Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,186

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.

Full Story
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182367 Mar 2, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Whats up my biotch
Why don't you ask her, instead of hanging out on the gay threads?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#182368 Mar 2, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL!!!
I was going to answer but realized you're bath-shit crazy to begin with.
Ever figure out who you were yet?
What stupid post.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182371 Mar 2, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL!!!
I was going to answer but realized you're bath-shit crazy to begin with.
Ever figure out who you were yet?
I know exactly who I am.

And you are a sissy coward.

Everyone knows it now.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182373 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing but ad homoan gay twirl troll attacks. Not one single rational response.
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.
Smile.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a bit touched if you think intercourse is at the heart of every union. Or perhaps you're just shallow. Yeah, that seems to be the case. But you could be a bit touched as well. That sure appears to be so.
You've not provided anything rational to respond to rationally. You may want to try getting over yourself someday. It'll make you more apt to be able to engage in a meaningful conversation.
I really have no experience with anal sex, so I tend to not harp on about it. The notion is unappealing to me. You, OTOH, seem obsessed with it to the point I'm convinced your head is deep inside your own anal orifice.
Oh, BTW, no couple tries to duplicate evolution. That really sounds dumb. Like a lot of your commentary.
Since you think anal intercourse is a reflection of a genetic defect, do straight couples who practice anal sex get to claim that defect too?
What is it about lesbian sex that you find demeaning? Really? Oral sex? Let me guess, you only have sex for procreation in the missionary position while fully clad in your K Mart sourced PJs.
Out of touch?

I have a letter certifying that I am sane and perfectly able to live on my own. Signed by three professional psychologists.

You are afraid to ask your family and friends if they think you are sane.

As to intercourse being at the heart, you deny the primary focus of mating behavior? Or that in marriage, the culmination of union is being one in body, mind and spirit? And you call me 'out of touch'?

Then you top your stupidity off by talking about rationality???

You admit your ignorance about anal sex, and then deny the violation of design. You don't even need a brain to see mistaking a septic system for a playground, all you need is eyes!!!

Heterosexuals have an alternative. They simply expose themselves as idiots when they violate each other anally. Gays don't have that alternative to exist in their orientation, do they.

As to lesbians, while not harmful, oral sex is unhealthy, unless you view urine as lemonade and shit as chocolate pudding.

You simply express the silliness of pretending ad homoan attacks are reason. A near senile old man just kicked your ass with common sense, and you still have no straight answer (pun intended).

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#182374 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nothing but ad homoan gay twirl troll attacks. Not one single rational response.
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.
LOL! Look at what is talking about a genetic defect.
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.
Smile.
Look at what is talking about a 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form!
Do you think you should have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
Out of touch?
I have a letter certifying that I am sane and perfectly able to live on my own. Signed by three professional psychologists.
You are afraid to ask your family and friends if they think you are sane.
As to intercourse being at the heart, you deny the primary focus of mating behavior? Or that in marriage, the culmination of union is being one in body, mind and spirit? And you call me 'out of touch'?
Then you top your stupidity off by talking about rationality???
You admit your ignorance about anal sex, and then deny the violation of design.
You mean like having two sets of DNA?
LOL!
KiMare wrote:
You don't even need a brain to see mistaking a septic system for a playground, all you need is eyes!!!
Heterosexuals have an alternative. They simply expose themselves as idiots when they violate each other anally. Gays don't have that alternative to exist in their orientation, do they.
As to lesbians, while not harmful, oral sex is unhealthy, unless you view urine as lemonade and shit as chocolate pudding.
Guess the male member can't be used for sex, men urinate from them.

BTW, most people WIPE and clean up after using the restroom. I figured you didn't.
KiMare wrote:
You simply express the silliness of pretending ad homoan attacks are reason. A near senile old man just kicked your ass with common sense, and you still have no straight answer (pun intended).
Where was the common sense?
LOLSER!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182375 Mar 2, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes for a stronger marriage if you actually love the person you're a fiddin' to git hitched to.
Absolutely.
That is why I asked my wife to marry me. Sex is the icing on the cake, not the entire cake. It took me a long time to find someone I was happy with. Someone I could converse with or sit in total silence just happy to be with.
As did I, that is why I asked my wife as well. Never the less, the state doesn't care if two people love each other, or just like each other. Romantic love, as any marriage counselor will state, is not the foundation for long term marital success. I'm not saying its not important, but there's a reason for the "honeymoon period", and "the honeymoon is over". That's when the real love takes place.

QUOTE]
You must be really old....
Ancient, I was actually born in the last century. Imagine that.

[QUOTE]
to be offering up the reason marriage developed as if you have authority over and access to such "facts." I'd be willing to bet there were a great number of reasons behind the development of the contractual agreement we currently call marriage. In some cultures the bond was agreed upon before the blushing bride even knew the groom. So much for your "sex is the reason for marriage" theory. Many purposes are served including the guarantee of future cooperation between family groups.
If human procreation wasn't sexual, would it matter to society, any society, who married who? Would marriage as we know it, even exist? Take away the sexual aspect of marriage, and there not much the state has any real interst in. Why prohibit sibling from marrying? If they really love each other....
You're monochromatic view of the world is just as absurd as K-Mart's. The two of you are in good company with Brian_G.
Just good old fashioned biology. We're all products of a sexual union of a man and a woman. Marriage serves as society's means of recognizing that, and protecting the products of that union. Any other aspect of marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is secondary to that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182376 Mar 2, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Look at what is talking about a genetic defect.
<quoted text>
Look at what is talking about a 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form!
Do you think you should have been aborted?
<quoted text>
You mean like having two sets of DNA?
LOL!
<quoted text>
Guess the male member can't be used for sex, men urinate from them.
BTW, most people WIPE and clean up after using the restroom. I figured you didn't.
<quoted text>
Where was the common sense?
LOLSER!
Is that a leg lamp or your real leg?
gokkod

Pittsburgh, PA

#182377 Mar 2, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……
Whats the price? and what do you expect
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182379 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Just good old fashioned biology. We're all products of a sexual union of a man and a woman. Marriage serves as society's means of recognizing that, and protecting the products of that union. Any other aspect of marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is secondary to that.
Is that right? I didn't realize that you spoke for the State.... how exciting for you. Perhaps you can explain why we permit non-reproductive couples to marry. Must be scarey to see your influence fading away.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182380 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not evolution, it is sheer derailment.
Such a drama queen.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182381 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Its simple biology, not a "puritanical" opinion. At what point does marriage evolve, or perhaps devolve is the better word, where its no longer recognizable? Or no longer a need or reason for state interest and/or recognition?
No longer recognizable? Marriage is a legal contract.... what's biological about THAT? Almost everybody understands what it means. It creates legal kinship between two non-related adults.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182382 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
They make perfect sense. Try mouthing the words.
Oh puh-leez.... it took you three tries to respond to one post.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182383 Mar 3, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think your backward, puritanical opinion is going to stop the decriminalization of poly marriage? You can either adapt, or you can go extinct.
Is polygamy being decriminalized?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182384 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly, and for true.
How about that.... You said it, so it MUST be true. Who needs evidence or proof when you have calumny for an excuse?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182385 Mar 3, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
200 businesses that have no business meddling in the affairs of the nation. These same businesses were against this exact issue 20 years ago, based on financial analysis, now, they have been infiltrated by the same lobbyists that wish to turn Amerikkka into their private experiment. They have thrown financial wisdom out the window, to accommodate personal views. It is part of why Amerikkka is dying. And, no, the majority of Amerikkka does not support SSM, spit out your venomous propaganda elsewhere, if you please. Because this is a bald-faced lie. I haven't met anyone who seems to support it, and I travel extensively. And I do ask people. On the CB radio, in stores, all over the place, just to test this theory of yours. It does not stand up to the test of reality. Most people do not seem to care one way or the other. Far cry from "supporting" it. Very few support it. Most with any feelings on the matter are against it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262668/d...
http://www.nomblog.com/24660/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher...
Now, I know that my words will be ignored, or discounted, as your side finds the words of my side as easily banished, but I have tested this theory, and it does not stand up to an honest and fair test. But these links will state some of my assertion.
CB radios?

hahahahaha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahhahahaha
ahahahahahahahha
ahahahahahhaha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahah

A test of reality?

hahahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhahahaha
ahhaahahha

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182386 Mar 3, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Is polygamy being decriminalized?
Reality TV show polygamist and his four wives challenge Utah's bigamy laws - with support from their fellow 'Sister Wives'
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 01:23 EST, 18 January 2013 | UPDATED: 08:21 EST, 18 January 2013

A federal judge heard legal arguments in a Salt Lake City court on Thursday that could potentially decriminalize polygamy in Utah, as a reality TV show polygamist and his four wives sought to overturn the state’s ban on plural marriage.
The stars of reality show ‘Sister Wives’ Kody Brown and his four wives - Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn - claim the law is unconstitutional.
The family fled Utah for Las Vegas last year under the threat of prosecution. They did not attend the hearing in Salt Lake City, but had support in the shape of fellow sister-wives Valerie and Vicki Darger."

They’re talking about my life,’ Valerie Darger told FOX 13.‘The thing that’s different about what we’re asking for is the right to exist and the right to be left alone. We’re not seeking marriage licenses, and so, as far as legal marriage goes, it doesn’t really pertain.’
There were also opponents at the trail including anti-polygamy activist Kristyn Decker, an ex-polygamous wife who left a relationship 11 years ago.
She runs a group opposed to polygamy and led a protest to call attention to abuses and child-bride marriages within some polygamous communities.
‘We feel like if they decriminalize polygamy, the human rights violations that have gone on for so long will just continue,’ Decker said.
The Browns were represented in court by their attorney Jonathan Turley.
He told the court that the Browns’ only sin was opening their family to the TLC hit series, which drew the attention of Utah authorities.
‘The Browns wanted to show people that a plural family is not a monstrosity,' said Turley.'The state is saying if you didn’t do this TV show, you wouldn’t have a problem.'

'They have a right to free speech and are being prosecuted for it.'
The hearing dealt with the legalities of due process and freedom of association.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups peppered a state lawyer on why he shouldn’t throw out Utah’s bigamy law. It’s stricter than the laws in 49 other states - most of them prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses.
Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.
What if Kody Brown kept separate households for each wife, or was just having affairs, the judge asked.
'That would not be polygamy,' said Assistant Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen.
Yet Jensen argued Utah’s unique history of polygamy for more than 100 years has made victims of thousands of girls forced to marry as young as 13, and caused rampant child abuse, with boys 'kicked out on the street' to reduce competition for older men seeking multiple brides.
He said the state has an interest in preventing social harm.

Waddoups said the Browns’ 17 children are irrelevant to the case, and Turley argued that sex and child abuse was just as common in monogamous families.

Part 2 next post

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22643...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22643...
Follow us:@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182387 Mar 3, 2013
Waddoups challenged Jensen on whether Utah was cracking down on a religion. Most polygamists in the state call themselves fundamentalist Mormons, although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy more than a century ago.
'Every state in the nation has these laws - and not every state has Mormon polygamists,' replied Jensen, who argued that bigamy was not merely adultery.
'I’ll tell you what makes it different - the harm to women and children coming out of a polygamous relationship. We have a history of it in Utah - stories in the thousands.'
Turley said Utah has to prove the harm of polygamy, not assert general statements. He argued the exile of young boys was a myth and that Utah was trying to enforce morality.
'We’re asking for what Justice Brandeis called the most important constitutional right, the right to be left alone,' Turley said, referring to Louis Brandeis, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#182388 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality TV show polygamist and his four wives challenge Utah's bigamy laws - with support from their fellow 'Sister Wives'
....
All of them aren't actually married to each-other.

And I believe that they are religious fundamentalists, as are the vast majority of the tiny population who seek polygamous marriages. They are making the claim that their lifestyle should be protected under the very same freedom of religion that the anti-gay religious folks are using to try to deny the ability to marry to gay Americans.

Funny how that works.

It's always better to take religion out of the secular law making process. Either there is a state interest in preventing or promoting something, or there is not. No religious belief needed.

Trying to legislate one sects beliefs into law to the detriment of other sects (or people who have no sect) just isn't sensible.
Se Questers

Covina, CA

#182389 Mar 3, 2013
Lots of Se Questes out there, th GOP, Republican and Tea Party membership are happy that the cuts have kicked in?

And thats what called a DUMB and STUPID political party. Up front this might look good but in the short the long term (one month from now) the behind the scenes costs will be insane.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182390 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them aren't actually married to each-other.
The wives aren't married to each other either legally, or spiritually. Only one is legally married to Kody. All of the wives are spiritually married to Kody.
And I believe that they are religious fundamentalists, as are the vast majority of the tiny population who seek polygamous marriages. They are making the claim that their lifestyle should be protected under the very same freedom of religion that the anti-gay religious folks are using to try to deny the ability to marry to gay Americans.
Funny how that works.
Truly ironic.
It's always better to take religion out of the secular law making process. Either there is a state interest in preventing or promoting something, or there is not. No religious belief needed.
Religion does play a role, I don't think it will ever totally not have an influence.
Trying to legislate one sects beliefs into law to the detriment of other sects (or people who have no sect) just isn't sensible.
Fair enough. There are secular, and non fundamentalist LDS, polygamists though.

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr J RULES 71,188
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... 23 hr Kristen Scannell ... 2
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:05 pm PST