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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190207 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then throw all marriage out the window. Everyone is free to pair up, raise children, and then move on with their lives if they so choose.
We'll let churches own the word "marriage". Only those couples who are afraid of being damned to eternal hell would seek matrimony.
Let's just take government completely out of the business of marriage. No one gets rights or protections. Everyone--gay, straight, whatever--can fend for themselves.
Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
You are a bit late to the party, I have presented this position to you at least 5 times now. Perhaps if you would slow down and actually absorb the material I post it might not take you so long to catch on?
Rebounds

Covina, CA

#190208 Apr 26, 2013
Shut up you North Korean supporter.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190209 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>

Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
Go find me a State issued Marriage License for George and Martha Washington.
Gays have rights too

Sacramento, CA

#190210 Apr 26, 2013
Gay marriage receiving more support every day.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3259-would-...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190211 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then throw all marriage out the window. Everyone is free to pair up, raise children, and then move on with their lives if they so choose.
We'll let churches own the word "marriage". Only those couples who are afraid of being damned to eternal hell would seek matrimony.
Let's just take government completely out of the business of marriage. No one gets rights or protections. Everyone--gay, straight, whatever--can fend for themselves.
Such a GREAT idea! Why didn't the founders think of that?
It is funny you say that, years ago that was my position, remove the word marriage from legal language, the government would not recognize any marriages, only civil unions.

Civil unions are a contract, between anyone that wanted one, couples, gay or straight, or a number of people, regardless of whether it was romantic or even nonromantic relationships.

Give churches the word marriage but make it legally meaningless.

That way Churches could have the word if they wanted it, straight churches could call their couples married, gay supporting churches could call their couples marriages, Poly churches could marry as many as they wanted and all would be equally in the eyes of the law as the underlying legal basis for any of them would be a civil union.

Not even my gay friends liked the idea

I gave it up, there was no support for it
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190212 Apr 27, 2013
Gays have rights too wrote:
Gay marriage receiving more support every day.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3259-would-...
That is very very true, and not just here, but all around the world.

Love conquers hate, it just takes a while

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190213 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK... Let's look at "real America". In 2008, just over 40% of live births in this country were to single parent households. That's up from 18.4% in 1980.
I thought that evolutionary mating behavior (from a cross cultural perspective) depended on marriage.
Apparently not...
Don't throw gays under the bus just because you straight people can't seem to stay married.
Hundreds of thousands of us would love to be given the opportunity to marry someone for life.
You can't predict whether or not a gay couple will divorce any more than I can predict whether or not a straight couple will.
Mating behavior is not dependent on marriage. Again, are you serious??? No wonder you are so confused.

Marriage is a constraint (control) on mating behavior. Because the commitment of marriage has been weakened by easy divorce, and the consequences to children ignored, broken marriages and co-habitation have resulted. Calling ss couples married by totally removing children only exasperates the situation.

Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist except for the connection of children. Your premise that sterile gay couples will strengthen marriage is baseless. In fact, that is why the largest, latest and most scientific study to date on seven family types found lesbian couples last, AFTER single mothers. Gay couples did not even register out of THREE THOUSAND participants.

Not looking good VV...

Smirk.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#190214 Apr 27, 2013
Keep it simple, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman. KISS.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190215 Apr 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a bit late to the party, I have presented this position to you at least 5 times now. Perhaps if you would slow down and actually absorb the material I post it might not take you so long to catch on?
I was being flippant in my response to you. It's a ridiculous to believe that the government will stop its involvement in marriage in the foreseeable future.

No one who lives and works in the real world believes that this is an option.

And since it isn't an option, the only right thing to do is to make marriage and divorce available to those law abiding, tax paying, unrelated, consenting adult couples.

Whether it is through political action or judicial interpretation of the Constitution, it will happen. It's only a matter of time.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190218 Apr 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Mating behavior is not dependent on marriage. Again, are you serious??? No wonder you are so confused.
Marriage is a constraint (control) on mating behavior. Because the commitment of marriage has been weakened by easy divorce, and the consequences to children ignored, broken marriages and co-habitation have resulted. Calling ss couples married by totally removing children only exasperates the situation.
Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist except for the connection of children. Your premise that sterile gay couples will strengthen marriage is baseless. In fact, that is why the largest, latest and most scientific study to date on seven family types found lesbian couples last, AFTER single mothers. Gay couples did not even register out of THREE THOUSAND participants.
Not looking good VV...
Smirk.
I suggest that before there was legal marriage, couples still reproduced. It's how we all got here today.

Marriage is a manmade construct. Pairing up to produce offspring is a biological and psychological construct.

The study you cite compared apples and oranges. Not even the author of the study says that it should be utilized to determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized. It didn't indicate that the same-sex families had such horrific outcomes that the children should be immediately removed out of fear of abuse or neglect.

You draw conclusions from the study that not even the authors make.

You won't admit that parents stable, supportive, loving, same-gender parents are better than abusive, chaotic opposite-gender parents.

You still can't grasp that it is the skill of the parent that is the key variable when it comes to a child's success.
black jesus

United States

#190219 Apr 27, 2013
jesus was black
missy

Anonymous Proxy

#190220 Apr 27, 2013
agreed
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190221 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Are you serious? Procreation is not a requirement in ANY marriage.
We have been telling them that for a long time now, it never ever has been. They have a vested interest in not comprehending that fact.

Never has the ability or intent to have children ever been a requirement for a marriage license
.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190222 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been telling them that for a long time now, it never ever has been. They have a vested interest in not comprehending that fact.
Never has the ability or intent to have children ever been a requirement for a marriage license
.
No one has said that procreation is a requirement for marriage.

Why do you keep lying?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190223 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Are you serious? Procreation is not a requirement in ANY marriage.
Can you read? No one has said procreation is a requirement for marriage.

You are a dope.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190224 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is funny you say that, years ago that was my position, remove the word marriage from legal language, the government would not recognize any marriages, only civil unions.
Civil unions are a contract, between anyone that wanted one, couples, gay or straight, or a number of people, regardless of whether it was romantic or even nonromantic relationships.
Give churches the word marriage but make it legally meaningless.
That way Churches could have the word if they wanted it, straight churches could call their couples married, gay supporting churches could call their couples marriages, Poly churches could marry as many as they wanted and all would be equally in the eyes of the law as the underlying legal basis for any of them would be a civil union.
Not even my gay friends liked the idea
I gave it up, there was no support for it
As if you have any gay friends. Jizzy's not gay.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190225 Apr 27, 2013
black jesus wrote:
jesus was black
Jesus was Italian.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190226 Apr 27, 2013
black jesus wrote:
jesus was black
Jesus was a handsome white man. Looked sort of like Brad Pitt with long hair and a beard.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190227 Apr 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have your panties in a hinder binder twirl because I don't fit into your logic that anyone who disagrees with calling ss couples married is a repressed gay.
It was your last bastion of 'logic' against the essence of marriage, the visible vast distinctions between ss couples and marriage, and the desolate endemic barrenness of a ss couple.
The fools are obvious...
Smile.
Interesting analysis Doctor KiMare. However, it is quite a bit off the mark. No bunching of the knickers here about any of this. Oddly enough, I didn't suggest you were gay. I simply pointed out that you lie, repeatedly, about your DNA. You also stick with your sophmoric premise that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body. You also bring irrelevant "facts" into the argument, thus the comment about your opinion being mistaken for fact. For instance, if I state that heterosexuals aren't green so they shouldn't be allowed to marry, it is a fact that they're not green. However, my opinion about the relevance of their skin color is nil. Is that simple enough or do we need to get out crayons and construction paper.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190228 Apr 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
"Same-Sex Couple Fights for Right to Divorce in Maryland" http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Same-...
"Texas, USA: Dallas Gay Couple Still Seeking Divorce After Four Years"
http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/01/texas-us...
"Rhode Island Judge Faces Legal Quandary as Gay Couple Seeks Divorce"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231473,00...
There are more, but why bother. But one must enjoy the irony. Here we have a group of people screaming that they must be granted the acknowledgement of the government to unite them as one in marriage- because it is a RIGHT and to prevent such would be an infringement on their FREEDOM.
Note the term's- RIGHT and FREEDOM.
Now, since they were granted that "right" and "freedom" they must now fight the GOVERNMENT for their "RIGHT" and "FREEDOM" to dissolve that "MARRIAGE".
The irony being, they are neither "FREE" nor are they exercising a "RIGHT." They are exercising a government granted PRIVILEGE!
Without that silly little piece of paper, they would have been FREE and within their RIGHT to unite or dissolve said union or marriage at WILL!
That my friends is freedom, at least as our founders would have defined it.
This* is all well and good, but ignores one simple fact. Married couples are more apt to stay together, in spite of the rising divorce rate, than couples who merely cohabitate.

*Actually the divorce tally exchange really is a pissing contest, not that I think you're unaware of that little detail.

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) 2 hr L Morales 71,302
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec 23 Kristen Scannell ... 2
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:35 am PST