Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,363

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: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184197 Mar 22, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question.
So it is your claim that treating a naturalized citizen different than a natural born citizen under Article II Sec 1 of the US Constitution is NOT a violation of the equal right's provision of the 14th Amendment -BUT- treating the union of 2 members of the opposite sex differently than the union of 2 members of the same sex IS?!?!
Yes

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#184198 Mar 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Huh? How about not throwing the baby out with the bath water? There's a difference between abuse and criminal activity and simply divorcing for trivial matters. So its okay that a wife or husband can no fault divorce, but can be charged criminally in some states for adultery? How about states that allow the offended spouse to sue the "other woman", or "other man"? Do you disagree with that?....
Divorce maintains consent in marriage; if same sex marriage was licensed I believe the left would attack the consent standard next.

Same sex marriage could harm homosexuals with suits of alienation of affection. Imagine what would happen if every homosexual would become liable for financial damages after a casual tryst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_af...

Same sex marriage is bad because it harms gays.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184199 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Lied? Not at all... You just want to argue over linguistics. Another attempt to DISTRACT us from the ridiculousness of your comments.
And what part of "turn the other cheek" and "beat your swords into ploughshares, spears into prune hooks" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself" makes you think that there has EVER been a "justified war" or "justified capital punishment"? You are dead wrong, as always.
Interesting how you claim that evolution has determined that homosexuality is a defect, when "evolution" is the one who seems to have come up with us and continues to make us.
And you know nothing about what science has "virtually proven". You make such amateurish mistakes that you embarrass yourself when you wade into anything of substance.
And our very existence will come to an end by someone like you. You are NOBODY'S savior! You fan the flames of hate. You want homosexuals to disappear from the planet. Every single thing you say about us indicates that what I claim about you is TRUE.
1. A lie on a lie.

2. A perversion of Scripture.

3. A dumb claim that all evolutionary mutations are good (tell that to a spinal bifida victim).

4. Another slanderous imposition that flies in the face of truth and reality.

Your Father of Lies must be so proud.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184200 Mar 23, 2013

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184201 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any other such silly demands.
Here is an analogy that exposes that idiocy;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what I think? I think you have your head so far up your ass that you've become disoriented by the natural fermentation of the apples and walnuts you have ingested.
You don't know law. You don't know science. You don't know sociology. You don't know psychology. You don't know religion. You are horrible at analogies.
I'm surprised you can type on the computer. Maybe you just write your comments on a 3 X 5 index card in purple crayon and your wife types what you've written into your computer.
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.

Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.

Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.

Do you really think this helps your cause?

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184202 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he clearly pointed out that you are an idiot in denial.
How can a duplicated half of a marriage equate to marriage.
The math clearly doesn't add up.
Smirk.
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnít surprise me that you canít add. You canít make a good analogy either.
I really want to respect your posts, maybe I have misread your stupidity.

Please explain how M + F = U + U.

Please explain what you don't comprehend about the analogy. At this point it seems clear you just diss it because it exposes the stupidity of your argument.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184203 Mar 23, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd think,considering his/her/it's (Kimare) condition(And I have my doubts) He would be more empathetic and sympathetic to the plight of the Gay Americans on marriage equality,even if his brain turned out to be a heterosexual in nature! There is something terribly,terribly wrong with that boy? Girl? It?
If you posted examples of where I hide or distorted truth, you would have a point.

However, empathy that embraces denial is simply dysfunctional enablement.

How about this. Give me your definition of marriage, instead of potshots from the side lines. Or are you a coward?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184204 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
This response is why I posted the original post. Youíre just too stupid to realize how transparent you are. Is English your first language? BTW, I do know how a human life is created, but, reproduction does not equal superiority. And a coupleís ability to reproduce or not reproduce has no bearing on a right to marry. Why would you think reproduction has anything to do with marriage rights? Itís these types of bigoted viewpoints that are convincing more and more Americans to support Gay Marriage Equality.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level.

Your position is a farce.

Smile.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184205 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse. com/2013/03/9622/
Just goes to show that you don't vote with your dick...

It's complete and utter hogwash.

He, like anyone, can express an OPINION. But where are his numbers? Where are his statistics? Where is any study that would back up his claims?

The sounds of crickets chirping are overwhelming...

Here's a game we can play... For every queen you find who is firmly against same-sex marriage, I'll show you a heterosexual Christian who is in favor of it.

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chick-fil-a

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184206 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any other such silly demands.
Here is an analogy that exposes that idiocy;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
<quoted text>
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
Snicker.
You want to talk about no-fault divorce? Start your own forum here on Topix. This one is about same-gender marriage.

Children are to all marriages, as sheep are to all farmers.(not all farmers raise sheep).

I still don't understand your analogy with apples and walnuts. It's absurd. Just another one of your failed attempts to be clever.

I only troll the troll. It seems to be the primary language you understand.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184207 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Just goes to show that you don't vote with your dick...
It's complete and utter hogwash.
He, like anyone, can express an OPINION. But where are his numbers? Where are his statistics? Where is any study that would back up his claims?
The sounds of crickets chirping are overwhelming...
Here's a game we can play... For every queen you find who is firmly against same-sex marriage, I'll show you a heterosexual Christian who is in favor of it.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chick-fil-a
That's your argument? Another vulgar ad homoan attack?

VV, you are an embarrassment to humanity...

Sad.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184208 Mar 23, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
So,I guess what you're saying is you'd be fine with a gay man marrying your daughter or a gay women marrying your son? LoL,
Orrrrrrrr....a gay man marrying a gay woman. See, legal gay marriage, valid in all fifty states.
Sorry but not the same! Not equality,don't be ridiculous! Bottom line,marriage equality is coming and you can't do anything to stop it,rightfully so!
Of course its the same silly. Man marries woman, and vice versa. Equality. Simple enough.
And it will do nothing to harm your marriage and it will do nothing to harm my marriage!
Ahhhhhhh....the ole "it will do nothing to harm your marriage....." argument. Of that's true, plural marriage would also not harm my marriage, so why not legalize that too?
And it will be of great benefit to the 10's of thousands of children being raised in same sex marriages and family's,Great isn't it!
It'd be greater if those "10's of thousands of children....." were being raised by their OWN married mother and father. Great isn't it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184210 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level.
Your position is a farce.
Smile.
You say, "Gays are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

If that is true then:

"Infertile couples are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

"Elderly couples who are incapable of reproducing or have no desire to reproduce are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

"Any couple who is unwilling or unable to reproduce is a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."

Maybe it's you have an epigenetic related inability to understand how children and marriage are not always tied to one another.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184211 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your argument? Another vulgar ad homoan attack?
VV, you are an embarrassment to humanity...
Sad.
You can't come up with an argument against what I say, so you accuse me of attacking you.

Girl, you'll know when I'm attacking you.

I'm still rubbing the sleep out of my eyes. Haven't even had a cup of coffee.

I'm hardly in attack mode.

You'll know I've attacked you when you have to go into therapy to deal with the PTSD you'll encounter from a REAL attack by me.

To put it another way, I don't attack you. I hold back. I hold WAY back.

Stop frettin' Miss Thing. You don't got nothin' to worry about from this old queen.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184212 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
This response is why I posted the original post. Youíre just too stupid to realize how transparent you are.
Tsk tsk....that's not very nice. Temper temper!
Is English your first language?
So signora.
BTW, I do know how a human life is created, but, reproduction does not equal superiority
Very good, I see your Dad had "the talk" with you. Reproduction does equal functional superiority.
. And a coupleís ability to reproduce or not reproduce has no bearing on a right to marry. Why would you think reproduction has anything to do with marriage rights?
Reproduction is the reason marriage exists in the first place. Sadly far too many people are reproducing outside of marriage.
Itís these types of bigoted viewpoints that are convincing more and more Americans to support Gay Marriage Equality.
You give far more emphasis on that motivation, than it merits, as to why "more and more Americans...support Gay marriage equality". It might just be indifference. It depends on who you ask, and what questions are asked. Besides, Americans as a whole aren't marrying at the sane rates as they did 30 years ago. If they were do u really think SSM would have any significant support?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184213 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Just goes to show that you don't vote with your dick...
It's complete and utter hogwash.
He, like anyone, can express an OPINION. But where are his numbers? Where are his statistics? Where is any study that would back up his claims?
The sounds of crickets chirping are overwhelming...
Here's a game we can play... For every queen you find who is firmly against same-sex marriage, I'll show you a heterosexual Christian who is in favor of it.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chick-fil-a
Two different points of views expressing different perspectives. The first piece addresses the negative effect SSM could have on marriage, as in husband and wife, and on society as a whole in that regard. The second addresses the issue of rights, prejudice, boycotts, etc.

The first author illustrated that not every gay person is marching lock step behind the rainbow flag, and can oppose SSM for the same reasons that straight people do, the negative effect it will have on marriage as a whole.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184214 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Just goes to show that you don't vote with your dick...
It's complete and utter hogwash.
He, like anyone, can express an OPINION. But where are his numbers? Where are his statistics? Where is any study that would back up his claims?
The sounds of crickets chirping are overwhelming...
Here's a game we can play... For every queen you find who is firmly against same-sex marriage, I'll show you a heterosexual Christian who is in favor of it.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/chick-fil-a
Well, that's a slam-dunk victory, because there are a millioin-fold more Christians who support SSM than there are LGBT people who reject it.2904

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184215 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse. com/2013/03/9622/
Sweet Jesus, a Pea Tardy member explaining to us the difference between chess and checkers.

I'll bet he'd love your completely lame apples/oranges/nut analogy too.

Fools seldom differ.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184216 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Divorce maintains consent in marriage; if same sex marriage was licensed I believe the left would attack the consent standard next.
Same sex marriage could harm homosexuals with suits of alienation of affection. Imagine what would happen if every homosexual would become liable for financial damages after a casual tryst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_af...
Same sex marriage is bad because it harms gays.
Why do you feel a need to protect gays from something a "danger" that is available to all heterosexuals? Imagine what would happen if you expose all heterosexuals to the hazards of an alienation of affections suit? Oh wait, we're already exposed to it.

Oddly enough, until you mentioned it I'd not been aware of this scurge. I'll just have to assign it to the same heap of nothingness that the epidemic of forced same sex prison marriages in Canada you entertained us with in the recent past. Oh BTW, do you ever bother reading your own links? I found the second paragraph to be quite informative:

"Alienation of affections was first codified as a tort by the New York state legislature in 1864, and similar legislation existed in many U.S. states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since 1935, this tort has been abolished in 42 states, including New York.[1] Alienation is, however, still recognized in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah."

This is vintage law that fell out of favor in all but 6 states by 1935. So the only gays that need to worry about it are those living in those six states. I'm sure they shake in fear over the prospect.

"Divorce maintains consent in marriage..." Divorce mainains a casual approach to the notion of marriage. It deletes the bit about parting only in death from the vows. Abolishing divorce doesn't abolish consent in marriage, it might make people take it a little more seriously. Not that I'm advocating doing away with divorce by any means. I'm all for the availability of divorce. I wouldn't be married to my wife without her being divorced from a p previous marriage.

I would like to hear you expand on your fear that liberals would attack "consent standard next." However, I'm almost certain you won't provide a supporting argument for the notion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184217 Mar 23, 2013
"Oh wait, we're already exposed to it."

Should be "Oh wait, we're already exposed to it in the six states that haven't done away with it."

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.

Pleasanton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Another pizza place 10 hr Linda 1
Looking for an old, dear friend of mine Paul S ... 12 hr Ssophiiee 4
Rude Concord Police Thu Help service! 4
Groth Bros CLOSED Forever (Sep '11) Thu lmao 119
Cool Water Ranch Thu Daggett 1
Danville: Man who allegedly drove stolen car ta... Wed Free eric 1
Jury of Morons finds Cort Holbrook guily of man... (Mar '13) Feb 24 The Real Anon 54

Pleasanton News Video

Pleasanton Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pleasanton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:35 pm PST

Bleacher Report 8:35PM
Why CB Is San Francisco's Top Non-WR Draft Need
Bleacher Report 9:18 PM
San Francisco 49ers: Should They Sign Reggie Bush?
Bleacher Report11:48 PM
Oakland Raiders Must Cut MJD, Bring Back Darren McFadden
Bleacher Report 9:56 AM
Raiders Must Create Recreate DL by Adding Suh, Hardy
Bleacher Report 4:03 PM
Why Combine Standout Jalen Collins Is an Ideal Fit for 49ers' Secondary