Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Read more: www.cnn.com 201,838

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.

Read more

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187664 Apr 8, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So once again we are back to the marriage is all about sex? Which is it you keep going round and round. Is marriage about some religious sanctity or is it about sex. Stop flip flopping you sound like a politician.
Now marriage isn't about sex?

Anytime the issue starts exposing the fallacy of your position, all of a sudden, that's not what marriage is about.

It's not about children because ss couples are barren.
It's not about sex because gays only have a harmful imitation.
It's not about gender because ss couples are only ever a duplicated half.

Furthermore, I don't know a single heterosexual couple who got married so they could have the benefits the government provides.

Man up and get your own relationship, and quite your gay twirl whining!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187665 Apr 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does "marriage" exist in the first place? Why did it develop throughout time and place as virtually an exclusive relationship of either one man/husband one wife, or one man many wives?
Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, please. Thank you.
He is incapable. As soon as you get specific, he does a gay twirl dance to another spot, and wants you to answer HIS question.

He is clearly ignorant and immature.

Good luck.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187666 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts. But it proves nothing. Again, you fail.
No same sex marriage is succeeding you are failing, even your partyís idiot spokesman/entertainer has conceded the point.

What I think should happen, is happening, that is not failing
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187667 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny!
How about when a good cigar was a smoke?
Well I donít want to go back to that time, but I would like one of those brought to this time :)

( I donít smoke them very often, but have on rare occasions )

I donít like looking back with rose colored glasses as too many do, I donít pine for the past.

"The good ole days werenít always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187668 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No same sex marriage is succeeding you are failing, even your partyís idiot spokesman/entertainer has conceded the point.
What I think should happen, is happening, that is not failing
Yes. Same sex marriage is succeeding, but you are failing.

One could say same sex marriage is succeeding despite your best efforts!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187669 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I donít want to go back to that time, but I would like one of those brought to this time :)
( I donít smoke them very often, but have on rare occasions )
I donít like looking back with rose colored glasses as too many do, I donít pine for the past.
"The good ole days werenít always good, and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
Just keep your smoke away from me.

And shuddup. Don't try and get cute with me you corny jackass!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187670 Apr 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Now marriage isn't about sex?
Anytime the issue starts exposing the fallacy of your position, all of a sudden, that's not what marriage is about.
It's not about children because ss couples are barren.
It's not about sex because gays only have a harmful imitation.
It's not about gender because ss couples are only ever a duplicated half.
Furthermore, I don't know a single heterosexual couple who got married so they could have the benefits the government provides.
Man up and get your own relationship, and quite your gay twirl whining!
Smile.
so, if marriage IS about sex....then everytime we see a married couple, we're supposed to visualize them having sex? is that it? is that what you do?
or, if marriage is about sex, then perhaps is a public declaration of one's sexuality - what one prefers.

i don't know about you, but my relationship with my partner / spouse isn't all about sex. there's far more to our relationship than a physical act can express.

if sex is all i wanted i wouldn't be in stable, long term and monogomous relationship.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187671 Apr 8, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
so, if marriage IS about sex....then everytime we see a married couple, we're supposed to visualize them having sex? is that it? is that what you do?
or, if marriage is about sex, then perhaps is a public declaration of one's sexuality - what one prefers.
i don't know about you, but my relationship with my partner / spouse isn't all about sex. there's far more to our relationship than a physical act can express.
if sex is all i wanted i wouldn't be in stable, long term and monogomous relationship.
To them, marriage is all about sex

It sure isnít to me... she means a lot more to me than that.

The more I think about it their marriages are a lot more fragile if sex is all it is about for them.

sad
Anonymous

Richmond, VA

#187672 Apr 8, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>you won't catch very many smart people there either.. stupid bigot
what do you know about wisdom. You are the least intelligent person, performing the least intelligent job, you are a silly sk double A nk b!atch!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187675 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
To them, marriage is all about sex
It sure isnít to me... she means a lot more to me than that.
The more I think about it their marriages are a lot more fragile if sex is all it is about for them.
sad
Why do you always try to make arguments that just aren't there? No one said marriage is all about sex. You are dishonest.
Competition

Covina, CA

#187676 Apr 8, 2013
It also comes weeks after Governor Rick Perry reportedly sent letters to gun companies, encouraging them to move to Texas.

Perry sent a message on Twitter to Colorado company Magpul as recently as March 21, 2013 saying ďCome on Down to Texas.Ē

The Governorís office did not confirm Friday if it had sent a recruitment letter to Colt Competition.
yea sure

AOL

#187677 Apr 8, 2013
The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial.

Married couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth of Glastonbury were supposed to be sentenced Friday in Hartford Superior Court under a plea deal, but instead withdrew from their agreement with prosecutors. The men had already pleaded no contest in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor ó a reduction from even more serious charges related to sexual assault.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-con...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187679 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless I'm mistaken, the argument most often thrown around here is that heterosexual couples should have access to the benefits and protections of marriage PRIMARILY because they may have children.
That is correct. What other reason would there be to privelege marriage, or have it at all?

Its opposite sex couples, not heterosexual. An OSC could be of mixed orientation.
The last part of my post was an attempt to show that there are a significant number of same-gender couples who have children.
Who are most likely the products if one or both partners previous OS marriage or relationship. If it was the former they had the protections of marriage.
Shouldn't these be afforded the same protections and benefits under the law as opposite-gender couples who are married?
By what reasoning?
If you don't want to include children in the equation, then the fact that two, consenting, unrelated, adults who wish to partner their lives under the eyes of the government by way of marriage, should be a sufficient argument for same-gender marriage.
Hmmmmmm.....unrelated? First cousins can marry in several states. Why should it be limited to two consenting adults who "wish to partner thier lives under the eyes of government...."?
Don't try to throw in the ringer of plural marriage and incestuous marriages. They have already been found to be unlawful.
Opposite sex incest not same sex....is illegal. The SSM version has never been court tested.

[QUOTE[
Same-gender marriage HAS NOTHING TO DO with incest or bigamy.
We are ONLY talking about same-gender, unrelated, consenting, adult couples.[/QUOTE]

It's all part of the "how is marriage defined" discussion.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187680 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's it? Too bad for them but polygamy "has been found to be unlawful."?
Not so fast slick! That was the same thing that was said about same sex marriage just a few short years ago. It wasn't a valid reason to deny SSM, it's not a valid reason to deny poly marriage.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
That's not my fight...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187681 Apr 8, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>True that, how are the twins?
Saggy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187682 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll just point out that the Supreme Court Justices between 1888 and 1966 meant that marriages were between members of the same race. In 1967, they agreed that legally married couples had to be of the same race.
Now, according to you logic, the "Loving" decision in 1967 (i.e. those who said marriage could only involve same race couples) should have continued to hold that marriages can only be between members of the same race. But the Justices "redefined" marriage at that time. They expanded it to include "different race couples".
We believe that the Justices will expand its definition of marriage again by adding same-gender couples.
This definition expansion has already happened in at least three recent federal court cases and the definition has been expanded in 9 states by legislative means.
"Expand"???

You remove children from marriage,
You duplicate half of normal, natural sex,
You delete a gender,
And you call that an 'expanded' definition?

More of your gay twirl VV...

Snicker.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187683 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not my fight...
Same sex marriage is not Mr Hudson's fight.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187684 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Dot feel picked on, I feel the same about Islam, no better or worse. Or scientology, or Volcano worship
I treat all of them equally
Really? That's pretty idiotic.

No wonder you can't tell the difference between redumbant couples and marriage.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187685 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We know for a fact that ability or intent to procreate is not a requirement for a marriage license
We know for a fact that the ability or intent to have sex of any specific kind or any at all for that matter is not a requirement for a marriage license
We know for a fact that religion is not any kind of requirement for a marriage license.
I am standing by to educate.
I also happen to know I am dealing with people that believe in the ďgolden ruleĒ that you treat others the way you want to be treated. So I will happily oblige them and treat them exactly how they treat others.
We know for a fact that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. There never was a need to make children a 'requirement'. That would be idiotic.

We know for a fact that anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Demanding sex in marriage is as stupid as equating perverted sex with normal, natural sex.

We know for certain that in 8000 years of human history encompassing thousands of cultures and hundreds of religions, marriage has always been present from the start to finish of every one of them. Calling ss couples 'married' has never been a part from start to finish of a single culture.

I'm standing by to stick the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twist it with a smirk. To kick at the darkness until it bleeds light.

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187686 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
To insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriageólike a court case over divorce and child custody. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches. The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.
One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity. Let's say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way.
If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourseóthe kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage. The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration. The first question is about identity and difference.......
I say this with respect and appreciation, thanks. Often your posts, clarify my personal thoughts on this issue, puts it in a pespective that requires a tad more articulation. Thanks again.

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
Review: Andrews Appliance Repair (Oct '13) Mar 18 Julia 3
News Scott Peterson family asking for donations (Jul '09) Mar 16 Cathy Odell 60
News $1.8 million mosque rising at Islamic Center in... (Feb '14) Mar 15 truthseekerss 34
Review: Northern California Cancer Center Mar 11 Anonymous 1
Review: Law Offices Of Ernie Spokes (Dec '13) Mar 7 jewelz 3
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Mar 7 Riverbank resident 115
Motorcycle accident near Jack in the box in oak... Jan '15 Watch 1
More from around the web

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]