Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,801

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

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#178604 Feb 6, 2013
is*

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178605 Feb 6, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?
<quoted text>
The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.
1. Depends. Doesn't change the constraint.

2. Where did I say that?

3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Lessons...

4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

Smile.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178606 Feb 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy
by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012
Print PDF
[media-credit id=96 align="alignright" width="234"]
I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?
A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.
Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.
When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?
However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.
The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.
“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.
Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.
The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.
The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.
This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.
So what?
CurlingIron

Monrovia, CA

#178607 Feb 6, 2013
It's really hard to believe the iron is really turned on?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#178608 Feb 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
Smile.
This is really awkward, because you have yet to prove that this it's anything other than opinion.
I'm so embarrassed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178610 Feb 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
lets see
-I don't care.... true
-Polygamists are bad people.... not all, but far too many are.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.... true
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.... very very true
Right. Those are you arguments against polygamy. They're stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178611 Feb 6, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
Chicken butt!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178612 Feb 6, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>

... hmmmm... missed that one at university....
I bet you missed a lot more than that before you dropped out!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178613 Feb 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Depends. Doesn't change the constraint.
...
Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...2. Where did I say that?
...
Say what exactly?
KiMare wrote:
Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
...
"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Smile.
Thank you, smiles back to you.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178614 Feb 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Chicken butt!
So what? chicken butt!...

You're a poet? and you know it!

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178615 Feb 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you missed a lot more than that before you dropped out!
YUK!YUK!YUK!
You gambler types will bet on anything. Stop before the money is gone... there is hope.

http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178616 Feb 6, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
You gambler types will bet on anything. Stop before the money is gone... there is hope.
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/
There's hope for you drunks too!

http://www.aa.org/...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178617 Feb 6, 2013
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.
<quoted text>
Say what exactly?
<quoted text>
Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.
<quoted text>
"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.
<quoted text>
Thank you, smiles back to you.
1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.

The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games.

2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?

3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.

4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

This is simple logic. Perhaps you might try a direct response to the fact; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

By the way, here is some of the other elements of marriage distinguished from gay couples;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#178618 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's plenty of evidence of same sex marriage affecting our prisons:
In the rest of North America, even prison systems are beginning to recognize and accommodate gay marriages. Canada allows same-sex prisoners to wed while still incarcerated. Last October, two male inmates of a federal penitentiary in Quebec province married in the prison chapel. It was the third gay marriage to be performed in a federal prison in Canada since gay marriage was recognized on the national level in July 2005.15 Canada permits “private family visits” for a broad range of relatives including same-sex couples, but the visitor cannot be another prisoner.16 In Mexico, the National Human Rights Commission ruled in February 2007 that conjugal visits must be allowed to same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as are extended to straight couples, and Mexico City’s jail had its first same-sex partner conjugal visit the following July.17
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticl...
If you believe penitentiaries should be places for penitence instead of honeymoon romps and forced same sex marriage.
But stupid, your claim was that there would be FORCED gay marriages in prisons.
There is nothing wrong with gay prisoners being able to marry and visit their significant others just like straight people can.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#178619 Feb 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why those closest to you ignore you;
On what basis is that the litmus test?
To equate gay couples to marriage, the first test is, "are they the same"?
Sorry stupid, that's a non issue. Marriage is a legal contract, and no two marriages are the same. But people should have equal rights when it comes to marriage.

KiMare wrote:
<
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a defective blunder of evolution.(snip)
A mutant monster like you should be calling anybody else a defective blunder of evolution. Should you have been aborted? You call yourself the mutant monster.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#178620 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>While I don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, I agree with the view of same sex marriage. It's not constitutional, it was imposed on the US by a court so it's also undemocratic. Many gay and lesbian activists are on our side and prefer referendum and legislation to the left's imperialistic secularism.
Morality makes a great personal value, but we need to discuss these issues in public. I oppose shutting down civil discourse.
You are so dumb, you think legalizing gay marriage will lead to members of professional sports teams being forced to marry each other! Will they have to be members of the same team? Just curious.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#178621 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The statement above is untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never discussed sin or written homosexuality is sick, those are Jazybird58'S words, not mine.
Many homosexuals believe in protecting male/female marriage too. Conservatism doesn't have a sexual orientation.
The fact you feel gay marriage harms straight marriage shows you have ill feelings towards gay people.
So, when are members of pro sports teams going to be forced to marry each other?

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178622 Feb 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.
The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games....
By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?
...
Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.
....
Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
This is simple logic.....
I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Smile.
Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:
Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)
Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with mar
riage (or sex)
Human rights are innate, not granted
Equate… diversity … redundancy.. what???
Surely, sacred religions aren’t afraid of the doing of you or I…
Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!
Things don’t get better without change
Laws do change this – for instance the marriage tax credit
WTF is duplicating sexuality
So children of single parents are also condemned? Really?
WTF is design of sexual union
Evolution has no laws. Not one... none at all…
Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: it’s not SSM)
Reproduction doesn’t require marriage; and marriage does not imply kids
Dilute.. the..what, huh?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#178623 Feb 6, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares whether its the polices job idiot? And moron, grasp this, the police system will make regulations with FORCED marriages, with a verifiable reason in order to prevent prison rape, like they are supposed to, dimwit!
Are you drunk, high, or just plain stupid? The "police system" will make regulations with forced marriages?..with a varifiable reason in order to prevent prison rape?

Can you point out where they've done this in Canada?

The more you post the more I am astounded by the magnitude of your idiocy.
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Because if gay marriage does not exist officially, then cell mates won't be married to each other for prison regulations. Most prison rapes are done to men, by men, stupid. If gay marriage does exist, they will be able to put in that regulation, moron.
Can you explain to the rest of the forum why your posts read like they were composed by a ten year old?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#178624 Feb 6, 2013
Kimare, you have yet to back up a previous statement, so I'll ask again:

In which culture/s was SSM legally recognized previously? Still waiting for your answer.

Just pull down your drawers and talk to the mangina. Don't keep you internal lesbian waiting.

Crickets. Chirp. Chirp.

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) 2 hr rabbee yehoshooah... 71,707
where can I find heroin in monterey? Mar 27 Rosiedosie 7
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
Review: Salazar Auto Repair (Sep '13) Mar 10 fed up 3
News Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa at his sentencing this m... (Dec '11) Mar 5 Carlos Slim 14
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Mar 3 Joe Balls 1,530
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]