Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Read more: www.cnn.com 201,862

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.

Read more

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170894 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when one researches Loving V Va, one will discover that Loving V Va was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, and that is all there is to it. Mis-interpretaion notwithstanding...
Ugly, I said Loving v VA stated marriage is a right.
And it does.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170895 Dec 11, 2012
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>You be my biotch. Now go get me a beer, sugar nipples
Just for you creep-

http://www.rleeermey.com/sounds/dirtbag.wav

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170897 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there won't.
...To continue...
Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing.
Then why do childless couples get the benefits?
R Hudson wrote:
But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults. And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
That's because you are just a homophobe trying to make his bigotry seem noble.
R Hudson wrote:
Same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society, which is why we oppose it.
BS. You're just a homophobe. You haven't shown a single way gay marriage would harm society.
R Hudson wrote:
Let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do. Even Chongo.. But, the issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage? Private reasons for entering into marriage—or any other relationship for that matter—vary widely. But the public purpose has remained virtually unchanged throughout human history. Why is it that this unique relationship is called “marriage,” and nothing else is? It is because a union between a man and a woman has been humanly and historically universal. It is to bestow a singular place in society for a natural family. Conceiving, raising, and maintaining a family. Why is it that every society throughout human history has favored the relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another? In each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
R Hudson wrote:
Spare me your nonsense about morons, you shout that because that is an inconvenient truth that you cannot dodge. No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
Rose's Law...
R Hudson wrote:
Never, until the last few milliseconds of human history, has any society had homosexual marriage. What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution. Since we cannot possibly understand the scope and ramifications of this issue, might I suggest that same sex couples wishing for marriage move to some of the states that HAVE legalized it, and see how it works out, instead of attempting to force the issue into national legislation ?
Why? If the issue were raising children, they could do that without getting married. Just tell us how the children would benefit from the couple not being able to marry.
R Hudson wrote:
The results could be disastrous for this nation, and this nation is in dire straits, already...
Rose's Law...
You go on about children because you don't have an argument against gay marriage. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and they do. They do a fine job. And they can marry and not raise children. Gay marriage and gay couples raising children are separate issues.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170902 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
He's no brother to me. Why would I need support from a half-man that needs a union to speak for him ? FYI, I understood your sarcasm here, but do not feel that any return of fire is necessary...
Because you're a half man yourself.

Unfortunately even with you two combined you'd not make so much as one individual with major character flaws given you're both lost causes.

LOL!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170903 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you assert that both couples are capable of procreation ? Capable of identical results, on their own, with no outside interference ?
Here's what immediately strikes down your messed up thought process.

Not all heterosexual couples can have kids.

Should we then consider them unable to marry?

BAM!!!!

Just one shot and I shot down your plane. How does it feel to be the loser?

LOL!!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170904 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, sexual behavior is a completely different issue than race. The Loving couple was a heterosexual one. Why has the homosexual rights agenda co-opted and hijacked the civil rights agenda? Because they need to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood. The only way they can get mainstream America to overlook their basic flaws is to claim victim status. In modern America, the highest and grandest of all titles is that of "victim". Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. And, to be honest, people love others and commit to others all the time...we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
The 14th Amendment holds no sway a to what can be considered basic civil rights.
The right to marry an adult of one's choice appears to be all that.

You're a social fuckup friend. You actually think the nation should revolve itself around your "feelings" of other citizens. If that were the case me and your neighbors would have bought you a one way ticket to China some 21 years ago...LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170905 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170907 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality?
What does that even mean?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170908 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
BAM!!!!
LOL!!!!
KABOOOM!!!!
YUK!YUK!YUK!!!!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170909 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I am against you trying to get into the catfight, but to chide him for spelling, after the way you misuse simple words, like "site" (which should read "cite") and "peal"(which should read "peel") is adorable...He didn't actually call you a monkey (not that I am on his side, my scorn is Equal Opportunity).
Typos, that's all you have.
LOLSER.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170910 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, when one researches Loving V Va, one will discover that Loving V Va was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States, and that is all there is to it. Mis-interpretaion notwithstanding...
Install some seatbelts in your home furniture given with the advancement of gay marriage happening in each state you're up for a rocky ride.

LOL!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170912 Dec 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that even mean?
It means "Hudson" is baiting you given he did not arrive at a point on his post.

The guy is a loser bar none.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#170913 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment holds no sway a to what can be considered basic civil rights.
The right to marry an adult of one's choice appears to be all that.
You're a social fuckup friend. You actually think the nation should revolve itself around your "feelings" of other citizens. If that were the case me and your neighbors would have bought you a one way ticket to China some 21 years ago...LOL!!!
The 14th holds no sway? Oh no! I thought it held some sway.

He's wrong because he's a "social fuckup friend"?

Dan. What a dope!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170916 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...removed for space...
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, sexual behavior is a completely different issue than race.
I don't base my argument on sexual behavior, but on gender.
R Hudson wrote:
The Loving couple was a heterosexual one. Why has the homosexual rights agenda co-opted and hijacked the civil rights agenda?
Civil rights are civil rights.
R Hudson wrote:
Because they need to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood. The only way they can get mainstream America to overlook their basic flaws is to claim victim status. In modern America, the highest and grandest of all titles is that of "victim". Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry.
And? If those laws violate the Constitution, they should be changed. That's what happened with Loving V VA.
R Hudson wrote:
The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human.
In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. And, to be honest, people love others and commit to others all the time...we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
I never use "love" in my argument.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170917 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Because they are a universally recognized, legitimate couple.
2) You have that backwards. You are a transvestite, trying to make his flaws acceptable.
3) Yes, I have, you are just ignoring them.
4) We've covered your desire to control the children of others, before, why not tell lililth to step back from her kid ? You'd get cut, remember ?
5) Meaningless drivel, dodging a bullet.
6) Children never benefit from being raised in broken and dysfunctional families.
7) I go on about about the children, because they are being brushed aside by you, and your ilk.
1) So would it seem a same sexed couple be.

2) It's your opinion she's a transvestite. Some may consider that fat thing you married the same so keep that in mind.

3) No one is ignoring anything...what upsets you is not everyone agrees.

4) It's only natural to lay out concern for the little kiddies of the world. Unfortunately for you and your ilk you think it better for kids to grow up in most often abusive foster care than in a loving adoptive gay family.

5) Your opinion.

6) No...children don'[t benefit from broken families nor do they benefit being raised in foster care or as orphans when there are options you seem to ignore.

7) You don't give a rat's ass about the children for if you did you'd rather see them grow up in a loving family than to live as unwanted orphans or in foster carwe so please liar...STFU.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#170918 Dec 11, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
It means "Hudson" is baiting you given he did not arrive at a point on his post.
The guy is a loser bar none.
No kidding...
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170919 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
In your delusional state, you believe that to be evidence of equality ? You tell me about how that feels , to be a loser...
I've been there but it seems you've experienced it more recently than me...LOL!!!

So what else does not make heterosexual couples equal to same sexed couples?

Ya gotta think now....don't get an anuerysm.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170921 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the fuckup, and don't call me your friend. I am not. The nation is the master, not the servant. Shut the hell up. Stupid.
Err....we as a free peoples are supposed to determine the government.

Remember now....ever since breaking off of Mother England we no longer have a government as a "master".
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170922 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sh*t *p, st*pid.(God, even THAT gets censored)
Kleenex at Target will be on sale until 12/15/2012.

FYI
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#170923 Dec 11, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it isn't all that I have, it is one of many corrections that you are in need of, You attempted to look clever, 2 days ago, trying to find fault with my use of "obfuscation", when you misuse and misspell much simpler word than mine. And you whine when your flaws are pointed out. Cute.
No one needs to use cleverness in speaking truth.

Yet another fact the Confucious would no doubt agree upon.

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 10 min rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) 21 hr BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr 3 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr 2 svorpion 1,531
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar 24 mando 12
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Mar 20 Gary 16
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]