Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,794

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
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184381 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the compelling reason...
1.) Scientists and the Supreme Court have determined that homosexuality is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality. It is no worse than heterosexual behavior and no better than heterosexual behavior. It is equal. Like it or not, those are the facts based on scientific findings and legal findings in this country.
2.) Heterosexual relationships are granted the right, protection, and privileges of marriage. Homosexual relationships are not granted these things.
3.) The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
4.) So, if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are both supposed to be equal under the law; and heterosexual relationships are given more rights and protections via marriage than homosexual relationships; and the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law; then THERE IS A COMPELLING reason to give homosexual relationships THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual relationships.
Word games. It may very well be that homosexuality is considered "normal and legal", but it is not equal to heterosexuality.
"...the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law;..." protection of rights that guarantee that the government shall not interfere with our abilities to function as free citizens. It does not have any authority to decree that we view homosexuality as normal and acceptable. You are attempting to use the 14th Amendment to legislate morality.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184382 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. There will always be situations where the bio parents cannot, or choose not, to care for their children. So what's your point?
<quoted text>
True, but children will do better in any other stable home environment .
<quoted text>
The biological connection should not be severed unless there is legitimate reason for doing so. Even gay people have a mom and dad.
<quoted text>
True
His point is to use a heavily biased comparison to show how gays can viewed as superior. However, if both groups of parents are shown to be equal in their care and affection, then the natural, biological parents will raise a happier, more stable child.
Charles

Oklahoma City, OK

#184383 Mar 24, 2013
Fritz wrote:
Peer reviewed studies have concluded the average life expectancy of a male queer is a mere 42 years, just one more reason to say NO to homosex!!!
My cousin, who is a doctor and used to be gay, told me the same thing...that's why he decided to stop being gay.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184384 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That decision was based on sexual privacy. It made no assertion of " a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality."
Nor has science. In fact, the opposite is true. Obviously.
The basis of your assertions crumbles without #1.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name one professional scientific organization, one medical organization, or one legal organization that has determined that homosexuality is a medical disorder or that is in any way unequal to a heterosexual relationship?
Waiting...
So you are admitting you lied about science and the law validating
'a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality'?

You made the claim 'honey'.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184385 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have any problem with polygamy.
Very good. Consistent.
I only suggested utah, bcause you might feel more at home amomgst others who are practicing the same sort of thing...
Thanks for the travel tip, but I prefer to stay among those who practice monogamous conjugal marriage.
sort of like(and equal to) when the castro or greewich village became hot spots...
Hmmmmm.....plural marriage goes back father than that.
mabey the law proibiting polygamy is wrong??
yet, Im not the one to make that call....(a voter)
the other obstacle to having full civil rights for polygamists is public opinion.
Still consistent, and practical .....very good.
but then again, public opinion was squarely against same sex marraige just a generation ago.
in the early 60's,
Ahhhhhhhh....but if one goes back to NYC in the '60's....the 1860's one finds interracial marriages legally recorded. Not sure ifvtge same could be said of same sex marriage at that time and place.
it was the same deal with interacial marraige....and now look at how humdrum that has become.
mabey it is time to make your case to the high court!!
Smarter people than I are already doing that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184386 Mar 24, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a Provence of the state? Well then perhaps you should inform the Supreme courtfedert fact! LOL,Write them a letter or better yet call and let them know! I'm sure they will stop their deliberations on the subject as soon as you let them know!
For the most part it is. The feds don't issue licenses, they recognize them, but not issue them. The have dealt with marriage issues on federal constitutional grounds, but beyond that, its up to the states.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184387 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
For the most part it is. The feds don't issue licenses, they recognize them, but not issue them. The have dealt with marriage issues on federal constitutional grounds, but beyond that, its up to the states.
for now... if DOMA falls, any challenge to the states that ban them will be easily overturned on constitutional grounds

You are on the wrong side of right and wrong, and certainly on the wrong side of history
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184389 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. Consistent.
<quoted text>
Thanks for the travel tip, but I prefer to stay among those who practice monogamous conjugal marriage.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm.....plural marriage goes back father than that.
<quoted text>
Still consistent, and practical .....very good.
<quoted text>
Ahhhhhhhh....but if one goes back to NYC in the '60's....the 1860's one finds interracial marriages legally recorded. Not sure ifvtge same could be said of same sex marriage at that time and place.
<quoted text>
Smarter people than I are already doing that.
of course plural marriage goes back a long ways.

the mormons have been around for well over a century..
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184391 Mar 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
for now... if DOMA falls, any challenge to the states that ban them will be easily overturned on constitutional grounds
You are on the wrong side of right and wrong, and certainly on the wrong side of history
except that the rights of the minorities cannot be decided by the majority.......

that is what this case is all ABOUT!!!

look at the bigoted steps NC has taken with that 'well screw ya with 'states rights" arguement.........

rights like marraige, should be universal through out our nation.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184393 Mar 24, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Word games. It may very well be that homosexuality is considered "normal and legal", but it is not equal to heterosexuality.
"...the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law;..." protection of rights that guarantee that the government shall not interfere with our abilities to function as free citizens. It does not have any authority to decree that we view homosexuality as normal and acceptable. You are attempting to use the 14th Amendment to legislate morality.
Morality? Who's talking morality? I'm talking science.

Look, the world is round, the sky is blue, and homosexuals are normal. It's not up for discussion.

Why is this so hard for people to get?
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184395 Mar 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian. Children raised by a married mother and father have better outcomes. That DOES NOT mean that all other combinations fail 100%. There is no rational reason to deny the benefits of marriage to children same sex parents... unless you think punishing their children is a moral thing to do.
that is not QUITE what the american pediatrics association said last week, when they came out in favor of gay marraige.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184396 Mar 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Check with any university library. Hell, Google it, LazyBoy.
I sympathize with you on that one, she is a real box of rocks upstairs.

'riccaro fire" is kinda the same....

no matter how much i goad him, he simply wont use the google machine to find out what the "endocannbanoid system" is....

he is convinced i made it up or read it in "high times' magazine.

these far right wingers only have so much capacity in their hard drives..

and they process evrything through a fear center in their brains...

its been proven.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184397 Mar 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I see same sex marriage as adding a standard of segregation, a new form of gender apartheid marriage. I see same sex marriage as anti-gay because every gay was born of male/female union.
Exclusion is a positive action because we don't want unqualified people licensed to marry, fly passenger planes or performing surgical operations. Exclusion maintains standards.
Gender apartheid is segregation of the sexes. Complete segregation. Homosexuals make up somewhere between 2 & 10% of the population depending upon what figures you cite. Just because two gay men get married doesn't mean they'll exclude women from their lives.

Of course everyone was born from male/female union (even if it is just through AI). So that is a non-starter. That still isn't a rational argument against same sex marriage. It is just your opinion. And I really don't see what you mean by it being anti-gay. That seems like quite a stretch IMHO. Perhaps you would like to explain how it is anti-gay.

I can take flying lessons and become a pilot. I do happen to have the qualifications to perform surgery. That was through a lengthy education and licensing process. The analogy still doesn't apply to homosexuals in general. Loads of heterosexuals don't really qualify as suitable marriage partners. At least not in my opinion, which should have no bearing on their ability to get married.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184398 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That decision was based on sexual privacy. It made no assertion of " a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality."
Nor has science. In fact, the opposite is true. Obviously.
The basis of your assertions crumbles without #1.
Smile.
<quoted text>
So you are admitting you lied about science and the law validating
'a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality'?
You made the claim 'honey'.
Smile.
"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State CANNOT DEMEAN THEIR EXISTENCE OR CONTROL THEIR DESTINY by making their private sexual conduct a crime." (Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas).

Sounds like he was saying that homosexual behavior cannot be considered a crime. And if it's not a crime and heterosexual behavior is not a crime, then they must be equally legal under the law.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184399 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality? Who's talking morality? I'm talking science.
Look, the world is round, the sky is blue, and homosexuals are normal. It's not up for discussion.
Why is this so hard for people to get?
Normal is a subjective word. However, homosexuality is not normal. This is explained through science, because man and woman were put on this earth with complementary sex organs meant to procreate the species. This is beyond discussion. By claiming normality in their relationships homosexuals, and attempting to use the government to legally bless their unions, they hope to indoctrinate society to accept it as so. In this process they are affecting one of the freedoms most parents desire to have for their children. That is to have them educated with the understanding of homosexuality that they consider to be self evident. Granted that people have abused this basic tenet of nature in many ways, including homosexuality, this does not alter what should be seen by any rational mind as the fact that homosexuality is not normal. This is not to say that you cannot be gay, you can. But do not ask us, or expect us, to recognize it as valid, and equal to heterosexuality, because it is not. Using the government to force this view upon us is actually setting your movement back.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184400 Mar 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Check with any university library. Hell, Google it, LazyBoy.

You are attempting to provide your boy with a weak dodge. He made a claim, it is not Kimares job to back it up.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184401 Mar 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>People like Randy can't handle being wrong. They will fight it.
Except that I am not wrong.
Some Never Came Home

Beacon, NY

#184402 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
that is not QUITE what the american pediatrics association said last week, when they came out in favor of gay marraige.
Actually the American Academy of pediatricians came out with a very good study years ago! And here it is! You are spot on!

What the Academy of Pediatricians have to say about same sex parenting and same sex marriage!

www.cga.ct.gov/jud/old/SameSexMarriage/AmAcPe...
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184403 Mar 24, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Normal is a subjective word. However, homosexuality is not normal. This is explained through science, because man and woman were put on this earth with complementary sex organs meant to procreate the species. This is beyond discussion. By claiming normality in their relationships homosexuals, and attempting to use the government to legally bless their unions, they hope to indoctrinate society to accept it as so. In this process they are affecting one of the freedoms most parents desire to have for their children. That is to have them educated with the understanding of homosexuality that they consider to be self evident. Granted that people have abused this basic tenet of nature in many ways, including homosexuality, this does not alter what should be seen by any rational mind as the fact that homosexuality is not normal. This is not to say that you cannot be gay, you can. But do not ask us, or expect us, to recognize it as valid, and equal to heterosexuality, because it is not. Using the government to force this view upon us is actually setting your movement back.
"homosexuals are not normal, this has been proven by science...'

from there you inject your own beliefs, instead of citing some hard research.

"man and women were put on this earth with complimentary sex organs"..........is that your proof?

kinda specualting there arnt we??

that looked more like a short cut to thinking.

who really knows what is "normal"??

"normal" might just be a safe place for bigots to hide.

and that is about it.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184404 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State CANNOT DEMEAN THEIR EXISTENCE OR CONTROL THEIR DESTINY by making their private sexual conduct a crime." (Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas).
Sounds like he was saying that homosexual behavior cannot be considered a crime. And if it's not a crime and heterosexual behavior is not a crime, then they must be equally legal under the law.
Neither is alcoholism a crime, but we can all agree that it is wrong.

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.

Oceanside Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2003 Chevy Trailblazer-CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND R... (Dec '11) Mar 18 ashte10 237
News Dog rescued from tight spot Mar 18 beatlesinafog 10
tryna dome up Mar 9 curious dude 1
News Men like Elliot Rodger are not owed anyone or a... (Jun '14) Mar 8 stuffs 65
News Dangerous fire breaks out at illegal structure ... Mar 8 rbtgoe 1
Who wants to snap me Mar 7 Jthomie 1
News Mojo Yogurt Now Open in Encinitas (Dec '13) Mar 1 GetYourMojoOn 3

Beach Hazards Statement for San Diego County was issued at March 28 at 9:48PM PDT

Oceanside Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Oceanside People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]