Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 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.

Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212306 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
But, stupid "not complimentary" is meaningless babble. There are obvious differences between any two people, even identical twins. That's not the issue. The issue is the 14th Amendment says all persons should get equal protection under the law. Even you.
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.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212307 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, the sooner you folks start dying off from eating that crap, the better!
BTW, most people into "fudge packing" are straight.
Most people into "anything" are straight. Even the ones condemning SSM. Have you forgotten all that we have taught you?
Karma

Clearlake, CA

#212308 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject is gay marriage.
Admit you don't have an argument against it.
If you had a rational argument against it, you'd be able to finish this sentence and make a rational argument.
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because..."
Even if I were a hypocrite,
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because Rose is a hypocrite." would not be a rational argument.
Neither would ""Gay marriage should not be allowed because Frankie can't marry his sisters."
Thanks for the laugh.
Wait a minute...Frankie can't marry his sisters under your "new plan"?
Why not?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212309 Aug 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject is gay marriage.
Admit you don't have an argument against it.
If you had a rational argument against it, you'd be able to finish this sentence and make a rational argument.
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because..."
Even if I were a hypocrite,
"Gay marriage should not be allowed because Rose is a hypocrite." would not be a rational argument.
Neither would ""Gay marriage should not be allowed because Frankie can't marry his sisters."
Thanks for the laugh.
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?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#212316 Aug 25, 2013
Karma wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute...Frankie can't marry his sisters under your "new plan"?
Why not?
Because, currently, incest is as illegal as SSM was, only a few years ago. But,(this is where it gets difficult to beat a sensible answer out of the SSM crowd) whereas the SSSB crowd got the laws changed, by saying that it was not the job of the government to decide who boffed whom, they now say that incest is illegal, and stop there, instead of continuing the argument that it is not the job of the government to decide who boffs whom. Aditionally, whereas it was said that the SSSB crowd was being told that they were a sterile coupling, they had the audacity to point out that procreation is not relevant to marriage, a little recognized argument (by them) now that they have the laws changed to suit ONLY them. They are now quite happy to use the "Procreation Argument" againt the incest group. And to point out that incest is illegal is all the reason that they have. If pressed, they, then, rely on the "Birth Defect Argument", which ties in most directly to the "Procreation Argument" that they found so inconvenient, only a few years ago. A fine example of the "Disposable Argument".
So, now you have the dizzying arguments that they use to decide who may boff whom. As long as one fits into the "Pre-Formed Mold" that they have decided is relevant.
Their argument is so dizzying, in fact, that I want to know who I may sue, for whiplash....

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#212321 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?
It's pretty silly, of course, as you knew when you posted it.
Of course, there is no part of marriage law that prevents loveless marriage of convenience, and there are folks who enter in to those - I even know a couple of people who wasted their lives that way. Most people, gay and straight do not, and marry for attraction and love and to form supportive and healthy families.
Now as you know, procreation is not required to obtain a marriage license, and infertile folks and folks who don;t want to have kids legally marry every day, so that part of your post is downright silly.
But marriage IS indeed a good place to raise kids in, and the tens of thousands of kids raised by gay couples benefit in all the same ways as every other kid.
Does this make it a bit easier for you to comprehend?

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#212322 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
.. The 14th Amendment was relevant to the rights listed in the Constitution, which does not define marriage......
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?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#212324 Aug 25, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people into "anything" are straight. Even the ones condemning SSM........
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.
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

Monrovia, 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

Los Angeles, 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

Los Angeles, 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.:)

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
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Jul 22 dGo mneDad lyHo i... 71,943
News Del Rey Oaks Garden Center grand opening schedu... Jul 21 Kathi Buckley Smith 1
drugs Jul 16 JayJay 2
News Sex offender Tom Pollacci pleads not guilty to ... (Mar '09) Jul 15 martin5 360
City of seaside needs to replace more than PD T... Jul 10 fed up 1
Monterey Seafood Restaurant Celebrates its 26 Y... Jul 6 cafefina58 1
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Jun '15 ChaCha 17
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages