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
159,001 - 159,020 of 200,590 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182134 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it "gay sex" if lots of straight people do it, and most gay people don't? I believe it's called anal sex.
If you want the government to directly intervene and prevent all anal sex, then wouldn't that apply to straight folks as well? What kind of testing and regulation would you require the government to engage in to deny marriage license to any anal sex practitioners? Who would run it?
Who would pay for it?
And most importantly, who else but you would support it?
Here is the standard statement I make;

"Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning."

-Please, where have I limited the issue to one orientation?

-Where have I stated any position on a legal response?

I simply make a scientifically factual statement. You make a slimy, deceitful gay twirl slither because you have no logical defense of the truth I stated.

A legitimate cause does not need those tactics, does it?

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182135 Mar 1, 2013
sanford wrote:
D stands for DUMMY
Sanford as in Fred G.?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182136 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you left out the first logical step.
In reality, it's the current ability of heterosexuals to marry that is the leading cause for other groups to demand the right to legally marry. Same sex couples are only asking for the SAME right to marry just one person.
However, same sex couples wanting the SAME right to marry one that already exists for ever heterosexual in the country is not similar to straight people demanding the right to marry, not only ONE, but many at one time.
Separate issues. Separate effects on society.
Actually, when you consider the "government must stay out of our bedrooms" argument that the gays have poutingly used, your assertion falls into shadow...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182137 Mar 1, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you focus on this one aspect of human sexuality because you're a hopeless dullard. There is so much more to homosexuality and heterosexuality than the location of one's junk. Try growing up for a day or two.
Of course there is more than just the inherent harm, unhealthiness and degradation of anal sex. I summarize much of that diverse distinction in this;

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 an 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.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182138 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
But why do something that complex when few are even calling for it?
There arenít people out there getting signatures for propositions, except perhaps in your great state of marriage equality, Utah ( that is so funny, best laugh I have had on these forums yet, thanks )
Until there is actually a call for it, by people that are actually interested in investing their lives and donate for the cause as has happened with other such social change, nothing is going to happen.
so far all we have are fairly reclusive groups that donít even want government recognition, and a lunatic on an internet forum that has already admitted he is not personally interested in poly marriage at all.
Why would we change a plethora of civil laws, when no constituency is calling for it.
Oh, but there will be. You see, up until now, we all accepted sanity as our ruling philosophy. But now, in the "Times of Madness" in which we have found ourselves, we are redefining what "marriage" means. And there will be plenty enough to institute a change. Give it time.
Too complex ? When does complexity overrule doing the right thing ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182139 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have noted many times before is that you're a crazy as batshit idiot claiming to be a hermaphrodite who opposes gay marriage for what can only be seen as foggy and often elusive reasoning.
Next.
Really. You seem to be foggy and elusive in responding to the reasoning above...

Snicker.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182140 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws.
Can you give us the link to the law book that governs this arena ? Then we can defer to the law for an answer. Of course you can't, because it has not been enacted yet. We'll get back to you, why not go back to holding your breath until we do ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182141 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heterosexual men and women enjoy anal sex.
Lesbian sex is unhealthy? Heterosexual men and women enjoy oral sex.
Dude, for Pete's sake turn the lights on and remove all your clothes. There is OH so much more than the Missionary position .
Unbelievably idiotic.

So according to your reasoning, if heterosexuals do stupid things, that makes it okay for homosexuals too?

How old are you?

Smirk.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182142 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
Frankie Rizzo
Union City, CA
Reply Ľ
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#181334 55 min ago
Judged:
4
4
4
Why can't I marry my sister? After all, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? And modern science has debunked the old wives tales about how close relatives procreating causes medical problems.
Before you get stupid and even angrier, I don't want to marry more than one woman and I don't want to marry my sister, I just want to discuss all aspects of marriage equality. Why does that anger you so?
Here ya go Frankie
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws
Yes, please provide us with the link to the legal library that contains the laws and regulations on this matter, that we can refer to the articles that cover it...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182143 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the same dumb putdown and argument bigots use against same sex marriage. It's really dumb.
Why are you a dumb angry bigot?
It's because the gays, and their supporters, wish to engage in reverse-discrimination, to see it how it felt to be the superior ones. Not about equality, at all.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182144 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
You are a genetic defect. You call yourself a "monster mutation". You are an an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. Should you be allowed to marry?

And most people who have anal sex are straight. Should straight couples who have anal sex be allowed to marry?

Lesbians can't have it. Should female couples be allowed to marry?
KiMare wrote:
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
How is lesbian sex unhealthy? Don't they have the lowest STD rates? No unplanned pregnancies.

Aren't you the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form? LOL!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182145 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
So was sodomy illegal before it was decriminalized. Then it wasn't illegal anymore. Hope that helped to remove some of your vast stupidity, Man-breath. Thanks for the donation of your brain, to use in my "Stupid Robot" project, it is making for a startlingly stupid robot.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182146 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
Well, for one, Chongo did, when he/she/it tried to use Loving V Virginia to validate SSM, Loving V Virginia being about racial equality, not SSM.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182147 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Perhaps your continued and repeated use of anti-gay epithets throws your honesty into question.
Of course. We all know that "jack-ass" is a secret "anti-gay" epithet, just as all words are.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182148 Mar 1, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form? LOL!
I am in two ways!

Jealous?

Ho, Ho, Ho.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182149 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only because it is unrelated to gay people having the same ability to marry just ONE that straight folks already have, and because it is one of the prime straw men thrown around as a reason to prevent gay folks from marrying just that one.
Even polygamists can already marry that first spouse.
But only if that spouse is of the opposite gender.
You have no more right to decide my choices than I have to decide yours. Period.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182150 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo is a troll flying under false colors. He's really against gay marriage, and attacks anybody in the forum who is in favor of it. He floods the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy, acting as if he's making some kind of point. And he's so dumb, he thinks the term "red herring" means a fish.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182151 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be no reason to say "opposite sex marriage" or "same sex marriage" or "poly marriage". It's all just "marriage"
All marriages are worthy of the same respect and consideration.
The government should have no say in who you marry. If they want to offer special benefits to married people, they should respect equal protection.
Either they should stop all the goodies they give to married people, or stop choosing who gets them based on tradition or popularity of their marriages and give them to all marriages.
That is exactly right, and that is more than likely the real reason that they condemn polygamy, they are afraid that the government bennies will disappear. After all, they already had the right to shack up with each other, they just want to be able to march down to City Hall and demand money from Uncle Sam.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182152 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Go right ahead. Use your hypothetical as proof. We'll continue to laugh at your simple-mindedness. And when the feds do away with that silly law about free-speech, we'll get your ass thrown in jail. Try again, shit-for-brains.
I'm saving this post as proof of your abject stupidity.
YES! That's the answer! Wait, why use up all that government lolly ? To hell with the jails. Silence all the opposition! Death to all that stand in your way! Let the streets run with the blood of the infidels! Then, no one will be here to call a spade a spade. We can all live in fear of having any individuality. Excellent solutio......Wait a minute......Didn't Adolph try that one ? Oh yeah, it didn't work out so well, for them...It works better in here than in the REAL world. In here, you really can have the ideas banished, by the moderators.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182153 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Same sex marriage is a no brainer for conservatives. The government should have no business in dictating which gender you may marry. Hell Dick Cheney, one of the most hated conservatives by your types, has always supported SSM.
Don't forget Bill Clinton was a big champion of DOMA only 20 years ago. And Barak Obama was not "evolved" just 5 years ago.
Most of the conservatives not on board are against SSM due to their first amendment protected religious beliefs.
That's because they haven't been thrown in jail, yet...Give it some time. Orwell lives. Big Brother loves you, just ask Winston. He ended up loving Big Brother.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 11 min Frijoles 68,993
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 33 min Go aways 5,004
clint the flint 2 hr ubietron 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr lazy posts 15,963
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
First City Festival 2014 Brings Ugly Rock Metal... Thu JoeMama 2
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Thu Money 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 ]
•••