Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

EXPERT

Redding, CA

#212326 Aug 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.
Geesh.
However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
Why do you want to deny people who are not law-abiding Americans?
Quirks

Covina, CA

#212329 Aug 25, 2013
Quirks are better suited to be doing this?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212330 Aug 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Like equal responsibility and protections under the law?
Why is marriage law excluded? Can you point out where that exclusion is mentioned in the document?
1) Like equal responsibility and protections under the law?
Why is marriage law excluded?
I don't know why that is so.
2) Can you point out where that exclusion is mentioned in the document?
Silly question, pointing to where an exclusion is mentioned. But, in an effort to help you out, I'll say that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention marriage (or an airforce, CIA, or a Department of Education). It has left the question of the laws up to the states through this omission.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212331 Aug 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.
Geesh.
However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
But, I was answering Rose's claim about fudge-packing. And, I wish to point out that, although there may be a larger number of straights involved in the act, this is not the same thing as the question of percentage. Much to the dismay of Chongo, who wishes to imply that everyone engages in this aberrant behavior.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#212332 Aug 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No need, you keep proving it over and over. Besides, all they have to do is read back a couple pages and see for themselves.
However, the bottom line is this; Big changes are coming. Science is quickly dealing with sexual disorders. Transgendered can be fixed. Now they may be able to address homosexuality and bi-sexuality before birth with epi-genetics. In a decade, this could all have been a pointless exercise of futility.
Either way, it will be futile.
I think what you'll find in the next decade or so will be a diagnosis for bigots and homophobes. I mean think about it... A person who tries to make other people's sexual attraction their business. That has pathology written all over it.

I'm not sure what they'll call it--maybe something like "naziosis". Or perhaps they'll name if after you.

Fingers crossed!

The THEORY of epigenetics will likely not come to pass. One of the links you provided to the epigenetics THEORY indicated that determining it to be a fact will be near impossible. And even if they do determine that epigenetics play a role in orientation, there is no indication that there SHOULD be a "cure" or WILL be a "cure" as a result.

I think your epigenetics THEORY will turn around and bite people like you on the ass. Homosexuality will be seen as normal--a naturally occurring event that epigenetics explains.

You know nothing about homosexuality, with the exception of men's asses. And you certainly have shown yourself to know nothing about gender identity.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#212333 Aug 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a choice, not a regulation
The Volcano, or the "Big D" action figure?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#212334 Aug 25, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. Really? Yes, Dear, we know there are fewer gay folks than straight folks.
Geesh.
However, just because there are fewer of us does not mean that we are not entitled to the same basic civil rights, and protections under the law, that cover all other law-abiding Americans.
But that's just the point Questy, you ALREADY ARE. The same that cover all other law abiding Americans.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#212335 Aug 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing about homosexuality, with the exception of men's asses. And you certainly have shown yourself to know nothing about gender identity.
A person who tries to make other people's sexual attraction their business. That has pathology written all over it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#212336 Aug 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what you'll find in the next decade or so will be a diagnosis for bigots and homophobes. I mean think about it... A person who tries to make other people's sexual attraction their business. That has pathology written all over it.
I'm not sure what they'll call it--maybe something like "naziosis". Or perhaps they'll name if after you.
Fingers crossed!
The THEORY of epigenetics will likely not come to pass. One of the links you provided to the epigenetics THEORY indicated that determining it to be a fact will be near impossible. And even if they do determine that epigenetics play a role in orientation, there is no indication that there SHOULD be a "cure" or WILL be a "cure" as a result.
I think your epigenetics THEORY will turn around and bite people like you on the ass. Homosexuality will be seen as normal--a naturally occurring event that epigenetics explains.
You know nothing about homosexuality, with the exception of men's asses. And you certainly have shown yourself to know nothing about gender identity.
Godwin's law???

VV, you're scrapping the bottom again...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#212337 Aug 25, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
A person who tries to make other people's sexual attraction their business. That has pathology written all over it.
Can it be true???

You are the expert, and you think I'm attracted to men's asses???

I'm so ashamed!!!

I'm disgusted!!!

Well, whatever the case,

ss marriage is still an oxymoron.

Smirk.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212338 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling a perfectly clear and valid concept "meaningless babble" is....well... meaningless babble, meant to sidestep an obvious and glaring fact. The 14th Amendment was relevant to the rights listed in the Constitution, which does not define marriage. Also, the "protections" of which you glibly speak are simply to prevent the government from removing the basic rights that ARE listed (enumerated, for those wishing to sound high-falutin') in the Constitution. It simply leaves the decision about marriage laws up to the individual states. And, don't call yourself "stupid", I know who I am posting to.
Well, stupid, the 14th Amendment is relevant to equal protection under the law. And that includes the laws governing marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212339 Aug 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
By the way Rose_NoHo. Thanks for taking down that picture of your stockinged ham hock and high heeled hoof.
Your new generic picture is so much less offensive.
Yet more proof you can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage.
Thanks for the laughs at your expense.:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212340 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people into "anything" are straight. Even the ones condemning SSM. Have you forgotten all that we have taught you?
At least you admit you know I'm right. Most people into anal sex are straight.
And you can't use anal sex as the basis of a rational argument against gay marriage.
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because some gay men have anal sex." isn't a rational argument.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212341 Aug 25, 2013
Karma wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute...Frankie can't marry his sisters under your "new plan"?
Why not?
Because you shouldn't be allowed to force someone to marry you against their will.
Even a dolt like you should agree with that.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212342 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is not supposed to be used to avoid paying taxes and to gain benefits. It is not merelt a business arrangement. 2 of the same gender do not provide balance for any adopted children that may be added to lend validity to a defunct relationship that is, by definition, barren and sterile.
How's that?
If a gay person just wanted to use marriage to avoid paying taxes and to gain benefits, they'd just marry someone of the opposite sex. Let's file that under "Duh".
Rose's Law, "Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"" Balance? What is the government supposed to do? Balance our subtle energies? Single people can adopt. And you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
So, you haven't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212343 Aug 25, 2013
Oscar dela Rich wrote:
<quoted text>The subject is same sex marriage. Stop lying.
Gay marriage and same sex marriage are the same thing. I'm not interested in playing word games.
Oscar dela Rich wrote:
Admit you do not have a rational argument for it.
You can not come up with one state interest for allowing same sex marriage.
If you know of a state interest you could finish this sentence. The state interest in changing the law and allowing same sex marriage is.......
As for you sentence. The rational argument against same sex marriage is that you do not have a rational argument for it.
Non issue. We are guaranteed equal protection under the law, that equal protection doesn't have to serve a state interest.
Please take notes, the rational argument for gay marriage is that men and women should have equal protection under the law.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#212344 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
If a gay person just wanted to use marriage to avoid paying taxes and to gain benefits, they'd just marry someone of the opposite sex. Let's file that under "Duh".
Rose's Law, "Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"" Balance? What is the government supposed to do? Balance our subtle energies? Single people can adopt. And you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
So, you haven't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage.
So, you haven't come up with a rational argument for gay marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212345 Aug 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most gay men pack the fudge. Most straight men don't.
How naive you are. Ask your sisters about straight men wanting anal sex.
Anyway, it's a non issue.
The particular sex acts we engage in are not the government's business.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#212346 Aug 25, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you haven't come up with a rational argument for gay marriage.
Freedom Of Religion. First Amendment.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#212350 Aug 25, 2013
Oscar dela Rich wrote:
<quoted text>The subject is same sex marriage.
.
An argument for same sex marriage is not "Rose thinks those who do not like her are homophobes, so gays should be allowed to marry the same sex, their sisters and their pets".
Neither would "Same sex marriage should be allowed because no one of the opposite sex wants to marry Rosie."
Thanks for the laugh.
And the still and reigning champ of dumb is Rose the Hobo.
The fact all you can do is lie about me and my position, and try to insult me, once again shows:
You can't come up with a rational argument against gay marriage.

First, I can't think of how not liking me and being a homophobe would be related. I would never base an argument about gay marriage on who does or doesn't want to marry me.

Now, try again, try to finish this sentence and make a rational argument against gay marriage.
"A person should not be allowed to marry a member of the same sex because..."

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? (Oct '14) 17 hr Nicky21 111
News Police briefs: Beaten body found on Old Stage Road (Dec '09) 18 hr Oreo 16
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 5 RichAndrewd 1,553
Marina infested with gang boys (Mar '11) May 5 NorteXIVgang 18
News Seaside closes access to makeshift toy car trac... Apr '17 Jsherratt831 1
News Brown names Laird as Resource Agency chief (Jan '11) Apr '17 wmcnatt 8
the music thread (Apr '12) Apr '17 Musikologist 22

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages