Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,189

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: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#185983 Apr 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>So racism and gender abuse is a result of Christianity?

Do you see the hateful, ignorant bigotry in that 'logic'???

In 8000 years of human history, every single culture has had marriage.

In 8000 years of human history, not ONE SINGLE culture has embraced calling ss couples married from the start of the culture to end. Nowhere has that perversion established itself and spread.

In the extremely rare places where it did appear, it quickly disappeared.

Things don't look real good for you historically Jarboy...

Snicker.
Historically things evolve. I know you religious freaks don't like the theory of evolution that is based on science not some fictional story. Really an ark that held 2 of every animal for how long? Mathematically impossible for a boat to have been that large. Women had no rights at one time nor did blacks. So historically evolving as a society looks pretty damn good for me I would say. It's bigots and people that speak hatred like you that need to let others live their lives how they want not how you want them to. I could care less what you do sexually and with who so why are you so concerned with what I do sexually and with who? Curiosity?

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#185984 Apr 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

The only prevailing interest a government has in marriage is to protect and support the sole safe birthplace of society's members.

The government has no prevailing interest in selectively supporting friendships.

Bazinga!
So in your theory couples that never bear children aren't really married? If its just for mating and reproduction?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185985 Apr 1, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, as I see it, the whole issue of SSM is based upon claims of Constitutional rights granting "Protections", although which specific rights, under the Constitution, weren't made exactly clear in the document. Vague cross-references to the 14th Amendment notwithstanding. But the inference is that gays aren't allowed to make selections, based upon violations of these rights. They claim that they should possess the rights to choose who they wish. But, the Mormons are also granted these same vague rights, except their religious rights are being violated by the same governmental overstepping. And the Mormons have actually shown that they consider this a violation of "Religious Freedom", more specifically granted under the C.
As per incestuous marriage, SSM arguments have clearly claimed that procreation is not enough to validate or invalidate marriage. Birth control being available, and medical procedures that can render sterility. Probably a bit of a ramble, as I am no Constitutional scholar, but there aren't too many of those in here, anyway.
As to the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, and Murphy v. Ramsey, I would counter that we used to have Sodomy Laws on the books and that these, also, were repealed. And that the same arguments that had these laws repealed could also serve the same purpose for the P and I crowd, eventually. Views change over time, and if we are to allow for changing to suit one, why not others? Upon what basis does the government stand, to justify meddling with marriage laws, at all?
Randy, I get a little frustrated when people seem to equate incest with homosexuality.

Our best scientists, medical professionals, psychiatrists, and legal minds have agreed that homosexuality is a normal, functional and legal lifestyle.

Moral arguments aside; our relationships, unlike incestuous ones, do not carry the risk of a medically needy or otherwise deformed offspring.

Comparing our relationships to incestuous relationships would be like comparing heterosexual relationships to bestiality.

It's insulting. In fact, I'd lay odds that if incestuous relationships were to be legalized, the VAST majority of them would be heterosexual in nature.

Bottom line, it's an unfair comparison.

Bigamy is a little different in that there are consenting, unrelated adults involved. And at some point down the road, bigamy may ver well be legalized. I don't know. I don't follow such things.

Having no interest in being involved with more than one person at a time, it's just not on my radar.

Whatever the case may be, anyone who believes that they are entitled to rights under the constitution may bring a case before the courts and have it heard.

Our community has done this. We have science, psychiatry, medicine, and the law backing us up. That's how our case for marriage equality has gotten so far.

It's not like we snuck it in the back door. These cases have been building for years. In 1970 a same-sex couple in Minnesotta attempted to obtain a marriage license. They were denied. Their case went before the Supreme Court, who dismissed the case in 1972.

That was 43 years ago. Our community has been fighting for nearly half a century to obtain rights and protections, so it's not happened over night. It may seem like it has, but it's not.

And you've got to stop engaging with all of these others who are so angry and hateful on here.

I understand their frustration. And goodness knows, I can dish it out pretty heavily myself (you may have seen some of my discussions with Kimare).

You seem like a reasonable person. Try to avoid confrontation with them. Your blood pressure isn't worth it...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185986 Apr 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
The only prevailing interest a government has in marriage is to protect and support the sole safe birthplace of society's members.
The government has no prevailing interest in selectively supporting friendships.
Bazinga!
Then your government needs to IMMEDIATELY stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not willing to sign a BINDING contract that their marriage WILL RESULT in children.

If these couples cannot or will not produce children, then the government should have the ability to annul such marriages--maybe even filing criminal charges against such couples break such laws.

Stop sterile and elderly couples from marrying. Stop couples who have no interest in children from marrying.

Any other marriage, as you say, is simply supporting friendships.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185987 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe me I have paid my fair share of taxes in my life, most of which goes to education of which I don't have children so as far as that goes I and every other gay person without children are the ones paying into society's costs without reaping the benefits. Maybe you should worry about the unwed mothers that keep popping out kids to get bigger food stamp checks and all of the other fee crap we give people. They are the ones depleting our resources yes the mothers and children.
Jared, Kimare, I've decided, is a lost cause.

He has horrible ideas and beliefs about gays. None of them are based on firm and established science.

He bases his belief that marriage should be reserved only for those couples who are going to have children.

Elderly, sterile, and couples who don't want children SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry under his notion of "ideal marriage".

He would severely restrict people's rights.

He believes that gays should be cured and eventually eliminated from the face of the planet.

He is an extremist and frightening.

I believe he's unreachable at this point.

The only reason to engage him is to point out flaws in his arguments so that others can see them as well.

But don't think that you will ever have an impact on his ridiculous and ignorant comments. I've dealt with this twisted person for over two years.

Talking to him is futile.
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#185988 Apr 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Cochrane died in 2005 of a brain tumor.
It fits that our man "Tommy Cochrane" AKA "Mr. Anderson" AKA "Hemp telelgraph" named himself after a man who succeeded in letting his client get away with a brutal double murder.
Tommy Cochrane is a great sideshow. Just like Johnny was!
Johnny Cochran was an excellent lawyer who kept an innocent man from being framed for murder.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185989 Apr 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Jared, Kimare, I've decided, is a lost cause.
He has horrible ideas and beliefs about gays. None of them are based on firm and established science.
He bases his belief that marriage should be reserved only for those couples who are going to have children.
Elderly, sterile, and couples who don't want children SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry under his notion of "ideal marriage".
He would severely restrict people's rights.
He believes that gays should be cured and eventually eliminated from the face of the planet.
He is an extremist and frightening.
I believe he's unreachable at this point.
The only reason to engage him is to point out flaws in his arguments so that others can see them as well.
But don't think that you will ever have an impact on his ridiculous and ignorant comments. I've dealt with this twisted person for over two years.
Talking to him is futile.
Yes

there is good news however, now that they have.... come out of the closet... so to speak, the foundation of their belief is plainly visible to all.

They are spreading the word, and we have heard the word.... and the word is HATE

and people are leaving their churches in droves
Anonymous

Nassau, NY

#185990 Apr 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Loosen up toots. Have some fun. Jesus likes it when you're having fun and happy.
I am having fun:)
Anonymous

Nassau, NY

#185991 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was married until I was honest with myself and now I'm happy with men.
Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
Anonymous

Nassau, NY

#185992 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Historically things evolve. I know you religious freaks don't like the theory of evolution that is based on science not some fictional story. Really an ark that held 2 of every animal for how long? Mathematically impossible for a boat to have been that large. Women had no rights at one time nor did blacks. So historically evolving as a society looks pretty damn good for me I would say. It's bigots and people that speak hatred like you that need to let others live their lives how they want not how you want them to. I could care less what you do sexually and with who so why are you so concerned with what I do sexually and with who? Curiosity?
Please, teach us your ways oh great Jared! Your words of wisdom are those to live by!;)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185993 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
Did your imaginary playmate tell you this? Or do you think you are psychic?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185995 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So in your theory couples that never bear children aren't really married? If its just for mating and reproduction?
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185996 Apr 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your government needs to IMMEDIATELY stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not willing to sign a BINDING contract that their marriage WILL RESULT in children.
If these couples cannot or will not produce children, then the government should have the ability to annul such marriages--maybe even filing criminal charges against such couples break such laws.
Stop sterile and elderly couples from marrying. Stop couples who have no interest in children from marrying.
Any other marriage, as you say, is simply supporting friendships.
Waitaminit VV. SSM advocates often stress marriage is about love, yet do not argue the state annul marriages of couples who are no longer "in love", or require a "love test", prior to issuance of a marriage license. Why?

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#185997 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
I didn't marry the wrong woman I hadn't yet met the right man. ;)

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#185998 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Please, teach us your ways oh great Jared! Your words of wisdom are those to live by!;)
Thank you!!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185999 Apr 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
Very lame try

If it applies to same sex couples it applies to older couples or vets with injuries or even those that choose not to have children.

This argument was already laughed out of the supreme court, do you think you will do better than the lawyers there did?
It is a dead argument, already put in its proper place ( the trash receptacle ) by the courts.

There is no requirement for a marriage license to have the intention or even ability to have children.

I donít care about divorce or annulment, you can have your marriage dissolved for absolutely no reason at all if either party wants a divorce, we are talking about requirements for a marriage license only.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186000 Apr 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
You know, just because something isn't openly discussed in history does not mean it didn't take place. There is an 11,600 year old drawing on a cave in Sicily that depicts homosexuality.

You won't likely find that in a traditional history book.

But given the age, I believe it qualifies as an example of how homosexual behavior has "deep seated roots" in the society of mankind.

Other depictions have been found that are 9,000 years old and over 4,000 years old.

Keep in mind that the Jewish race is believed to be about 3,800 years old.

So homosexuality was in place LONG before the name Yahweh was ever uttered from someone's lips.

Have I proven my point?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186001 Apr 1, 2013
Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnny Cochran was an excellent lawyer who kept an innocent man from being framed for murder.
Too funny!

He was an excellent lawyer. But OJ is GUILTY as charged. The glove fit.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186002 Apr 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did your imaginary playmate tell you this? Or do you think you are psychic?
Here we go again. She didn't mention God in the post you responded to. YOU DID dummy. And then you whine about people posting religious stuff.

You're OFF TOPIC. Go start a GOD thread.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186003 Apr 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Very lame try
If it applies to same sex couples it applies to older couples or vets with injuries or even those that choose not to have children.
This argument was already laughed out of the supreme court, do you think you will do better than the lawyers there did?
It is a dead argument, already put in its proper place ( the trash receptacle ) by the courts.
There is no requirement for a marriage license to have the intention or even ability to have children.
I donít care about divorce or annulment, you can have your marriage dissolved for absolutely no reason at all if either party wants a divorce, we are talking about requirements for a marriage license only.
They didn't laugh the argument out of court. They politely laughed at the lame joke about older people procreating.

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
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) 6 hr B_DAVID_FERREL 104
Crook in Arnold Oct 11 Commander Bunny 2
Yucaipa City Council candidates answer questions Oct 8 Qeolersan 1
h*rny sky pe Oct 3 fallen10 1
Stanislaus county Embezzles hundred of thousand... (Nov '08) Oct 1 KeS 9
Fraud claims coming to court (Jun '07) Oct 1 KeS 3
Review: 5 Star Auto Sales Inc (Aug '10) Sep 26 motownx 6
Oakdale Dating
Find my Match

Oakdale Jobs

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 ]