Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,794

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
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184978 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
That's because, in the Age Of Reason, when reason prevailed, "spouses" was understood to mean man and woman. Anything else?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184979 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
the supreme court does, and did, I am glad they agreed with me
No, you agreed with them, they did not consult with you first. Therefore, they did not agree with you. They're not even aware of you.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184980 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
as far as i an see??
you are just a bigot...
Then, buy some glasses, the Constitution allows for us to have differing opinions, else it would have mandated that those of us do not toe the party line be branded as "bigots". Funny, last time I read the old Document, it didn't order us to agree. Dumb-ass. You're the bigot, looking down your nose at someone for disagreeing with you. You're the bigot.
what freaks

AOL

#184981 Mar 27, 2013
if the supreme court had any balls ,....
they would say OK to gay marriage ,..but at the same time declare it unconstitutional for the government to give benefits to spouses of state and federal employees ,...

the nation is broke ,...
we can not afford this madness any more -
the private sector no longer can afford to dish out lavish benefits to its employees,... the U.S. government should be forced to stop also ,..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184982 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) First off you try to equate the terms "sexual intercourse" and "coitus". They are not the same words.
"Sexual intercourse" takes place between two people of any gender. Do you deny that same-gender couples have sexual intercourse? I don't think you do.
"Coitus" very specifically refers to the "sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (from the on line dictionary "Farflex" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coitus ).
You may think I'm splitting hairs. But it's important for you to understand that there is a very distinct difference.
2.) Marriage licenses in states that recognize same-gender marriage have removed gender and replaced it with "person" or "applicant".
3.) You don't have to explain all of the various sexual acts. We're all adults.
4.) I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful. I just wanted to paint the picture of the police busting down a couple's door and forcing them into divorce court, because word had gotten out that they had never consummated their marriage.
"Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, is the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction."

Any other sexual act is DADT.

Smile.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184983 Mar 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Say.... you like definitions. What's the definition of bigot? someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
If the shoe fits...
But, you twist again. We are not treating anyone with "hatred, contempt, and intolerance", we are merely drawing a line in the sand and declaring that SSC's do not fit the accepted roles needed for a true marriage.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184984 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
tehn you might explain that to the attornies arguing the cases before the judges then. it was referenced even in SCOTUS yesterday.
They can read. They are as eager as you to pound a square peg into a round hole.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184985 Mar 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Never been a problem.
If ss friendships deserve those benefits without ever being capable of mutual procreation and it's special needs, then legally EVERYONE deserves them.
Apparently you think two men need the protection and provision that women and children do... Man up VV, man up!!!
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this clear...
You're saying that sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who will never have children SHOULD NOT get tax breaks and other tax benefits that families with children currently get?
Where in hell did you get that from what I said?

Smile.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184986 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this clear...
You're saying that sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who will never have children SHOULD NOT get tax breaks and other tax benefits that families with children currently get?
You do understand that the woman suing against the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act is basing her case on the fact that she has had to pay over $300,000 in inheritance taxes don't you?
And based on what your posting seems to be saying, then no couple who doesn't have children (including you, since your children no longer live in your home) should be able to receive property from their spouse after a death without paying taxes. So if you die and your have a piece of property in your name or have an item that isn't considered joint property, then your wife would have to pay taxes on that property. And you're OK with that?
You are forgetting that these couples bring all the required equipment into the game, aren't you?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184987 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.
Great reply Pietro!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184988 Mar 27, 2013
WinstonSmithAKAsheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Any idea what we can make out of the peanuts & lemons we're getting?
A nice, big "The SSM Crowd Thinks Those Count For Something" cake? Or, some fun, yummy "Someone Has Nothing To Say" pie? How about some Fruitcake?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184989 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.
Ooohhh......Those pesky labels.... Those darned, inconvenient identifiers.... Drat.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184990 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are behind the times, better check the polls
53% to 58%( depending on which poll ) are in favor of Same Sex marrage in the US
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#184991 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i merely conceded what a judge referred to - it's in the transcripts so i cannot deny the word he utilized in court.
Thanks for the admission none the less.
why a couple decides to marry, or stay together, cannot be dictated by law. nor can it be dictated by anyone else.
Agreed.
i'm not sure if a CU would suffice or not. my concern is, humans being human, mistakes will be made in either the editing of existing laws to include appropriate CU verbiage or in writing additional laws. this will be expensive for the fed to accomplish and lengthy (in terms of writing and time). from my own personal experience, it's never an easy task, the old adage "all ya gotta do is" is never as simple as the sales guy thinks it is (i speak from an engineers perspective...LOL). i'd hate to see a couple strung up due to a verbiage error. i'd hate to see the extra expenses of rewriting laws or the costs involved when a mistake is made. i just think that allowing same sex couples to use the same terminology makes the most sense, is the expeditious means to grant everyone access to the same laws, protections and priviliges. others may feel or think differently. that's just my take on CU's.
Thank you. appreciate the input. In a sense the laws are already being rewritten now, or in some cases, gender specific terms are being deleted, and there is a difference in the nature of the union. I don't know the extent of the Colorado CU, but I would presume it is extensive.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184992 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and a majority of those straight people support same sex marriage, I am one of them
No, you keep repeating that lie. It is not true. You just parrot the polls that you like, and ignore the ones that you dislike. I am out in the world more than most, and I know that few actually "support" it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184993 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
different polls from different organizations...

so far they are ranging anywhere from 53% to 60% in favor of same Sex marriage
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184994 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Libertine-Istanbul" ..... That was funny. Salud!
:-D TY.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184995 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
I forgot, rethuglicans dont do polls...

this was obvious when you guys thought you were about to win by a landslaide, last fall.

what rude awakening that must have been!!

the 538(nate silver) polls nailed it......

mabey you should pay attention to him next time, instead of piggy rove, or rush.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184996 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you keep repeating that lie. It is not true. You just parrot the polls that you like, and ignore the ones that you dislike. I am out in the world more than most, and I know that few actually "support" it.
No I am telling you something you are ignorant of, a majority of American are in favor of Same sex marriage and that means tremendous support form heterosexuals
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184997 Mar 27, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
I don't agree with the notion that everyone needs to 'get with the times' asap and be openly acceptive of gay marriage.
As a Christian, I oppose it on moral grounds but apart from that I also oppose it because of all the potential complications that could arise from gay marriage and the adoption of heterosexual children.
For example, if a heterosexual teenager develops a hateful attitude towards homosexuals including towards his gay parents, should the gay parents punish him/her for it? Do they ground the child until they give up their 'hate'? I think it could lead to many cases of angry, unruly children, and many may run away from home.
Or I'm sure that gay parents will want to give a kiss and a hug to their adopted heterosexual children from time to time and this may make some of the children uncomfortable even though it would be just a sign of love and affection.
Gay marriage will likely create new family dynamics that have never been dealth with before. I'm still not convinced that gay marriage will be a good thing for our society, so excuse me if I don't get with the times asap.
Now, that's a fresh view. I like that. Good point.

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? Fri 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 ]