Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,188

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
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188636 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul Cameron and George Rekers are both closet queens and discredited quacks. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for your propaganda artists, because that's all they are.
Hey, fair's fair, we don't buy any of the hogwash from your propaganda artists, either... Why should we go and destroy a perfectly good "hate-hate" forum, now?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188638 Apr 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that Dr. George Rekers had to bow out of the Family Research Institute after he was found to have employed the services of a paid male escort (i.e.: prostitute) to accompany him to Europe?
The escort spilled the beans--including the nude massages and sex that took place.
Your dear Dr. Rekers is a big, old queen, honey! He's a self-loathing queen, but he's a queen nonetheless.
And Dr. Paul Cameron is so far up the Family Research Institute's ass that he can't be taken seriously.
I mean really... Is this the best you can come up with?
Helllooooooo....it simply shows that "SSSB" is a an abbreviation for "same sex sexual behavior". As to the rest, I will defer to you for now.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188639 Apr 14, 2013
And, welcome to Glendale..
"Another site is located in Brand Park in Glendale. There are newly constructed fences
(all outfitted with new wiring that point inward). The fences surround a dry reservoir.
There are also new buildings situated in the area. We questioned the idea that there
were four armed military personnel walking the park. Since when does a public park
need armed guards?"

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#188641 Apr 14, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this an important issue? I dunno, I suppose I could ask my nephew what happened. They went to a JoP for their marriage.
<quoted text>
The above sums it up for missus sheesh and myself. Except the children part. Money is sort of involved because I didn't want my brother's meddling wives to try a grab ass on anything I've accumulated. Both are doing just that with my mother's stuff. And she's still alive!
<quoted text>
Do we have statistics on this? Scratch that, found this Huffington Post article via google.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz...
Apparently, women in general are more up for marriage than men are. The article offers several potential contributing factors.
<quoted text>
Yer welcome.
<quoted text>
Looks to be romantic love is the major driving force.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one bringing incest into the equation. I suspect the number of siblings wanting to get hitched is surprisingly minute.
<quoted text>
Perhaps the state would like to see less congestion in the courts due to battles from families not wanting their deceased gay son's lover to get anything. Perhaps gaining access to marriage would make them more accepted in general, thus reducing some of the stupidity that occurs when rednecks see two men holding hands.
\
<quoted text>
Yet, according to the article, couples would rather marry than enter into a civil union. By the article it appears we can expect SSM divorce rates to be similar to hetero couples.
Lots to respond to....but gotta give ya yet due..."missus sheesh"...that was funny...at first glance I didn't catch it...reread that part, and laughed.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188642 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul Cameron and George Rekers are both closet queens and discredited quacks. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for your propaganda artists, because that's all they are.
But, neither Cameron, nor Rekers, are to be discounted, as they were right on the money, regardless of you claims that they are faulty.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188643 Apr 14, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 prohibits polygamy.
What part of "ONE man ONE woman" don't you understand? Please answer, maybe we can get to the bottom of your refusal to admit prop 8 bans polygamy.
It's a simple concept really. One man One Woman means exactly what it says.
So lets have a quiz. Does One Man One Woman mean that 2 men and one woman can marry Big D?
Why would they want to? They can see that he is fixated on aliens...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188644 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Still stuck on stupid, I see.
What part of polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8 don't you understand? It will remain illegal after Prop 8.
The same part that had Sodomy Laws in effect. The part about Non-traditional pairing off of redundant couples. Still stuck on wearing blinders, eh?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188645 Apr 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope didn’t mention Polygamy either but it did mention Man and Woman, a direct slap in the face of those that want to marry Space Aliens of different sexes :)
So we are settled, prop 8 was as much about Marrying Space aliens as it was about poly
So decrees the "Super D", with his arms folded, and eyes all ablaze, like Frylock... The pontification is concluded.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188646 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>There is the difference. I have never, 99.99 % of all straight guys would have said none and never will. Yet you feel remorse for never trying. Very telling. Hey Framkie its never too late. Did you win any medals for bull shitting?
No, I feel no remorse for never sucking a d!ck, you shouldn't either.

I won my medals for suiting up, showing up and doing my job. You should respect them. The US government does.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188647 Apr 14, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it bans things that were already banned like poly and marrying space aliens of sexes other than Man or Woman
Why don't you get off the meds, and slip back into reality, for a moment?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188648 Apr 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, neither Cameron, nor Rekers, are to be discounted, as they were right on the money, regardless of you claims that they are faulty.
X-Box says they lack credibility because they are gay.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188649 Apr 14, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So decrees the "Super D", with his arms folded, and eyes all ablaze, like Frylock... The pontification is concluded.
Too funny!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188650 Apr 14, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that Dr. George Rekers had to bow out of the Family Research Institute after he was found to have employed the services of a paid male escort (i.e.: prostitute) to accompany him to Europe?
The escort spilled the beans--including the nude massages and sex that took place.
Your dear Dr. Rekers is a big, old queen, honey! He's a self-loathing queen, but he's a queen nonetheless.
And Dr. Paul Cameron is so far up the Family Research Institute's ass that he can't be taken seriously.
I mean really... Is this the best you can come up with?
And his homosexual activities were disapproved of? Tsk-tsk. How bigoted. Why should he be ostracized? Because of his activities? Or, perhaps, because of his unpopular views, within his own circle? It would seem that not toeing the National Agenda has it's consequences, in the land of the free, and the home of the brave, and all that disappearing claptrap. 1st Amendment be damned.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188651 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior? Wow? Did we invent something new? I don't think so.'Sexual behavior' is an adequate phrase, unless, of course, your intent is to demonize.
Such as when using words like: "Homophobe", "Bigot", "Hater", "Racist", "Antifeminist", "Non-American", "Communist", "Fascist", "Nazi" and the myriad of terms that you use, in order to marginalize and demonize. Then. demonization is "Cool beans" and such? Your hypocrisy is showing, there, purple-passion.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188652 Apr 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In Olson’s view, the state may not officially prefer heterosexual marriage by a policy so mild that it does nothing other than to leave same-sex couples alone while declining to formally recognize their unions. By what reasoning, then, could it have a right to prefer some definition of marriage by actually punishing those who choose to disregard it?
Moreover, in his summary of what the Supreme Court has “said” about polygamy, Olson omitted to mention the single most famous case dealing with this question, Reynolds v. United States. In that case the Court upheld the federal law forbidding polygamy in the territories of the United States, and declined to find that the free exercise clause immunizes those who practice it for religious reasons.
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe .. and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice. This raises a serious problem for the defenders of same-sex marriage.
A number of the Court’s precedents defending a “right of privacy” have already strongly undermined the idea that the majority’s moral convictions are a sufficient basis for law. If the Court finds a right to same-sex marriage, it will practically dismantle the whole concept of morals legislation. But if moral preference for heterosexual marriage cannot be a reasonable basis on which to afford it a formal recognition denied to other unions, then how can moral disapproval be a reasonable ground on which to forbid and punish polygamy?
Let us turn now from the distinctions Olson overlooked to the ones he emphasized. In the first place, Olson contended that polygamy raises serious concerns about “exploitation,”“abuse,” and “patriarchy” that aren’t relevant to same-sex marriage. Presumably he was referring to the “abuse” and “exploitation” of the children and perhaps wives of plural marriages. Yet, under the constitutional theory of marriage Olson has tried to sell, none of these considerations would be sufficient to forbid polygamy. Olson insists that marriage is a fundamental right. Standard Supreme Court doctrine holds that fundamental rights can only be infringed to defend a “compelling state interest” and that the regulations made to protect that interest must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
Everyone would concede that prevention of abuse and exploitation of children and wives is a compelling state interest. On the other hand, nobody would contend that such abuse and exploitation is the very essence of polygamy. After all, abuse and exploitation can be found in monogamous marriages, too. The most one could say is that these problems are dangers to which polygamous unions are more or less prone. In any case, under the “fundamental rights” doctrine on which Olson relies, the least restrictive means to remedy such dangers would be to recur to already existing laws punishing such abuse and exploitation, rather than going so far as to ban polygamy altogether.
Olson may also have been hinting that the state could reasonably fear that abuse and exploitation of children is more likely to arise in families where the children are not related by blood to all of their parents. This is a reasonable concern, but it could be raised just as easily in relation to same-sex marriages, where at best, only one parent can be biologically related to each child.
Careful, buddy, don't confound them, with irrefutable logic, you'll get banned.
:-D
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188653 Apr 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Just the facts" accused Rock of making "SSSB" up. I showed it was in use as an abbreviation. "sexual behavior" is too vague. Really, intent to demonize? Paranoid much?
"just the facts" is an idiot.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#188654 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I googled it and found not one matching use. I stopped looking after 26 pages
Well that proves it then!

Ah, what is it that you are you trying to prove? That the acronym "SSSB" is not an acronym? How will that help your dumb argument Jizzy?

What a dope!
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188655 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it speaks to their motivation to lie. Damn, are you completely stupid?
You must be, to tie homosexual behavioralists to lying. It shows what you think of your own. And, illustrates your own propensity, for same.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188656 Apr 14, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>n your case, stupify.
How delightfully evasive of you.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#188657 Apr 14, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>How many guys have you blown?
And you, too. Wonderful show of flagrant irrelevancy. Truly typifying...

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) 3 min J RULES 69,943
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Fri 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 21 fancy 3

Beach Hazards Statement for Monterey County was issued at October 19 at 8:48PM PDT

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 ]