Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183843 Mar 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
The argument in the country is starting to change, anyone notice.
Now that 11 states and one district recognize SSM, the argument is now, why are same sex couples treated differently in one state than another, isnít freedom for all Americans?
Perfect :)
Or just because a few states have redefined marriage in their states, why should they have to as well, when the voters of the latter states said no?
That is now what businesses are asking the federal government, they are saying it is a business imperative that they be able to attract and move the best people for the job from state to state regardless of their orientation, that SSM needs to be recognized nationally.


Uh huh....so they can't get the best people without nationwide SSM? Sigh.....
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#183844 Mar 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is funny you say that, because I am not known for patience.
Maybe it is just that I get a lot of enjoyment watching the extreme religious right wriggle in their own contradictions.
They have become the center of hate, the center of intolerance, the center of bigotry, everything that they used to oppose when I was younger. The world has grown, and they are shrinking, but they wonít go quietly, and the louder they shout, the more obvious their shortcomings are.
considering the GOP just had their big pow-wow and discussed their relevancy, or ability to attract votes, maybe they're starting to get some sort of a message drilled into their noggins.

it is fun watching the flailing "butbutbut" responses that usually don't really address the points made.

years ago, i voted republican. i just can't do it anymore. after the 80s and listening to people in my area of the country when they spoke of "those people" in the ways that they did conflicted with what i was taught at home and at church on how to treat those less fortunate than myself. and that was just for starters.

keep up the good work, big d. maybe the people you're addressing directly don't get the thoughts you're conveying, or the facts you're conveying, but maybe the lurkers or those that are just skimming through here are getting something about what you're talking about in your posts. that's the only thing that i can keep in mind when i respond to the likes of brian_g (now for going on about 3 yrs or so). that guy is stuck on a record and repeats himself in cycles without actually addressng anything that's asked or stated. he just keeps plopping in those bumpersticker comments that don't really do anything except make himself feel good.

anyway, i just popped into this thread for a quick look to see if anything had changed & i see nothing has. still folks trying to derail the conversation and divert it into something about polygamy or their religious take on what the laws should be.

good luck, big d. i do admire your clarity of thought and your manner of expressing your thoughts.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183845 Mar 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stop quoting your bible, I have read it, and the Koran, and parts of the Talmud, and much of the Bagividad Ggita and several other religious works
I view all of them about the same, right along with worshipers of a volcano and natives dancing naked around a fire.
The darkness is indeed passing the religious bigotry of the middle ages is finally being swept aside, it is long past time that man put aside his reliance on religion.
Big D.

Yes. The Bible might as well have been addressing the issue of today's multicultural diversityist when God inspired to be written:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." (Isaiah 28:9)

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" (Isaiah 28:10)

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2 Timothy 3:1)

"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)

Ronald

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#183848 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D.
Yes. The Bible might as well have been addressing the issue of today's
We're not a theocracy, stud. We're a democratic republic.
ForgRats

La Puente, CA

#183849 Mar 19, 2013
All those ForgRats from teh RNC, GOP, Republican and Tea Party fanggers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183850 Mar 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
considering the GOP just had their big pow-wow and discussed their relevancy, or ability to attract votes, maybe they're starting to get some sort of a message drilled into their noggins.
it is fun watching the flailing "butbutbut" responses that usually don't really address the points made.
years ago, i voted republican. i just can't do it anymore. after the 80s and listening to people in my area of the country when they spoke of "those people" in the ways that they did conflicted with what i was taught at home and at church on how to treat those less fortunate than myself. and that was just for starters.
keep up the good work, big d. maybe the people you're addressing directly don't get the thoughts you're conveying, or the facts you're conveying, but maybe the lurkers or those that are just skimming through here are getting something about what you're talking about in your posts. that's the only thing that i can keep in mind when i respond to the likes of brian_g (now for going on about 3 yrs or so). that guy is stuck on a record and repeats himself in cycles without actually addressng anything that's asked or stated. he just keeps plopping in those bumpersticker comments that don't really do anything except make himself feel good.
anyway, i just popped into this thread for a quick look to see if anything had changed & i see nothing has. still folks trying to derail the conversation and divert it into something about polygamy or their religious take on what the laws should be.
good luck, big d. i do admire your clarity of thought and your manner of expressing your thoughts.
Big D isn't always clear either in thought or expression. Brian G. brings up aspects that others who support SSM simply don't like. Its simply two different ways of looking at the issue. One side says "husband and wife" to the exclusion of all others, the other side says "spouses for life" regardless of gender composition, and exclusivity.
ForgRats

La Puente, CA

#183851 Mar 19, 2013
Just pack it in and eat on another pile of rat dropings.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183852 Mar 19, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Ronnie, the laws in this nation are not based on your book of 10,000 lies.
From the mouth of "I am a God". Nice.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183853 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D isn't always clear either in thought or expression. Brian G. brings up aspects that others who support SSM simply don't like. Its simply two different ways of looking at the issue. One side says "husband and wife" to the exclusion of all others, the other side says "spouses for life" regardless of gender composition, and exclusivity.
You donít comprehend it, but other people do.

In fact the majority of Americans do
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183854 Mar 19, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Ronnie, the laws in this nation are not based on your book of 10,000 lies.
Yes, in fact the father of the American revolution actually wrote it in a signed government document when he became president that we were in no way founded upon the Christian religion.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183855 Mar 19, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not a theocracy, stud. We're a democratic republic.
Good grief... someone got it right!:)

We are indeed
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183856 Mar 19, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Ronnie, the laws in this nation are not based on your book of 10,000 lies.
Apollo11911.

Yes. That is the prevailing myth that the Godless "Liberals" have been increasingly promoting ever since the Republicans undermined States rights by inflicting their 14th Amendment upon the nation. The fact is, though, we are a nation of States. All of our State Constitutions express their purpose that our people might be free to worship and to enjoy the many blessings of God.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/c5sxpt4

Even prior to the States being formed, then existing entities were all - without exception - dedicated for the purpose of glorifying God. That fact was common knowledge until the Godless "Liberals" used the Republican's infamous 14th Amendment for the purpose of "dumbing down" American education in Brown v Topeka Board of Ed.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/rhts

Ronald
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183857 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if a gay person marries, of their own free will, some one of the opposite sex, are they a first class, or second class citizen?
Would you like a gay man to marry your daughter?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183858 Mar 19, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct!
But Muslims are making up the difference!
We should have ZERO Muslim immigration, not a continued open door to potential enemies.
You do realize we have freedom of religion in the USA, don't you?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183859 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D.
Exactly. It is always darkest before the dawn. According to the historical record:
"Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors." (Isaiah 46:8)
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," (Isaiah 46:9)
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isaiah 46:10)
"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.(Revelation 12:12)
"And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." (Revelation 12:13)
"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation 12:17)
"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Matthew 24:9)
"And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another." (Matthew 24:10)
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." (Matthew 24:11)
"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." (Matthew 24:12)
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)
Ronald
Look, nutbag.... your Buybull is NOT an historical record.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183860 Mar 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Brian G. brings up aspects that others who support SSM simply don't like.
Have you read any of his posts? I know children who have a better grasp of logic. His posts are exercises in semantics and hyperbole. Like or dislike is irrelevant.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183862 Mar 19, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not a theocracy, stud. We're a democratic republic.
Dusty Mangina.

Exactly. The republican rule is subject to Constitutional law. Unlike what the post 60s 70s era Godless "Liberal" political activists would have us believe, "Democratic republics" are antipodal to that of "a democracy".

Our Christian non-Homosexual founding fathers were sticklers about detail. Yet, at 1787 years after Jesus, they all affixed their name to the document that established the Constitution "in the year of our Lord, 1787". The best Godless "Liberals" and their community activist bedfellows can come up to explain this away is that the dead White men suddenly became disinterested in detail, in favor of "a living Constitution".

Source: http://tinyurl.com/cxrqmhv

Ronald
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183863 Mar 19, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Dusty Mangina.
Exactly. The republican rule is subject to Constitutional law. Unlike what the post 60s 70s era Godless "Liberal" political activists would have us believe, "Democratic republics" are antipodal to that of "a democracy".
Our Christian non-Homosexual founding fathers were sticklers about detail. Yet, at 1787 years after Jesus, they all affixed their name to the document that established the Constitution "in the year of our Lord, 1787". The best Godless "Liberals" and their community activist bedfellows can come up to explain this away is that the dead White men suddenly became disinterested in detail, in favor of "a living Constitution".
Source: http://tinyurl.com/cxrqmhv
Ronald
You are free to believe in your little religion, but you are not going to force your beliefs on any of the rest of us.

It was written as a living constitution from the beginning, it was our founders that coined the phrase "separation of church and state" it was John Adams that signed the treaty of Tripoli which stated we were not in any way formed as a Christian nation.

You are free to believe your religion, but we will not accept your tynary of law, you will not enforce your petty little belief system on the rest of us.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183864 Mar 19, 2013
Apollo11911 wrote:
<quoted text>Or just because a few states have allowed slavery in their states, why should they have to as well, when the voters of the latter states said no?
For a god....sometimes you sound like a mere mortal. Comparing the issue of slavery, which was ultimately settled after much death and destruction to voting to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife, is ridiculous. Oh Madone!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183865 Mar 19, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like a gay man to marry your daughter?
I would like my daughter to marry a man who will treat her with love and respect. If he's gay, they both know it, and they choose to marry, would you say its not a valid union of husband and wife. Suppose a lesbian married a man, would their marriage be any less valid than any other husband and wife union?

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) 51 min Rick Moss 70,067
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Oct 17 savvylocal 245
International CIT conference comes to Monterey Oct 14 DO Powers 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Oct 8 thazzleb17 2
Pacific Grove Girl Chelsie Hills Law suit. Rea... Oct 3 Siding with Toyota 1
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 23 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep '14 fancy 3
Monterey Dating
Find my Match

Monterey Jobs

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 ]