Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
149,961 - 149,980 of 200,324 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171488
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you were without any moral fiber, and you can be swayed from your core beliefs ? You are no real man, then. I bet if you went to prison, you'd be wearing lipstick, in no time. It doesn't have to cause harm, it is plainly wrong, to mock marriage in this way. It doesn't cause any harm to let a child have a cookie before dinner, but it if it is wrong, then it is not allowed. This is no different, dumbfuck.
Really.

So letting a kid have a Famous Amos treat before dinner shows harm to gay marriage???

How does that even connect?

If you're trying to draw an analogy yours makes no sense as well.

You first have to specify a viable harm in gay marriage.

And then you might want to tell me why giving a kid an Oreo before he slops down his Raviolis is really that bad.

You're so messed up you can't even THINK about gays marrying without presenting some bizarre picture of your thoughts on the subject in here.

I mean...WTF???? Do you read the shit you write before posting it???

LOL!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171489
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Mr Magic wrote:
<quoted text>
Me thinks you looks like a queer monkey. Me thinks monkeys stink. Me thinks you and monkey both like to l:ck a.ss
Keep thinking Mister Magico.

LOL!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171490
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't smile too wide sister.
Your link doesn't come up. My guess is you already knew it.
And as of yet I've heard no specific genes being attributed to those whom are gay. I would think that would be national news so it looks like you're back to reaching for straws.
Come back when you've got anything to offer. Otherwise beat it you crazy loon.
LOL!!!
Trust me, it will come up often...

This article validates everything I have been saying and you have been scoffing. Perhaps that is evidence you need a letter???

http://theconversation.edu.au/new-ideas-about...

New Ideas About the Evolution of Homosexuality
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171491
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
It doesn't cause any harm to let a child have a cookie before dinner, but it if it is wrong, then it is not allowed. This is no different, dumbfuck.
You have got to be kidding me.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171498
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
You should go find examples of this mysterious emperical evidence about gay marriages as being viably harmful.
LOL!!
They already tired that in court, they lost with the entire money and political power of the Mormon church behind it

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171499
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Impeachment Cobblers wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, let us share some red X and peanuts my friend.
I like the lemons best! Peanuts too. I get lots of them from the kind and generous people of tolerance and diversity!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171500
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding me.
Stupid post. Thanks for sharing. Glad you added that to the discussion!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171501
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They already tired that in court, they lost with the entire money and political power of the Mormon church behind it
Oh, there you are! You left so abruptly the other day without ever telling us was Clinton's impeachment a success or a failure?

You've said it was a failure. But then you say he was impeached. Which is it?

Anxiously awaiting your simple one word answer, thank you in advance!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171502
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>sweetie he's gonna get way more then a hand job.... mmmm
Oh Yeah, he's gonna get his bank account cleaned out and the clap. Both at the same time!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171504
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Critics, including Michael DiRucci said Rice's comments about the attack on Sunday news programs in the immediate aftermath were out of line with the true intelligence about the incident, and were an attempt by the administration to avoid tying it to terrorism.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171506
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, there you are! You left so abruptly the other day without ever telling us was Clinton's impeachment a success or a failure?
You've said it was a failure. But then you say he was impeached. Which is it?
Anxiously awaiting your simple one word answer, thank you in advance!
Duh, as numerous posts have explained before, the impeachment of President Clinton failed, as the required 2/3 vote for guilty was not reached in the Senate.

Here is a complete description of the Impeachment process for you. Why don't you read it and educate yourself. This way you won't look like an ignorant fool, at least on this subject,

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentand...

"A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171507
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh, as numerous posts have explained before, the impeachment of President Clinton failed, as the required 2/3 vote for guilty was not reached in the Senate.
Here is a complete description of the Impeachment process for you. Why don't you read it and educate yourself. This way you won't look like an ignorant fool, at least on this subject,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentand...
"A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.
Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
You are wrong. Clinton's impeachment did not fail.

What a dope!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171508
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Trust me, it will come up often...
This article validates everything I have been saying and you have been scoffing. Perhaps that is evidence you need a letter???
http://theconversation.edu.au/new-ideas-about...
New Ideas About the Evolution of Homosexuality
If it was an actual link to an article or website it should be up all the time dumbass. Websites aren't like Ernie's Grocery Store in backwoods Mississippi where they're open 9-5 on Mondays through Friday and 10 to 4 on weekends.

Good God you dumbass....who are you trying to bullshit? LOL!!!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171509
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly me, I thought it was a reference to a drink in a bar...oops, silly me :D
That Red X sounds like a good one I'll have a few of those.

Yeah I don't pay much attention to those silly judge-its either except I like to see lots of negative ones which I always get. When they use the fire one it means you hit the sweet spot!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171510
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got to be kidding me.
'R. Hudson's' sad effort at an analogy of little kiddies downing a chocolate chip cookie before supper probably constitutes an example of his "empirical evidence" against gay marriage.

LOL!!!!
Clooed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171511
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

It wit be what it will be.

Until them put a lid on it, yapper.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171512
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
'R. Hudson's' sad effort at an analogy of little kiddies downing a chocolate chip cookie before supper probably constitutes an example of his "empirical evidence" against gay marriage.
LOL!!!!
I wouldn't try and suck up to Mona he's a real grouch! Might bite you.

And besides he's opposed to marriage equality.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Clooed

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171513
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

When all the jerks come out,but they are from different parts of the state AND OR WORLD.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171515
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was an actual link...
12 December 2012, 10.21am AEST
New ideas about the evolution of homosexuality

When I give talks about the relevance of evolution to modern life, I can count on one regular question interrupting an orderly transition from lecture theatre to bar. Sometimes it comes with a “bet-you-didn’t-think-of-that- one” sneer. Far more often it is asked earnestly and with palpable empathy. The Question?

How do you explain homosexuality?

The very real fact that a large proportion of people across the world are sexually attracted to members of the same biological sex provides a giant obstacle to a Darwinian view of life.

And I am always happy to field this question because it allows me to explore, with the audience, some of the layered complexity of evolution. But a simple, definitive answer remains, for now, beyond reach. That may start to change, however, with a paper published today in The Quarterly Review of Biology.
Born this way

Evolutionary biology can be a bit of a blunt instrument. Especially when it seeks to explain big, categorical differences – like sex differences. Focusing at a broad scale means a lot of nuance and individuality gets ignored or trampled. Which is why so many authors – quite unfairly – write off all biology as determinism.

Fortunately, biological ideas about homosexuality tend to be more welcome than biological ideas about, say, gender. That may be because so many gay people strongly feel they were “born this way”. And because ideas about homosexuality being a choice or a curable condition proliferate in all but the most enlightened places.

But being “born this way” isn’t necessarily the same thing as the traits involved being genetically determined. Genetic claims require genetic evidence. In support of a genetic basis, sexual orientation has a moderate to high heritability. Heritability being the statistic that describes how much of the variation in a trait is due to genetic differences among individuals.

But despite the statistical vapour-trail indicating a substantial genetic basis, the search for major genes involved in homosexuality has been far less fruitful. And then there remains the problem so beloved of seminar questioners. How could any such genes have persisted through millenia of selection if they lead to sexual preferences that do not produce offspring?

The idea that “gay people don’t have children” is simplistic and, historically, wrong. Being gay does not necessarily mean not having a family, and throughout history many – perhaps most – homosexuals spent time in heterosexual unions, having children. And yet even if a small proportion did not, this could have exerted strong evolutionary selection against any genes involved.

But perhaps those genes provided some other kind of evolutionary advantage that outweighed the direct cost of having fewer kids. Here, theories lie thick upon the ground. First, there is the idea that homosexual relatives provide exceptional help to their heterosexual relatives who are raising families. Any genes that raise the chances of homosexuality, then, are passed on through relatives. And the extra help means more nieces and nephews carrying those genes.

The second group of ideas hinges on the idea is that genes that make reproductively successful females can impose costs when they find themselves expressed in males. And the opposite can happen for genes that enhance male fitness. Some support for this idea exists as well, including evidence that families in which females tend to be highly fertile also have a higher proportion of gay men than one might expect by chance.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171516
Dec 16, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

And Brendan Zietsch has written here about his own work showing that psychologically feminine men and psychologically masculine women who are heterosexual also tend to be more sexually attractive. He argues that genes that raise the chances of an individual being same-sex attracted also massively raise the mating success of heterosexual bearers being reproductively successful.

Each of these ideas has some empirical support, but not such strong support that the case can be closed. It remains likely that there is no single explanation and that several biological influences together shape sexual orientation.
The new idea

But today’s big story is an entirely new idea that hinges not on traditional genetics but instead on epigenetics. The fact that gene expression is modified by molecules that attach to particular genes, but can later be removed, is revolutionising almost every biological field, including evolution.

Genetics defies metaphors, but I’ll try to mangle one for folks who prefer J.K. Rowling over modern molecular genetics. If we think of a person’s DNA as a recipe book – say Advanced Potion Making by Libatius Borage – then the epigenetic marks (or epi-marks) are the annotations and corrections made in pencil by the owner. Epi-marks have many functions, many of them tailoring the DNA instructions to suit the circumstances in which an individual finds him- or herself.

Most epi-marks get erased before the recipe is copied and handed down to an individual’s offspring. But that isn’t always the case. Sometimes there are good adaptive reasons why offspring inherit epi-marks from a parent. And sometimes, like Harry Potter inheriting the Half-Blood Prince’s potions book, they receive annotated instructions that were not intended for them.

Bill Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets recognised that epi-marks are an essential component of sex differentiation. Males and females share an entire genome and so development is fraught with instructions intended for embryos of one sex but not the other. One class of epi-marks protects female foetuses from the masculinizing effects of fetal testosterone. Another protects male foetuses from being feminized when oestrogen signals would otherwise trigger female development.

Different genes are involved in the development of genitals, reproductive organs, body shape, sexual orientation and every other trait where genes shape sexual differentiation. And so epi-marks to these different genes will have different influences on those traits.

Mostly, these kinds of epi-marks should not be passed from parent to offspring. But occasionally some are. And when the epi-marks on genes that effect sexual orientation get passed from father to daughter then some traits that would normally develop in female-specific ways end up more masculinized. Likewise mother-son transmission of epi-marks can result in the feminization of some traits that would normally develop in a more masculinized fashion.

I should stresss that the new paper is a mathematical model showing that this scenario can work. The authors marshal plenty of circumstantial evidence that it probably does work. But the idea needs to be directly tested.

Apart from the fact that this is one of those rare ideas that completely changes how we look at the evidence, I am most exited by the way this idea reframes how we look at sexual development. I suspect that this idea will, in time, also shake up the science of sex-differences and our understanding of how gender arises.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Palm Springs Discussions

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Rich's Painting 2 hr Spectacular job 1
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards 4 hr Alice 2
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 hr Ocean 7,835
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) 10 hr AMan 149
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 15 hr Shellys Husband is Strong 635
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Tue Ronald 2,251
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Jul 21 Racjei 4,885
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 23 at 7:52PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••