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

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#184018 Mar 21, 2013
Big D wrote:
I know they did, and I only talk like that to morons that still do
How does using a moronic argument (your words) further your case?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184019 Mar 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How does using a moronic argument (your words) further your case?
it is like the golden rule

I expect you treat others how you would like to be treated, so I oblige.
Pietro Armando

United States

#184020 Mar 21, 2013
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/lov...

Love and Marriage
by D’Vera Cohn

Americans believe that love is the main foundation of marriage. Most who never have been married say they would like to be at some point in their lives. However, statistics show Americans aren’t rushing to the altar, and the U.S. marriage rate is at an all-time low—only 51% of adults were married in 2011, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.

The romantic ideal of marriage plays out in survey data that show whether they are married or not, Americans are more inclined to choose “love” as a reason for marriage than any other factor. In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, love wins out over “making a lifelong commitment,” as well as “companionship,”“having children,” and “financial stability” as a very important reason to wed.

Among married people, 93% say love is a very important reason to get married; 84% of unmarried people say so. Men and women are equally likely to say love is a very important reason to get married.

But love only goes so far. Most Americans cast cold water on a central premise of many a song or poem, that each person in the universe has only one true love. About seven-in-ten (69%) people do not agree with that notion; only 28% do. Among those who do agree, men (31%) are slightly more likely to do so than women (26%). Young and old, married and unmarried are equally skeptical.

Do You Want to Marry?

Especially for those who have never wed, marriage remains a life goal. About six-in-ten (61%) men and women who have never married say they would like to get married, according to the 2010 Pew Research survey. Only 12% say they do not want to marry and 27% are not sure.

That same survey found that a trip to the altar is not so appealing for those who have been there before. Among divorced adults, only 29% say they would like to marry again, with women more likely than men to say they do not want another trip down the aisle. Among widowed men and women, only 8% want to wed again.

Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults. But among never-married adults ages 30 to 50, men (27%) are more likely than women (8%) to say they do not want to marry.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184023 Mar 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I blew your smoke away, and now you are farting more BS to cover your ass.
You claimed Christians would abort. They don't. You lied.
The fact of the matter is, the only hope for homosexual survival IS Christians! They have proved that over and over with the fight to protect any unborn child.
None of this changes the fact that the proof keeps coming in that homosexuality is a sexual defect. Just as every culture has long sensed. Epi-marker mistakes will simply soon confirm the fact.
By the way, you have carpet burns on your ass.
Smirk.
"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical " ( http://students.cis.uab.edu/keaira89/Statisti... )

So, with a full 86.7% of women who got abortions claiming a Christian affiliations, do you still believe that "Christians" won't have abortions?

You say that they would never have abortions and yet here are the figures that show differently. And there's always that "out" for them. You know, the one that allows them to abort a child who has mental or physical disabilities.

You've spent years on these forums telling us that gays are mentally deformed--genetic mistakes.

You're either being a liar or naïve when you say "Christians won't abort potentially gay fetuses."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184024 Mar 21, 2013
Akpilot
Thought you might find this similar to your argument.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george...
DOMA is an abuse of federalism
By George F. Will,
“[U]nder the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.”
— U.S. Supreme Court,
Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948)
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an exception to the rule that a law’s title is as uninformative about the law’s purpose as the titles of Marx Brothers movies (“Duck Soup,”“Horse Feathers,”“Animal Crackers”) are about those movies’ contents. DOMA’s purpose is precisely what its title says. Which is why many conservatives and liberals should be uneasy Wednesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments about its constitutionality.
Conservatives who supported DOMA should, after 17years’ reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.
DOMA, which in 1996 passed the House 342 to 67 and the Senate 85 to 14, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMA’s defenders argue that Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition, which obviously was adopted for the “defense” of marriage against state policies involving a different definition.“Before DOMA,” an amicus brief submitted by a group of federalism scholars notes,“federal law took state law as it found it.”
The question now is whether DOMA is “necessary and proper” for the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated congressional power. There is no such power pertaining to marriage. This subject is a state responsibility, a tradition established and validated by what can be called constitutional silence: The 10th Amendment says,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The amicus brief takes no position on same-sex marriage as social policy. Rather, it addresses a question that should obviate the need to address whether DOMA violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The threshold question is: Does the federal government have the power that DOMA’s preamble proclaims, the power “to define and protect the institution of marriage”?
DOMA’s obvious purpose is, as the scholars’ brief says,“to reject state governments’ policy judgments.” Its purpose is to endorse, and to some extent enforce, the traditional understanding of marriage. The scholars’ brief says:
“Congress may regulate in this area to the extent necessary to further its enumerated powers. But it may not simply reject the states’ policy judgments as if it had the same authority to make domestic-relations law as they do. That is the difference between a government with a general police power and a government of limited and enumerated powers.”
Ernest A. Young of the Duke Law School, the principal author of the federalism brief, says the operation of DOMA cannot help but burden states because “federal and state law are pervasively intertwined.” To understand the harm that could be done by an unlimited federal power to define the terms of domestic-relations law, Young recalls when a few states, venturing beyond the national consensus, began experimenting with no-fault divorce. Suppose, Young says, Congress passed a statute refusing recognition, for purposes of federal law, of any divorce where neither party made a showing of fault:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184025 Mar 21, 2013
“The couple would continue to be treated as married for purposes of federal income tax, health care programs and veterans’ benefits. Imagine the chaos this would wreak in the administration of state programs, and the pressure it would impose on states not to experiment with divorce law.”

As the scholars’ brief says, DOMA “shatters two centuries of federal practice” by creating “a blanket federal marital status that exists independent of states’ family-status determinations.” Federalism, properly respected, enables diversity as an alternative to a congressionally imposed, continent-wide moral uniformity. Allowing Washington to impose such conformity would ratify unprecedented federal supremacy regarding domestic relations, a power without judicially administrable limits. By striking down DOMA — by refusing to defer to Congress’s usurpation of states’ powers — the court would defer to 50 state governments, including the 38 that today prohibit same-sex marriage.

Liberals praise diversity but generally urge courts to permissively construe the Constitution in order to validate federal power to impose continental uniformities. DOMA is such an imposition. Liberals may be rescued from it by jurisprudence true to conservative principles, properly understood.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184026 Mar 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical " ( http://students.cis.uab.edu/keaira89/Statisti... )
So, with a full 86.7% of women who got abortions claiming a Christian affiliations, do you still believe that "Christians" won't have abortions?
You say that they would never have abortions and yet here are the figures that show differently. And there's always that "out" for them. You know, the one that allows them to abort a child who has mental or physical disabilities.
You've spent years on these forums telling us that gays are mentally deformed--genetic mistakes.
You're either being a liar or naïve when you say "Christians won't abort potentially gay fetuses."
Something doesn't sound right. What are the percentages of various self identified Christian women of various denominational backgrounds, who are pregnant, and don't have abortions? Clearly the number is much higher. What percentage of those abortions are for "physical and/or mental disabilities" reasons?
HorderS

La Puente, CA

#184028 Mar 21, 2013
Once again we have the (stupid) RNC, GOP, Republican and Tea Party wackO's to thank for the latest US Government Shut Down
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#184029 Mar 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
GE is a law school now, eh? Mkay..... I already know you didn't go to law school.
then why were you talking about my clients the other day?

are you a total liar or just totally skitzo?
I know, its both...

So what did you do at GE, skitzo?

Since: Nov 11

Fukushima

#184030 Mar 21, 2013
Carl Bad wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the half of it.
http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia888
Sit back and enjoy the crazy. google her you'll see
Crazy, arrogant troll.

Since: Nov 11

Fukushima

#184031 Mar 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you have an argument related to the issue that shows your intelligence, rather than simply simple personal judgments of those who do have a reasoned argument?
Come on, give us your best shot.
Snicker.
You call your arguments reasonable and they are not. Someone calls this out, you cannot accept that.

Since: Nov 11

Fukushima

#184032 Mar 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is, the only hope for homosexual survival IS Christians!
Oh please... you call this a reasoned argument???
None of this changes the fact that the proof keeps coming in that homosexuality is a sexual defect.
That is not a fact, that is inaccurate.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184036 Mar 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Something doesn't sound right. What are the percentages of various self identified Christian women of various denominational backgrounds, who are pregnant, and don't have abortions? Clearly the number is much higher. What percentage of those abortions are for "physical and/or mental disabilities" reasons?
I would imagine that if you subtracted the percentage of women (by faith) who got abortions from 100%, then you would have the percentage of women (by faith) who did not get abortions.

For example, if Catholic women account for 31.3% of abortions, then 69.7% of Catholic women didn't get abortions.

And I have no idea as to how many of those abortions were related to possible physical/mental disabilities.

The point of my post was to show Kimare that "Christians" may get abortions if they are able to someday determine if the fetus they are carrying may turn out to be gay.

He claims they will not.

He insists they would never have an abortion; even they find out their fetus might turn out gay.

I call "Bull Shit".
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#184037 Mar 21, 2013
xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Sold any CU packages lately?
nope, but I hear the demand for CU's in NJ is still there...

so, how many names do you post under and will any of them tell me what you claim to have done for GE fraud-boy?
Waxed

La Puente, CA

#184038 Mar 21, 2013
Some one has removed all the posted comments from September 12, 2012 to March 15, 2013.

"Has Rafael Perez caused your business harm"

This is a TRUE statement, just ask the business he has run out of town, but not all his doing, since he is a boot-licking boy for D. Wayne Leech, hris Jeffers, Jeff Kugel, the entire Glendora city council:

Judy Nelson

Gene Murabito

Karen Davis

Joseph Santoro

Douglas Tessitor

There are a few more to be posted later.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#184039 Mar 21, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't lie, you did.
That is why I provided a link to your previous post, while you have not.
And the link you provided proved you lied!
That's what's so funny.
And you don't have the 'nads to admit you made a mistake.
That's what's so pathetic.
akpilot wrote:
Poor Rose, so desperately wants to be relevant.
You claim I'm not relevant, but lady, you protest way too much!
LOLSER!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184040 Mar 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical " ( http://students.cis.uab.edu/keaira89/Statisti... )
So, with a full 86.7% of women who got abortions claiming a Christian affiliations, do you still believe that "Christians" won't have abortions?
You say that they would never have abortions and yet here are the figures that show differently. And there's always that "out" for them. You know, the one that allows them to abort a child who has mental or physical disabilities.
You've spent years on these forums telling us that gays are mentally deformed--genetic mistakes.
You're either being a liar or naïve when you say "Christians won't abort potentially gay fetuses."
I'm sorry, but a Christian would never kill an innocent person. If they did, they violate a fundamental principle of Christianity. A Christian woman killing her unborn child would be the worst of that truth.

You have made the assertion that many claim to be Christians and are not. I would suggest this is an example. Or do you disagree?

Moreover, I have never said homosexuals are mentally deformed. You lie. Again.

A true Christian will not murder an innocent child. For any reason.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#184041 Mar 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I blew your smoke away, and now you are farting more BS to cover your ass.
You claimed Christians would abort. They don't. You lied.
Christians abort.
Who do you think you are fooling?
BTW, do you think your parents wished they had aborted you?
:)
KiMare wrote:
The fact of the matter is, the only hope for homosexual survival IS Christians! They have proved that over and over with the fight to protect any unborn child.
A child has 46 chromosomes.
How many do you have?
KiMare wrote:
None of this changes the fact that the proof keeps coming in that homosexuality is a sexual defect. Just as every culture has long sensed. Epi-marker mistakes will simply soon confirm the fact.
By the way, you have carpet burns on your ass.
Smirk.
What percentage of parents get an abortion when they find out their "child" is a monster mutation?
LOL!
j roybal rb1

Madera, CA

#184042 Mar 21, 2013
This should be an out rage! The voters of California have voted NO! Marriage is what! what dose it mean now ! GOD created marriage to, unite a man and a woman, history shows us in every culture marriage is holy. Well the bible dose say its going to get bad as Sodom and Gomorra. This proves it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184043 Mar 21, 2013
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabo...

Why Do Women Have Abortions? 
       - a statistical breakdown*
 
Responses listed as primary reason           
 
   Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
      - Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
      - Feels she can't afford baby 23%
      - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
      - Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
      - Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
      - Interference with education/career plans 4%
      - Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
      - Other reasons <6.5%
     TOTAL: 93%
(Approx.)

   "Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
      - Mother's Health 4%
      - Baby may have health problem 3%
      - Rape or Incest <0.5%
   
    TOTAL:
 

7%
(Approx.)
 

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Available for dating Bachelorette (Dec '13) Dec 20 KeS 2
New OAKDALE Fema Concentration camps being buil... (Nov '08) Dec 18 classified1234 12
Review: A & A Temporary Fencing (Jun '14) Dec 18 Matt Dalek 2
Obamaa s Action on Immigration Praised in Modesto Dec 3 stell88 1
1980's Restaurant; Rax or Arbies? (Jul '06) Nov '14 xsturgeonx 3
Turlock candidate has long history in Stanislau... (Oct '06) Nov '14 Joe 6
Walmart in Oakdale? (Aug '07) Nov '14 Riverbank resident 13
Oakdale Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Oakdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oakdale

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:52 am PST