Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,192

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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#186977 Apr 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and family took a devastating down turn the last time GOVERNMENT got involved.
Then they removed the commitment of marriage, now you want the government to remove children from marriage.
Is your brain made out of two populations of genetically distinct cells that don't communicate with each other? Is that why you are so dumb? Nobody is trying to remove children from marriage. Some couples will have children, some won't. Gay marriage won't change that.
KiMare wrote:
It is your bigotry towards heterosexuals like that stated above that caused me to realize the pointlessness of meeting with you. Quit your whining and hypocrisy.
SMile.
And some couples will have monsters they wish they had aborted.
Bummer, eh?
:)

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#186978 Apr 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No thanks. This is a perfectly good marriage equality thread.
But feel free to start a "do you think you should you have been aborted" thread. That has nothing to do with marriage equality and is off topic here.
OK, don't.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#186979 Apr 6, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is telecast, broadcast, or on the radio, then it is wrong, to me, to use these media to serve oneself. Church is a personal matter, and it is subject to small congregations. I also abhor churches panhandling. Nope, no "ick' factor. I answered you about hating gay women as much as the men, I told you you that I hated none.
That's a clear lie.
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
But I hold men and women equal,
Well, a woman can marry a man, if you hold men and women equal, why don't you think a man should also be able to marry a man?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
so my irritation at "coming out" is equal to both genders. I think that you have gotten the issue a bit muddled, because this question: "Why does it bother you so much to hear about gay people who believe that they have been wronged by the social, religious, and political system?" seems to infer that there is no difference between "coming out" and having a political agenda. Do you believe that they are one and the same?
Whatever.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#186980 Apr 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If there isn't a forum about cat feces eating dogs, feel free to start one. It's off topic here. This is a forum on marriage equality.
Cat feces doesn't eat dogs.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186981 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, again, is an example of "your side" creating arguments against an issue that NO ONE is supporting!
In neither of the two cases discussing same-gender marriages have attorneys argued including same-gender, incestuous marriages.
And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only is incest illegal in this country, but marrying one's family is also illegal.
Why on EARTH would you even bring this issue to the table?
Are you THAT afraid?
Look, I see what you're trying to do... You're trying to show that same-gender marriage will provide a slippery slope (God I hate that term) so that all manner of bizarre marriages will be allowed to take place in the future.
But let me point out that the "slope" began with heterosexual marriage. If marriage had never been invented, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
You need to realize that the courts have ruled that same-gender relationships are protected under the law. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL!
Science and medicine have determined that homosexuality IS NOT A DISORDER!
Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder.
There is NO REASON to believe that allowing same-gender couples to marry will result in incestuous marriages; whether they be gay or straight.
You are using unwarranted fear tactics in an attempt to win an argument. And it's time that you bring the discussion of this ridiculous idea to an end!
Of course, you must realize that incest and polygamy are in exactly the same situation as homosexual marriage was, only a few years ago, namely, illegal and stigmatized. Surely, you cannot argue this point? We used to have Sodomy laws on the books, and then, due to lobbying, this was changed. Now, of course, we can both agree that all were on the law books because someone had the idea that they were in a position to dictate who may marry whom, according to what they believed was right, but in full denial of the individuals right to choose for themselves. This was wrong, as has been pointed out by your side, to have someone else dictate what is right for me, or you. To indicate that it is "slippery slope" to allow incestuous or polygamous marriage is to deny the logical implication that we all should be allowed to decide for ourselves who we wish to marry. You wish to infer that these marriages are "icky", while promoting the idea that you have a right to choose who may marry whom, and you further wish to separate yourselves from a "freak-show", although you ignore the fact that we see SSM as the same freak-show. You see yourselves as the noble freedom fighters for the rights to marry who you wish, and yet, see any others in the exact same situation as "icky". Do you not see, are you unable to see, that this is a serious double standard, on your part? You claim the right to choose your own mates, and yet, use the argument "polygamy and incest are illegal" so glibly, when only a few years ago, you, yourselves, suffered the exact same fate. You were able to change this, and claim that you were being discriminated against, and now, you look down your nose upon others whose fight is for nothing less than what you fought for. When your choice was illegal, it was wrong. When poly and incest are wrong, you shrug as if there is nothing wrong with that. You are acting as we did. How does it feel, to ignore the plight of another freedom fighter? It probably does not seem so strange to deny a coupling that you disapprove of, does it? Odd, how you run with the fox, then hunt with the hounds. I have news for you. We see your fight in the same terms as you see the poly and incest in. Namely, it is (or was) illegal, and there is nothing wrong with that, as it is not right. Welcome to our side, son, Welcome to being a bigot and a hater and a Communist. Labels, from your side. I'm sure that you recognize them, as we have had to receive them, so now you must. For the EXACT same reasons.
Cheers.
Hater

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#186983 Apr 6, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't answer my question??
You first.
Answer for your bigotry for any marriage outside of the two person non-related form.

Since: Apr 13

Bellevue, WA

#186984 Apr 6, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>I likes my tabaccers:) and you for sure are not a high end h00ker you're too nasty, you work for wooden nickels! Does your vag come with a warning."Caution enter at your own risk, due to heavy chemicals of contamination your penis may shrivel up and die"!.LMFAO. No wait, you don't need a sign, the smell keeps them away!
Hey biatch ... does your fiance know you smoke three pacs of non filter a day... guess he would given he's yo older brother.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186985 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, again, is an example of "your side" creating arguments against an issue that NO ONE is supporting!
In neither of the two cases discussing same-gender marriages have attorneys argued including same-gender, incestuous marriages.
And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only is incest illegal in this country, but marrying one's family is also illegal.
Why on EARTH would you even bring this issue to the table?
Are you THAT afraid?
Look, I see what you're trying to do... You're trying to show that same-gender marriage will provide a slippery slope (God I hate that term) so that all manner of bizarre marriages will be allowed to take place in the future.
But let me point out that the "slope" began with heterosexual marriage. If marriage had never been invented, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
You need to realize that the courts have ruled that same-gender relationships are protected under the law. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL!
Science and medicine have determined that homosexuality IS NOT A DISORDER!
Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder.
There is NO REASON to believe that allowing same-gender couples to marry will result in incestuous marriages; whether they be gay or straight.
You are using unwarranted fear tactics in an attempt to win an argument. And it's time that you bring the discussion of this ridiculous idea to an end!
Now, the second issue. The "Bait-n-Switch". Blame the issue on us, for even having the institution of Marriage. Cute. Faulty, but cute. We have embraced the institution of marriage through tradition, the same tradition that Big D likes to shit on, whenever he feels like it. Why do you wish to join in on something that is not for you? Because you see that some may benefit from it, and you feel "left out". You do not mind the poly's and the incest's being left out, though, do you? No.We set up the institute for the benefit of parents rights and to protect the family unit, which means the "natural" family unit, but has since widened to include the family unit that contains adopted children. Cool. Now, in order to get what you want, you are ready, willing and able to appropriate the children to further your ends, in spite of the fact that children need the balance provided by a mother and a father. you do not care that you are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children to grasp something that you think you should have, even though we set that up to benefit "natural" families. You could have drawn up legal contracts to allow SSC's to have most of the same rights that natural families get, without having to claim the time-honored title of "Married", but then, you would feel like there was something about your relationships that isn't quite square with the rest of us, and in that, you would be correct. SSC might be legal, but they do not contain the same ingredients that Hetero couples do. Not our fault that you wish to make a souffle, but are only producing omelets. Hell, one of your hero's, Chongo, claims that equal rights are being violated by not saying that men and women are the same. It is to laugh. Perhaps, then, we should do away with labels on public lavatories? And in the schools? Some of your side are even indecent enough to think that men, going through sex change operations, but not yet changed, may use the opposite locker rooms to change clothes in. Public flaunting of all that is decent and right.
Lastly, "Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder." is a flat out lie. There is no such finding, anywhere, that incest is a disorder. Would it be a disorder if the siblings were not aware that they were siblings? Of course not. Please do not produce more propaganda, we have enough of that already, whenever we hear that "more Americans are supporting SSM every day". Pure BS. These supporters do not exist. They are lies

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#186986 Apr 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogs may eat poop out of the cat box, but they do have some standards. No dog would marry you.
Are you sure you're old enough to be on here?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186988 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, again, is an example of "your side" creating arguments against an issue that NO ONE is supporting!
In neither of the two cases discussing same-gender marriages have attorneys argued including same-gender, incestuous marriages.
And has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, not only is incest illegal in this country, but marrying one's family is also illegal.
Why on EARTH would you even bring this issue to the table?
Are you THAT afraid?
Look, I see what you're trying to do... You're trying to show that same-gender marriage will provide a slippery slope (God I hate that term) so that all manner of bizarre marriages will be allowed to take place in the future.
But let me point out that the "slope" began with heterosexual marriage. If marriage had never been invented, then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
You need to realize that the courts have ruled that same-gender relationships are protected under the law. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL!
Science and medicine have determined that homosexuality IS NOT A DISORDER!
Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder.
There is NO REASON to believe that allowing same-gender couples to marry will result in incestuous marriages; whether they be gay or straight.
You are using unwarranted fear tactics in an attempt to win an argument. And it's time that you bring the discussion of this ridiculous idea to an end!
Now, the second issue. The "Bait-n-Switch". Blame the issue on us, for even having the institution of Marriage. Cute. Faulty, but cute. We have embraced the institution of marriage through tradition, the same tradition that Big D likes to shit on, whenever he feels like it. Why do you wish to join in on something that is not for you? Because you see that some may benefit from it, and you feel "left out". You do not mind the poly's and the incest's being left out, though, do you? No.We set up the institute for the benefit of parents rights and to protect the family unit, which means the "natural" family unit, but has since widened to include the family unit that contains adopted children. Cool. Now, in order to get what you want, you are ready, willing and able to appropriate the children to further your ends, in spite of the fact that children need the balance provided by a mother and a father. you do not care that you are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children to grasp something that you think you should have, even though we set that up to benefit "natural" families. You could have drawn up legal contracts to allow SSC's to have most of the same rights that natural families get, without having to claim the time-honored title of "Married", but then, you would feel like there was something about your relationships that isn't quite square with the rest of us, and in that, you would be correct. SSC might be legal, but they do not contain the same ingredients that Hetero couples do. Not our fault that you wish to make a souffle, but are only producing omelets. Hell, one of your hero's, Chongo, claims that equal rights are being violated by not saying that men and women are the same. It is to laugh. Perhaps, then, we should do away with labels on public lavatories? And in the schools? Some of your side are even indecent enough to think that men, going through sex change operations, but not yet changed, may use the opposite locker rooms to change clothes in. Public flaunting of all that is decent and right.
Lastly, "Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder." is a flat out lie. There is no such finding, anywhere, that incest is a disorder. Would it be a disorder if the siblings were not aware that they were siblings? Of course not. Please do not produce more propaganda, we have enough of that already, whenever we hear that "more Americans are supporting SSM every day". Pure BS. These supporters do not exist. They are lies.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186989 Apr 6, 2013
Now, the second issue. The "Bait-n-Switch". Blame the issue on us, for even having the institution of Marriage. Cute. Faulty, but cute. We have embraced the institution of marriage through tradition, the same tradition that Big D likes to shit on, whenever he feels like it. Why do you wish to join in on something that is not for you? Because you see that some may benefit from it, and you feel "left out". You do not mind the poly's and the incest's being left out, though, do you? No.We set up the institute for the benefit of parents rights and to protect the family unit, which means the "natural" family unit, but has since widened to include the family unit that contains adopted children. Cool. Now, in order to get what you want, you are ready, willing and able to appropriate the children to further your ends, in spite of the fact that children need the balance provided by a mother and a father. you do not care that you are willing to sacrifice the well-being of children to grasp something that you think you should have, even though we set that up to benefit "natural" families. You could have drawn up legal contracts to allow SSC's to have most of the same rights that natural families get, without having to claim the time-honored title of "Married", but then, you would feel like there was something about your relationships that isn't quite square with the rest of us, and in that, you would be correct. SSC might be legal, but they do not contain the same ingredients that Hetero couples do. Not our fault that you wish to make a souffle, but are only producing omelets. Hell, one of your hero's, Chongo, claims that equal rights are being violated by not saying that men and women are the same. It is to laugh. Perhaps, then, we should do away with labels on public lavatories? And in the schools? Some of your side are even indecent enough to think that men, going through sex change operations, but not yet changed, may use the opposite locker rooms to change clothes in. Public flaunting of all that is decent and right.
Lastly, "Science, medicine, and the legal system HAVE determined that incest is both illegal and a disorder." is a flat out lie. There is no such finding, anywhere, that incest is a disorder. Would it be a disorder if the siblings were not aware that they were siblings? Of course not. Please do not produce more propaganda, we have enough of that already, whenever we hear that "more Americans are supporting SSM every day". Pure BS. These supporters do not exist. They are lies
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186990 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I will add one thing to my response above... If incestuous marriages "might" result from allowing same-gender marriage; why is it that incestuous marriages didn't spring forth from the legalization of heterosexual marriages?
Because, like homo marriage, someone deemed it naughty, and unworthy. Why else?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#186991 Apr 6, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you must realize that incest and polygamy are in exactly the same situation as homosexual marriage was, only a few years ago, namely, illegal and stigmatized. Surely, you cannot argue this point? We used to have Sodomy laws on the books, and then, due to lobbying, this was changed.
Putting men in jail to get them to stop having sex with each other.
Hmmmm...let's call that "Plan B".
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<
Now, of course, we can both agree that all were on the law books because someone had the idea that they were in a position to dictate who may marry whom, according to what they believed was right, but in full denial of the individuals right to choose for themselves. This was wrong, as has been pointed out by your side, to have someone else dictate what is right for me, or you. To indicate that it is "slippery slope" to allow incestuous or polygamous marriage is to deny the logical implication that we all should be allowed to decide for ourselves who we wish to marry. You wish to infer that these marriages are "icky", while promoting the idea that you have a right to choose who may marry whom, and you further wish to separate yourselves from a "freak-show", although you ignore the fact that we see SSM as the same freak-show.
LOL. Speaking of freak show, did Topix ban you because you refused to take that pic of your face back down?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<
You see yourselves as the noble freedom fighters for the rights to marry who you wish, and yet, see any others in the exact same situation as "icky". Do you not see, are you unable to see, that this is a serious double standard, on your part? You claim the right to choose your own mates, and yet, use the argument "polygamy and incest are illegal" so glibly, when only a few years ago, you, yourselves, suffered the exact same fate. You were able to change this, and claim that you were being discriminated against, and now, you look down your nose upon others whose fight is for nothing less than what you fought for. When your choice was illegal, it was wrong. When poly and incest are wrong, you shrug as if there is nothing wrong with that. You are acting as we did. How does it feel, to ignore the plight of another freedom fighter? It probably does not seem so strange to deny a coupling that you disapprove of, does it? Odd, how you run with the fox, then hunt with the hounds. I have news for you. We see your fight in the same terms as you see the poly and incest in. Namely, it is (or was) illegal, and there is nothing wrong with that, as it is not right. Welcome to our side, son, Welcome to being a bigot and a hater and a Communist. Labels, from your side. I'm sure that you recognize them, as we have had to receive them, so now you must. For the EXACT same reasons.
Cheers.
Hater
Gay marriage is a simple equal rights issue.

Everybody has equal rights when it comes to getting married to more than one person.
Should everybody be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum about polygamy and talk about it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#186992 Apr 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and family took a devastating down turn the last time GOVERNMENT got involved. Then they removed the commitment of marriage, now you want the government to remove children from marriage.
It is your bigotry towards heterosexuals like that stated above that caused me to realize the pointlessness of meeting with you. Quit your whining and hypocrisy.
SMile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has ever said that children would be removed from marriage. Rather, children will never be a requirement of marriage.
And how can you say that I have bigotry towards heterosexuals? Some of my best friends are heterosexuals.
See how easy it is to take a page from your book?
No, that claim eliminates children from the equation, making marriage merely a friendship.

Falsely blaming heterosexuals for the demise of marriage exposes your hatred and ignorance. Bigotry.

You have no pages from my play book.

Snicker.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#186993 Apr 6, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure you're old enough to be on here?
You are stupid and boring.
Now, go away.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186994 Apr 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is, you monster.
Can you marry? By your own definition, you can't!
:)
You have tissue of both genders.
<quoted text>
It's clear from my pic I don't have to lose weight.
Do you think you should have been aborted?
What good are you?
During most of civilization, a monster like you would have just been left to die.
:)
It's clear, from your avatar, that you needed someone elses leg to use, as you are afraid to show your ugly mug. You best bet is to use "Assy McGee" as a tag.

Since: Apr 13

Bellevue, WA

#186995 Apr 6, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, like homo marriage, someone deemed it naughty, and unworthy. Why else?
are you talkin about people in the christain faith.. i agree that is unworthy

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#186996 Apr 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your brain made out of two populations of genetically distinct cells that don't communicate with each other? Is that why you are so dumb? Nobody is trying to remove children from marriage. Some couples will have children, some won't. Gay marriage won't change that.
<quoted text>
And some couples will have monsters they wish they had aborted.
Bummer, eh?
:)
1 Corinthians 14:34 (NJB)
women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part, as the Law itself says.

Ho, Ho, Ho.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#186997 Apr 6, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>Hey biatch ... does your fiance know you smoke three pacs of non filter a day... guess he would given he's yo older brother.
So says the drug addict.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186998 Apr 6, 2013
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>Loser I ain't like your wife... i'm an escort and I keep very clean for my clients
Not for yourself? Not very hygienic, then? Just keeping the shelves wiped off?

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) 14 hr scirocco 70,102
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 '14 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 ]