Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201810 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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169667 Dec 2, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I agree!
I agree with the jackass on that too.
jack rabbit swammi cowboy

Klamath Falls, OR

#169670 Dec 2, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I agree!
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The unions are evidence of that.
Most recently organized labor tried to use it's methods based on legalized extortion to an ailing company, Hostess, only to take them down.
Good job.
I agree!

Hostess was so broke the bosses gave themselves a one and a half million dollar bonus. looked more like a tantrum after the GOP loss to me. Most of the other workers took the Hostess offer because they understood they had it good compared to many.
jack rabbit swammi cowboy

Klamath Falls, OR

#169671 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort of like the difficulty posed for gays by Jeffrey Dalmer?
Some polygamists in the past were bad. Therefore all polygamists are bad?
Lose that knee jerk reaction to polygamy. We're not talking about child rape, kidnapping, forced or coerced marriages or any crimes. We're talking about a loving relationship among consenting adults.
Why would that harm anyone? Hold the bigoted nonsense please.
So now you defend polygamy so you think I must pay for that too? One man knocking up 5+ wives and someone else pays the bill? Yea I see your reasioning one with a goverment job can supply sham benifits to as many as they wish. I know your loving it.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169672 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't ask the government, he asked you, who has stated that polygamy is harmful. upon what are you basing this moronic idiocy ? A properly asked, and difficult to answer, question must chap YOUR ass, pretty hard...
Not really given I've already answered it but with your selective reading ability I'll spell it out yet again.

Polygamy is deemed harmful by the government based on past experience with it in dealing with cults which have tendacies to use techniques which amount to bondage, brain washing younger members and many include under aged brides.

The information is readily available so my thoughts lead me to think you and the other clown in here pointing to polygamy when discussing gay marriage do so only as a deflective posture in a lame effort of playing games when discussing homosexual marriage.

My personal opinion is that there are so few polygamists that as long as they don't involve themselves in harmful activities such as those advised by the governments resistance towards them I could give a shit less.

So you really have no point in your inclusion of it when discussing the marriage or Wendy to Sally dumbass.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169673 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really given I've already answered it but with your selective reading ability I'll spell it out yet again.
Polygamy is deemed harmful by the government based on past experience with it in dealing with cults which have tendacies to use techniques which amount to bondage, brain washing younger members and many include under aged brides.
The information is readily available so my thoughts lead me to think you and the other clown in here pointing to polygamy when discussing gay marriage do so only as a deflective posture in a lame effort of playing games when discussing homosexual marriage.
My personal opinion is that there are so few polygamists that as long as they don't involve themselves in harmful activities such as those advised by the governments resistance towards them I could give a shit less.
So you really have no point in your inclusion of it when discussing the marriage or Wendy to Sally dumbass.
So you think the government has the right to control your personal relationships so long as they simply claim it to be "harmful" first??

Tell me again who the dumbass is?
jack rabbit swammi cowboy

Klamath Falls, OR

#169674 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort of like the difficulty posed for gays by Jeffrey Dalmer?
Some polygamists in the past were bad. Therefore all polygamists are bad?
Lose that knee jerk reaction to polygamy. We're not talking about child rape, kidnapping, forced or coerced marriages or any crimes. We're talking about a loving relationship among consenting adults.
Why would that harm anyone? Hold the bigoted nonsense please.
Prop 8 is not only opposed by church people. I seldom go to church but I respect the ancient teachings that you obviously can't or do not want to comprehend. You probably think Hiv came along in the 80. The ancients knew anal sex caused death a long time ago.
jack rabbit swammi cowboy

Klamath Falls, OR

#169675 Dec 2, 2012
Someone has so little confidence in their selfish “same sex co-copulating marriage” position all they can do is click judge it.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169676 Dec 2, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think the government has the right to control your personal relationships so long as they simply claim it to be "harmful" first??
Tell me again who the dumbass is?
The aspect of allowing gays to marry involves itself with the expansion of basic liberties to a grouping of American citizens whom have been previously denied those freedoms...specifically of being allowed to marry the adult of their choice.

Your post above is a sad lie in that you want to infer I would support the government as an entity to control relationships that "they" determine harmful.

First off understand our government is formatted by the people for the purpose of allowing us as U.S. citizens to govern ourselves as free peoples. The fact that the government determined polygamy a problematic and harmful insitution was based on their past occurances with that said insitution in that they found harmful elements such as cultist aspects which led to underage marriages and unwarranted control of subjects within those cults.

I never made the statement you claim nor did I deliver anything which led to that direction...I merely advised facts.

So I can safely point ot you as not only being the dumbass here but as a liar.

Next.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169677 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1.‘Gay marriage’ radically redefines the meaning of marriage.
Marriage is the most basic and arguably the most important building block of civilized society. For thousands of years, society has made marriage the one context in which sexual attraction between a man and woman matures into an enduring, exclusive unit that creates and protects children. Marriage has always been defined by gender complementarity, or gender unity within difference, and by commitment, a pledge of permanence and fidelity.‘Gay marriage’ radically alters that definition, and the values that underlie it. To say that the definition of an apple must include the attributes of an orange changes the meaning of an apple. It ceases to be what it was. Similarly,‘gay marriage’ changes the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood by civilized society.
A wise man said that ‘the corruption of society begins by a failure to call things by their proper names.’ I refuse to ascribe marriage to homosexual unions based on the original and true meaning of marriage. That is why I use quotes to reference the misnomer of ‘gay marriage.’ I urge you to do the same.
Not really.

Marriage involves itself with the basic elements of mutual attraction, a shared love and a willingess to commit to a legal union amongst adults.

Gays can perform that circus trick as well as heterosexuals.

HJeterosexual marriages often times produce horribly abused children so your blanket claim inference that heterosexual marriages protect children more than gay families is incorrect.

There are studies 9several in fact) which displace this generalistic and unbased claim.

Here's one;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/t...

As far as identifying a gay marriage with proper wording I think the most accurate would be "marriage" itself since it encompasses the fact you can have 2 same sex members get hitched.

I'm here to help friend....all you have to do is ask.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169678 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>

2.‘Gay Marriage’ devalues gender differences in human relating.
‘Gay marriage’ is founded on the premise that gender should no longer matter in sexual relationships. For example, licenses in states which have legalized ‘gay marriage’ have replaced the language of ‘Bride and Groom’ with ‘Partner 1 and Partner 2’.‘Gay marriage’ removes the centerpiece of marriage: how one gender provokes and balances the opposite gender, creating (besides children) an emotional, spiritual, and sexual whole. Instead,‘gay marriage’ redefines sexual wholeness as the freedom to desire and wed whomever one wants, regardless of gender. That undermines the inner logic of man for woman, and woman for man, and makes freedom from that logic optional for all.
Not at all.

Heterosexuals will remain attracted to heterosexuals and gays will remain attracted to adults of the same sex so your claim of gays marrying 'devaluing gender differences in human relating' holds no place in fact.

The only logic you need to comprehend is based on the fact that we as individual adults are attracted to our own set of aspects.

I like women with little bitty titties.

Fact.

I never was one to go out with chiquitas who had breasts the size of pumpkins that would win the 2013 Iowa State Fair.

We're individualistic in nature as to what drives our magnets.

Some of those in our society find attraction with select adults whom are of the same sex.

The only logic is just that....we all have our own little lust factors friend.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169679 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
3.‘Gay Marriage’ devalues monogamy.
‘Gay marriage’ tweaks the meaning of fidelity. Gay men in particular tend toward tolerating multiple sexual partnerships in the context of a commitment to one partner. A marriage license will not change that tendency. J. Michael Bailey, Chair of Psychology at Northwestern University and one of the foremost researchers in homosexuality, contends that “regardless of marital laws and policies, gay men will always have more sexual partners than straight people do. Those who are attached will be less monogamous.”
Total bullshit.

Find a link between gays marrying and Bill Clinton getting a wet blowjob by Monika Lewinski or any other marital infraction amongst married couples.

Making a gbeneralistic statement such as you have done in baseless.

Disagree?

Provide proof. You know...substance because you came to the party with an empty bag buddy.

As far as gay men having more sexual partners I'd cast a shadow of doubt on that given little ol' heterosexual me and most of my friends had little black books which would make the Yellow Pages for New York City look like an instructual pamphlet for a Sears toaster friend.

LOL!!!

Good God buddy. Are you for real???
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169680 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But, I suppose, in your opinion, there are NO gay cults or methodology, right ? And I suppose that there never has been even one instance of brother wanting to marry his sister, right ? And what is the harm of polygamous marriage ? Where is the harm in incestuous marriage ?
Never heard of a "gay cult" yet.

Never heard of a brother wanting to marry his sister either.

Incestuious marriages??? Never heard of one of those either.

Harm in polygamy?I could give a shit LESS if some fool thinks it would be fun to marry 3 women. Good God...the man might commit suicide within the span of 2 years. As long as those women were no coerced through cult surroundings, were minors and knew of each other.

Grasp for straws somewhere else punk.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169681 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
4.‘Gay Marriage’ is founded on a false understanding of homosexuality.
California's ‘gay marriage’ decision was founded on a 1948 Court decision (Perez vs. Sharp) to strike down a state ban on interracial marriages. That means today’s Court tends to equate ethnicity with homosexuality. Bad reasoning. Unlike ethnicity, homosexuality is neither genetically-based nor immutable.
Same-sex attraction is a three-fold cord of nature, nurture, and culture, all bound together by one’s moral decisions. The fact is: many choose to change their homosexuality, and find peace and purpose in heterosexual relationships.‘Gay marriage’ advocates refuse that truth and insist that homosexuality is destiny, which is a false understanding.
A false understanding of homosexuality?

Really.

So if Suzy wants to marry Tammy in part because they're more attracted to each other than a starving Rocky Mountain grizzer bear likes honey there's a "falseness" to their attraction???

Are you on drugs Senor Hudson?

LOL!!!

The fact you deem homosexuality immoral is based on your own opinion and not shared fact. Do not present it as such bullshitter.

The origins of homosexuality are unknown...so your claim it's not genetically based is moot.

Add to that there is a direct correlation betweens past bans on marriage based on ethnic nature and homosexuality in that they were both denied the ability to marry based on judgements in regards to the parties involved in terms of their makeup. In short we were denying adults the aspect of marriage because we disliked their adult of choice. We as a free people based on the Constitution which we are all founded on should not be able to deny basic liberties or freedoms to other citizens unless those said liberties produce harm.

Again....gay marriage has shown no viable harm.

Disagree....find specifics and advise...otherwise shut up because you have nothing to offer.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#169682 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with the jackass on that too.
It's about the only thing I agree with him on. And I noticed it wasn't very popular with the Liberals that love the big unions.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169683 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
5.‘Gay Marriage’ makes its opponents racists.
Based on #4, those who oppose gay marriage will be seen as bigots.‘Gay marriage’ validates as normal and good the problematic, complex condition of same-sex attraction; all who choose to view that attraction as a problem not a birthright will inevitably be accorded the same social shame and even legal consequences that racists incur.
Incorrect and baseless.

Racism deals which preferential treatment and opinion based solely on race.

Claiming gay marriage makes it's opponents racist is a little like claiming those who don't like watching NASCAR will be targeted by the Girl Scouts for elimination.

It's a completely ignorant statement in that there is no causation factor nor can you identify one.

The term 'bigots' envelopes a large grouping of people including racists, those who don't like cross eyed women and those who would make efforts to deny a group of individuals freedoms based on the fact they are gay. Racists are but a segment of what could be determined a bigot.

If the term makes you shift in your seat because it's that uncomfortable do one of two things. Live in denial or embrace it if you truly think gays are second class citizens.

I have my own set of bigotry I have to stare at but I don't play mental games on myself like you have to use as a format of denial. I don't like certain aspects of the gay culture myself friend but I've come to recognize it's my problem if I choose to live a a country which gives freedoms to all of it's citizens and not just those I prefer.

It's a choice. Live in this great country and back what it is or move to fucking China or North Korea where they also think only a select few should hold a few set of liberties and freedoms based on a narrow mindset.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169684 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
6.‘Gay Marriage’ encourages and increases homosexual behavior.
Over the last 50 years, homosexual behavior has increased due to media advocacy, our culture of divorce, porn, and promiscuity, and the greater economic and emotional independence of women from men. Validating ‘gay marriage’ will further encourage men and women to explore homosexual unions.
Social shame used to inhibit homosexual experimentation; ‘gay marriage’ casts off the last restraint, and increases homosexual behavior in our society. Between 1995 and 2005, lesbian unions in the USA increased 7 times, while male unions doubled.
Gay marriage may increase homosexual SEX amongst homosexuals no different than heterosexual marriage given you now have a sexual partner sitting next to you while you watch Jeopardy and don't have to drive for miles on a rainy night to get a slice of love but if you're to infer it increases the numbers of homosexuals that's a baseless lie.

Disagree?

Again...provide proof.

As far as experimenting during sex all I can say is don't do the Lone Ranger bit.

I did. Rode the range on my stick horse naked sans a pair of boots, Stetson and toy gunbelt into my bedroom where a topless Pocahontas was waiting for me only to have my handy six shooter shift leaving a bruised notch on my love stick.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169685 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
7.‘Gay Marriage’ opens the door to other types of ‘marriage.’
In changing the meaning of marriage to include infidelity and gender sameness,‘gay marriage’ sets a precedent for other types of units, like incest and polygamy. Legal cases involving polygamy now invoke the same legal precedents of gay rights advocates. What seemed unthinkable 10 years ago is now ‘gay marriage’ law. We flinch until we become sensitized, then we flinch no more.
.
No it doesn't any more than allowing differing races to marry opened the door to allow Farmer Brown to marry his favorite milking cow Bessie you moron.

And if polygamists want to make the fight to legalize their particular aspect of marriage it's within their right but polygamy is a completely separate entity which stands on it's own merits.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169686 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
8.‘Gay Marriage’ unleashes a global legal nightmare.
‘Gay marriage’ will clog the courts with myriad issues. Already, married gay couples are demanding marriage rights wherever they settle, regardless of the current laws of that state or nation. Not to mention the hundreds of cases in the USA alone concerning a host of bewildering issues, like gay divorce and ownership of artificially inseminated offspring.
In terms of global focus I would think economics and war overshasow your concern Harfry marries Ted little man.

Each country is it's own entity with their own sets of statutes and laws. We're focused on our country when it comes to gays marrying dumbass.

As far as the aspect of "bewildering issues" those already exist within the legal system and I can see no substantial increase due to gays marrying despite your fears.

Gays marrying pose more benefit than harm in any case given they can provide orphans and foster childrewn with healthy families to grow up in, incresae businesses associated with their being and will strengthen us as a free nation which is cased on the Constitution to name but a few aspects.

In your frame of thought we should squash liberties to other persons based on disdain to avoid possible court cases. Don't allow boat enthusiasts to own boats....many end up in court. Don't allow fat people to marry...they have a higher risk of death from sex let alone their kids may carry the gene that made them overweight.

We could draw out ALL freedoms and ban them on the few negative aspects freedoms inherently have you complete dipshit.

You need to find a country which embraces your thoughts of the limitation of basic liberties amongst it's citizens because it's not this country Ace.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#169687 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The aspect of allowing gays to marry involves itself with the expansion of basic liberties to a grouping of American citizens whom have been previously denied those freedoms...specifically of being allowed to marry the adult of their choice.
Your post above is a sad lie in that you want to infer I would support the government as an entity to control relationships that "they" determine harmful.
First off understand our government is formatted by the people for the purpose of allowing us as U.S. citizens to govern ourselves as free peoples. The fact that the government determined polygamy a problematic and harmful insitution was based on their past occurances with that said insitution in that they found harmful elements such as cultist aspects which led to underage marriages and unwarranted control of subjects within those cults.
I never made the statement you claim nor did I deliver anything which led to that direction...I merely advised facts.
So I can safely point ot you as not only being the dumbass here but as a liar.
Next.
You can dance all you like, but the fact that you feel compelled and quite comfortable in denying marriage rights to a select few because they have been found to cause "harm" by the government, shows how bigoted and blinded by your own personal crusade you are.

The only dumbass here is you Dan. You are just so much of a dumbass that you can't see it.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169688 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
At least I can offer rational., lucid arguments against gay marriage, although your hero, Chongo-no-hope- would deny this..
Since when were generalist unsupported baseless claims 'rational and lucid'?

LOL!!!

The only thing you brought to show and tell was your opinion dumbfuck.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Touch Of Class Consignment (Cathedral City, Ca. 19 hr Tony 2
Review: Utopia Management Sat MichaelJames20178 2
mexican landscapers dump in the desert (Nov '14) May 22 Sandy 54
Fraud Website against Winderemere Real Estate. ... May 21 Palm Desert Local 3
Mayor Pougnet dodges questions about conflict o... May 21 California Resident 3
Any housekeepers near indio?? May 20 BigJG 1
News Palm Springs Gay and Lesbian Film Festival to o... (Sep '13) May 11 sam 3
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]