Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,791

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: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184290 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, it's YOUR analogy!
Now you are confusing yourself?
Snicker, smirk smile.
No, I'm still trying to figure out apple trees and walnut trees and what they have to do with same-gender marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184291 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
You say your progressive but instead of embracing civil unions, domestic partnerships and shacking up you turn on our second oldest cultural institution. Instead of embracing the future to create true freedom and equality you want to redefine marriage for everyone. Rather than building a better way helping your brothers and sisters you turn on your parents and grandparents commitment and honor.
Same sex marriage is bad for the shame.
You seem to be all rolled up in negative thought. You indicate that you think this is some form of attack on marriage. I see it as sharing access. Exclusion is a negative action. It isn't as if gays are wresting our marriages away from us. You have yet to show any harm that isn't contrived.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184292 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?
tragic situation, however.....
Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??
more like jumping up and down in jubilation....
Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!
ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done..
two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!
...I know that you are attempting to sound educated, and also trying to seem superior, but you are not doing dreadfully well with it...On with the latest dissection....

"still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?"

What you are implying is that you do not care about Benghazi, or your fellow citizens, or government workers who are working overseas... But in a minute, you will be shown to be contradicting yourself.
"tragic situation, however....."
Sounds shallow to me...
"Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??"
You are trying to make a point here, but you haven't. I think that you are trying to paint some sort of odd picture, portraying him as an idiot, but that is your fictitious script, not his actions or sentiment, I think.
"more like jumping up and down in jubilation...."
Here, you are trying to throw some sort of spin on the whole post, intellectually dishonest, and not very sophisticated, I'm afraid, it didn't actually work...
"Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!"
Now, here, you attempting to claim some sort of high ground, both for yourself, and for a group, unnamed, of course, did you mean to claim that all the gays in America were opposed to it?
"ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done.."
I'm sure that you know that we do not vote for history, but for candidates, right? Simple, and succinct, in displaying your lack of any real reasoning and thus your need to place him into a position that you can use, in order to attack him, but this is, again, your fictitious script, but nothing real or concrete.
"two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!"
This li'l rant is nothing short of a plea for a rational argument.

Now, if you have nothing better to do, except try to place your opponents into positions from which they can be exploited, you have little skill to brag about. Now, if that is the best that you can do, then you should not attempt any more of this, as it shows your lack of anything even resembling a thought. Any thoughts that you may be entertaining to the contrary are merely "sour grapes", as your opponent did not place himself into the position that you wished him to be in. you had to do that, in order to use your weak game.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184293 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
do you have anything positive to add??
those sort of bigoted comments have no place here.
I do, and that is that I am positive that you an idiot. He is not the bigot here, you are. You wish to suppress his 1st Amendment rights to express himself, as you do not like what he has to say. Nothing bigoted in his post at all. You are trying to use an old and weak ploy, namely, calling him a bigot for not sharing your point of view. Weak and sad, to say the least. Tired.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184294 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......
mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.
same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death"....
i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!
...You should follow your own advice. And learn to spell, as well. Your grammar is atrocious.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184295 Mar 23, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, and that is that I am positive that you an idiot. He is not the bigot here, you are. You wish to suppress his 1st Amendment rights to express himself, as you do not like what he has to say. Nothing bigoted in his post at all. You are trying to use an old and weak ploy, namely, calling him a bigot for not sharing your point of view. Weak and sad, to say the least. Tired.
unfortunately you didnt provide a defense of "traditional marriage"

none of you baggers ever can.

because there really is no defense against such steep bigotry.

ill be thinking of you when they strike down prop hate next week!!

you are on the wrong side of history, but ill bet you like that.

the more you spew, the more your intolerance and bigotry shows.

ill bet youre still soar over last november, as well...

so ill cut your ignorant bigoted a&& some slack.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184296 Mar 23, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...I know that you are attempting to sound educated, and also trying to seem superior, but you are not doing dreadfully well with it...On with the latest dissection....
"still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?"
What you are implying is that you do not care about Benghazi, or your fellow citizens, or government workers who are working overseas... But in a minute, you will be shown to be contradicting yourself.
"tragic situation, however....."
Sounds shallow to me...
"Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?
NO??"
You are trying to make a point here, but you haven't. I think that you are trying to paint some sort of odd picture, portraying him as an idiot, but that is your fictitious script, not his actions or sentiment, I think.
"more like jumping up and down in jubilation...."
Here, you are trying to throw some sort of spin on the whole post, intellectually dishonest, and not very sophisticated, I'm afraid, it didn't actually work...
"Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...
we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!"
Now, here, you attempting to claim some sort of high ground, both for yourself, and for a group, unnamed, of course, did you mean to claim that all the gays in America were opposed to it?
"ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done.."
I'm sure that you know that we do not vote for history, but for candidates, right? Simple, and succinct, in displaying your lack of any real reasoning and thus your need to place him into a position that you can use, in order to attack him, but this is, again, your fictitious script, but nothing real or concrete.
"two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!"
This li'l rant is nothing short of a plea for a rational argument.
Now, if you have nothing better to do, except try to place your opponents into positions from which they can be exploited, you have little skill to brag about. Now, if that is the best that you can do, then you should not attempt any more of this, as it shows your lack of anything even resembling a thought. Any thoughts that you may be entertaining to the contrary are merely "sour grapes", as your opponent did not place himself into the position that you wished him to be in. you had to do that, in order to use your weak game.
I dont have any "opponents"

you are either tolerant of people not like yourself???

or you are not(like you) and on the wrong side of history

83 % of folks under thirty approve of same sex marraige.

and 58% of the population at large is now in favor of gay marriage.

up from just 23% in 1996

the future is tolerant, not bigoted.

sorry.

ps; we dont let the majority vote on the minorities rights here in america.

if we did?? bigots like you would have held on to slavery at least another half a century.

I can imagine you are a constitutionalist...... though you probably only like the original one, without all those pesky amendments.

pps: ill give you credit, at least you actually read stuff!!

when most baggers as dumb as you, dont even try!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184297 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, it's YOUR analogy!
Now you are confusing yourself?
Snicker, smirk smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm still trying to figure out apple trees and walnut trees and what they have to do with same-gender marriage.
VV, you lie again!

post 184206

"Children are to all marriages, as sheep are to all farmers.(not all farmers raise sheep)."

Got caught with your pants down again...

However, the real question is, why do ss couples find it so hard to establish their own identity?

It's not about rights, those can and have been addressed in other ways.

It's not about family, most people like (and want) having their one natural mother and father together and raising them. A gay couple is never more than one of those, and always missing a gender.

It's not about acceptance, this forum and history are evidence that many will never accept that ss couples are the same as marriage. The only result of forcing that on people is a greater resentment, not acceptance.

You need to ask yourself why it is impossible for you to never successfully counter that inner sense of sexual brokenness.

Oh, and everyone knows exactly what the apple and walnut tree analogy means.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184298 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
unfortunately you didnt provide a defense of "traditional marriage"
none of you baggers ever can.
You lie too.

To use your bigotry, none of you faggots can ever provide a defense of the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

So please, explain how a redumbant gendered couple, merely a replicated half of a marriage, totally incapable of ever mutually producing human fruit, the exclusive goal of mating behavior, is the same as 'traditional marriage'?

Bazinga!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184299 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have any "opponents"
you are either tolerant of people not like yourself???
or you are not(like you) and on the wrong side of history
83 % of folks under thirty approve of same sex marraige.
and 58% of the population at large is now in favor of gay marriage.
up from just 23% in 1996
the future is tolerant, not bigoted.
sorry.
ps; we dont let the majority vote on the minorities rights here in america.
if we did?? bigots like you would have held on to slavery at least another half a century.
I can imagine you are a constitutionalist...... though you probably only like the original one, without all those pesky amendments.
pps: ill give you credit, at least you actually read stuff!!
when most baggers as dumb as you, dont even try!
Interesting.

You site gay polls espousing democracy, then turn around and demand the twisted perversion of a republic's rights.

Want it both ways when it's your way seems to me...

By the way, history exclusively shows that when young people get a life and grow up, then tend to believe just like old people do now... Does that worry you?

Smirk.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#184300 Mar 24, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......
I never claimed procreation is a requirement for marriage, just that the state benefits most from the children of married husbands and wives.

.
Mr Anderson wrote:
mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.
What "religious beliefes[sic]"? Do you think arguing for procreation is a religious notion? My argument doesn't mention religion, it has nothing to do with religion.

For some people, religion is the number one reason to keep marriage one man and one woman. On my list, religion is number 26.

.
Mr Anderson wrote:
same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death".... i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!
If you argue same sex marriage is good because population growth is bad; that promotes the culture of death. I value every human life, homosexuals have infinite worth just like very other person. Same sex marriage is bad because many of its promoters fear population growth and favor restricting the number of children you may have.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#184301 Mar 24, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
You seem to be all rolled up in negative thought. You indicate that you think this is some form of attack on marriage. I see it as sharing access. Exclusion is a negative action. It isn't as if gays are wresting our marriages away from us. You have yet to show any harm that isn't contrived.
I see same sex marriage as adding a standard of segregation, a new form of gender apartheid marriage. I see same sex marriage as anti-gay because every gay was born of male/female union.

Exclusion is a positive action because we don't want unqualified people licensed to marry, fly passenger planes or performing surgical operations. Exclusion maintains standards.
Anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#184304 Mar 24, 2013
LGBTQ IS SIN. Sinners Will Not Be In The Resurrection To Life.
Quest

Drakes Branch, VA

#184305 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhhhh......I get it! So all the state has to do s declare a relationship marriage, and presto....better health, financial stability,......who wouldn't want that?
The states already do that with Heterosexual adults. Why should it be any different with gay adults who are similarly situated?

And yes, who would want LESS secure couples, families, and children?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184306 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, it's YOUR analogy!
Now you are confusing yourself?
Snicker, smirk smile.
<quoted text>
VV, you lie again!
post 184206
"Children are to all marriages, as sheep are to all farmers.(not all farmers raise sheep)."
Got caught with your pants down again...
However, the real question is, why do ss couples find it so hard to establish their own identity?
It's not about rights, those can and have been addressed in other ways.
It's not about family, most people like (and want) having their one natural mother and father together and raising them. A gay couple is never more than one of those, and always missing a gender.
It's not about acceptance, this forum and history are evidence that many will never accept that ss couples are the same as marriage. The only result of forcing that on people is a greater resentment, not acceptance.
You need to ask yourself why it is impossible for you to never successfully counter that inner sense of sexual brokenness.
Oh, and everyone knows exactly what the apple and walnut tree analogy means.
Smile.
Children are to all marriages, as sheep are to all farmers.

This means that not all marriages involve children and not all farmers involve sheep. Very simple... Very clear...

Same-gender couples have no difficulty finding their own identity. We find someone who we fall in love with and wish to spend our lives with. We want to marry and combine our lives. Couldn't be more simple.

Not all same-gender couples want children, just as not all opposite-gender couples want children. And since children aren't a prerequisite for marriage, it's ridiculous to continue to bring them up.

Same-gender couples would like widespread "respect" for their relationships, but we're not going to hang out and wait for that to happen. We certainly haven't waited for widespread acceptance of homosexuality in order to live our lives openly.

It's kind of like how neo-conservative, right wing, religious extremists aren't widely accepted in this country. That hasn't stopped people like you from living your life.

For me to "counter" what you call my "inner sexual brokenness", I would have to agree that I am "sexually broken". This is not a concept that I agree with. I am not sexually broken. Scientists have proven it. The medical community agrees. You're the only one living in some fantasy world where you and people like you believe homosexuals are broken.

Oh... And the apple tree, walnut tree analogy has never been explained. You keep using it. No one, to my knowledge, has yet explained what it has to do with same-gender marriage; not even you.
SUWear

La Puente, CA

#184308 Mar 24, 2013
You must be talking about those mormon mofo's.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184309 Mar 24, 2013
North Carolina Church Vows To Stop Marriages Until Same-Sex Couples Can Wed

A church in North Carolina will stop performing marriages until United Methodist pastors are allowed to officiate weddings for same-sex couples in the Tar Heel state.

The Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem made the announcement on its Facebook page on Friday and held a press conference on Sunday detailing its plan. The Rev. Kelly Carpenter told FoxNews.com on Monday that his 400-member congregation and its 18-member Leadership Council have long considered the move.

“Many people in our church have been very active about marriage equality in North Carolina, so we’re not new to talking about this issue,” Carpenter said.“So over the past year, this statement has developed, and not only to the state of North Carolina, but also to the United Methodist Church in regards to the injustice of not being able to conduct same-sex weddings.”

(Another group of Christians who are supportive of same-sex marriage)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/18/north-ca...
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184310 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie too.
To use your bigotry, none of you faggots can ever provide a defense of the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
So please, explain how a redumbant gendered couple, merely a replicated half of a marriage, totally incapable of ever mutually producing human fruit, the exclusive goal of mating behavior, is the same as 'traditional marriage'?
Bazinga!
.
where did i claim that homosexual unions would produce anything..??

you need to read my posts through if you want to reply witout looking stoopier than you already are.

the basis of marraige was provided in my posts...
its called LOVE...

dont use derogatory terms like "fa&&ot"
it only cheapens your NON arguement.

how do you know im a "fa**ot" anyhow?

im just standing up for a group of folks that need it....
because you BIGOTS keep attacking their rights.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184311 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
You site gay polls espousing democracy, then turn around and demand the twisted perversion of a republic's rights.
Want it both ways when it's your way seems to me...
By the way, history exclusively shows that when young people get a life and grow up, then tend to believe just like old people do now... Does that worry you?
Smirk.
NO it doesnt.....

im citing scientific polling...

you are citing what???

the number was 23 percent in 1996, now the country is "OLDER"

and were up to 58%, pretty much destroying your unfounded hypothesis.

my "GAY" poll is from the washington post, not exactly a bastion of liberalism or homosexuality...but what do you know about newspapers?? not much.

you dont read stuff from them.

btw; you have no "RIGHTS" to deny people their civil liberties...

you know?? the ones YOU already enjoy.

try to cheer up about gay marraige being accepted.

they will be laughing at this era in the far distant future....

just like we tend to think of people in the FAR distance past as un-evolved......because when bigotry ran rapant.......this society WAS socially unevolved.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184312 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have any "opponents"
you are either tolerant of people not like yourself???
or you are not(like you) and on the wrong side of history
83 % of folks under thirty approve of same sex marraige.
and 58% of the population at large is now in favor of gay marriage.
up from just 23% in 1996
the future is tolerant, not bigoted.
sorry.
ps; we dont let the majority vote on the minorities rights here in america.
if we did?? bigots like you would have held on to slavery at least another half a century.
I can imagine you are a constitutionalist...... though you probably only like the original one, without all those pesky amendments.
pps: ill give you credit, at least you actually read stuff!!
when most baggers as dumb as you, dont even try!
These statistics: "83 % of folks under thirty approve of same sex marraige.
and 58% of the population at large is now in favor of gay marriage.
up from just 23% in 1996" are not true, they are propaganda. As I have repeatedly pointed out. These "polls" that are quoted are simply carefully conducted screenings, using control groups to arrive at a predetermined result. We have not had a mass-mailing to all the households of America, so these "polls" are not real. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are simply in place to guard the citizenry against governmental transgressions, not to ensure that all of us can claim to be equal to each other. The governments job is not to pronounce Gays as minority class, but to manage the country (which, I might add, they are doing poorly). They are not here to make us be nice to each other, nor to make us accept all the changes that are occurring.

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
where can I find heroin in monterey? 11 hr Rosiedosie 7
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Thu scirocco 71,697
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 ]