...
No, the Big Bang theory and evolution do not, in and of themselves, "prove" that there is no creator (science can not do that!), but they work quite well to explain existence without invoking supernatural actions.
You miss the point. While the founders most certainly felt there was a "creator" in the fashion of a supreme being, the fact that science has lead away from that does not change the purpose and signifigance of the statement.

Creator does not have to be relegated to a "religion" in the context of this argument, it simply holds to the premise that we all have "right's" which are inherant in us simply by birth, they are not given nor can the be taken and the only purpose of government is to protect them.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164106
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Says the guy who thinks the Constitution doesn't Enumerate Rights.
The guy who, in his latest escalation of insanity, claims that the Right to vote doesn't exist...
Never mind the TEXT of the 19th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION....
It's hard to fathom someone SO stupid being SUCH an an arrogant asshole, thinking they are smart, but here you are.
Aren't you tired of having your a$$ handed to you yet?
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164107
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are fundies such racists? Don't you believe Jesus thought enough of black people to die for us?
Rose_NoHo.

"Racist"? What do you mean by "racist"? I have never heard of any "fundies" (as normalphobes pejoratively call them) contend that the Homosexuals and the lesbians are any better than Africans.

Ronald

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164108
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So the "creator" just popped of thin air.
<quoted text>
We don't have a creator. The SCOTUS can determine law, but not reality.
<quoted text>
I'm making fun of your making an issue of the use of the word "quote" WRT to something John Adams said, or was it something he wrote, or something....
Were you toilet trained at gun point?
And before you ask...
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Toilet_Trained-A...
<quoted text>
LOL. If you only knew...
You really aren't very bright are you? Do you need instruction on how to sign your welfare check?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164110
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice critique, but the fact remains that you have focused on nothing except that facile view that you wish us to focus on, thus ignoring the more complete description that I have previously stated. 2 men or 2 women cannot possibly substitute for the complete upbringing provided by a balanced and natural biological set of parents. These children would be denied the access to one or the other parent, and the result is that these children will be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with them. They will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests. Period.
Yours is a tired and fatuous argument, given that what children learn from loving parents is universal - love, patience, selflessness, joy, persistence, limits, loyalty, honesty, compassion, empathy, generosity, consistency, and hope. Teaching these things is a loving parent's job, and a loving set of parents does this job, regardless of their genders. Why don't you know this?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#164112
Oct 19, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You miss the point. While the founders most certainly felt there was a "creator" in the fashion of a supreme being, the fact that science has lead away from that does not change the purpose and signifigance of the statement.
Creator does not have to be relegated to a "religion" in the context of this argument, it simply holds to the premise that we all have "right's" which are inherant in us simply by birth, they are not given nor can the be taken and the only purpose of government is to protect them.
If they are endowed, or 'given', akpilot, they do not need our flimsy mortal protection - we simply have them forever and always. Since they are impossible to lose, by your reckoning, it logically follows that Government is here to recognize and facilitate them, not 'protect' them, and therein lies a fallacy of today's politics. Inalienable endowed rights, cannot disappear - they can only fail to be recognized by one's government.

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.

Other Recent Monterey Discussions

Search the Monterey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 44 min facts faced 15,929
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) 2 hr whatisyourneed 1,512
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr JOEL 68,833
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon Mudflys to 7,901
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Mon Green Soilent 4,975
No Kids Allowed: Babies Effectively Banned at C... Sun g 2
Hotel room tax hike up to Capitola voters Aug 13 Donny B 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••