Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,795

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

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162403 Oct 7, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose_NoHo".
Yes. I agree. If Africans
Why are fundie such racists?
(I don't bother to read your posts.)
The Romans had the right idea, just too few lions.
Think how much better our world would be without the scourge of that hateful, racist religion, Christianity!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162404 Oct 7, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's try this ....
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, the evidence does suggest that children raised by lesbians or gay men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey—an advocate for SSM and a sociologist—reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following:“lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions.” Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She also found that a “significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.” Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting.
*Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001.“(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially pp. 168-171
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"

Your copy/paste babble doesn't show anything wrong with homosexuality. There is nothing wrong with having a homoerotic relationship or attraction.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#162405 Oct 7, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are fundies such racists?
(Did bother reading the rest of your post.)
Christianity = hate!
That's what I've learned from Topix.
Rose_NoHo.

How come every time I come out in support of your position you attack me?

Ronald

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162407 Oct 7, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is. I found it, even though you said said nothing comes up.....
http://www.rentboy.com/
Stupid, that's not a pedophile site! AND I wrote it as "rent boy dot com" in the post you replied to (guess that was too complex for you to understand), I did that so people wouldn't accidentally click on an adults' only link.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162408 Oct 7, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we call rose_no-hope a monkey because it has the intellect of an ape. We all have valid points that have been made repeatedly, only to have to hear chongo use "roses law" as if it is an authority on the matter, and that resortation to childish name calling has been committed by your hero, rose_no-hope,
You mean childish name calling like calling me "rose_no-hope"?
R Hudson wrote:
more than any other poster in here. And insofar as your claim goes, we heterosexual normal people are being forced into the unfortunate position of having to defend normality, for the sake of society.
Homosexuality is no threat to society.
R Hudson wrote:
Obsession ? If you poofs weren't forcing our children into having to learn about the whole sick phenomenon of gayness in school,
Rose's Law...
R Hudson wrote:
and by holding your detestable parades (complete with gigantic phallic symbols and men dressed as women) on Main Street USA, why, the whole issue would be avoidable. but due to your pushing of legislation, and your lobbying for "equal representation", which covers about 10% of the population, we are forced into polarization on the matter.
Oh, BTW, I love to watch 2 women having it off, who wouldn't want to be with a woman ? It is having to watch men prance around like they can be mistaken for women that makes me want to vomit.....Please, be clear on the matter.
You homophobes act as if you can't step outside without running into a gay pride parade. If you don't like them, quit finding out when they are going to be, and stop traveling to go see them. Problem solved.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162409 Oct 7, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you hadn't noticed, it is our country , too. With the laws being changed to suit a minority.
Still upset we got rid of Jim Crow Laws, huh?
R Hudson wrote:
We liked it the way it was, so if you want to accept them so freely, why don't YOU get the f_ck out of OUR country, where everything was good, and go form yourself a new one ?
Why don't you go form one where all people, even members of minority groups like blacks and gays, are *NOT* promised equal rights?

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162410 Oct 7, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, let's get technical......
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a member of the retrovirus family) that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2] a condition in humans in which progressive failure of the immune system allows life-threatening opportunistic infections and cancers to thrive.
HIV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's nice.
But that doesn't change the fact that HIV and AIDS are often used interchangeably, even though it's not technically correct. And it made sense to do in a post that said, "Anal sex causes HIV".

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162411 Oct 7, 2012
Jenkins wrote:
<quoted text>Queer marriage should be outlawed for the sake of the little children.
Too easy...
Rose's Law

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162412 Oct 7, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage, like the real people get to do ....
Stupid, I asked for a *special* right gay people are asking for.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162413 Oct 7, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
<quoted text>Gay's Law: Gays in a park scream, where are the children.
Allowing do/gay marriage will not stop gays from marrying.
So, how is gay marriage not a father/mother since gays having been marrying and becoming biological parents for centuries.
Yes, thanks for making our point, because the Supreme Court already riled that the ban on same sex marriage is supported by the 14th Amendment, not prohibited.
Game over.
Did you remove random words from your post? It makes no sense.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162414 Oct 7, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
<quoted text>That is what we have been telling you, homosexuality is not essential to human survival, in fact gays are counterproductive to survival of the species, and same sex marriage is not a fundamental right for people who choose to act on gay urges.
There always have been gay people, and there always will be. Humanity is surviving just fine. How are they counterproductive to human survival?

Marriage is a fundamental right. Why are you against equal rights?
FitterREPUBLICAN

Monrovia, CA

#162415 Oct 7, 2012
President Obama visits Los Angeles, California for star-studded fundraiser concert tonight October 07, 2012.

Ther only republican you might see are the ones protesting or shouting nasty comments.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#162416 Oct 7, 2012
Once again, the nation's first African president is hobnobbing with his rich Hollywood "Liberal" pals for the purpose of collecting money for POLITICAL PURPOSES. In view of the dire economic condition the nation faces, shouldn't he be in Washington trying to fix the Obama economy?

Ronald

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#162417 Oct 7, 2012
Ronald wrote:
Once again, the nation's first African president
Why are you fundies such racists? Don't you believe god created us all?
(Didn't bother reading the rest of your post.)
NY4now

Jackson Heights, NY

#162418 Oct 7, 2012
WHY VOTE wrote:
Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????
Now stop and think about that for a minute...What do you suppose would have happened in the 60's/70's if we let the states vote on whether or not interracial marriage should be legal? Would it have been acceptable at that time, because you know there were a lot of bigots who would have said NO WAY!
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#162419 Oct 7, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you fundies such racists? Don't you believe god created us all?
(Didn't bother reading the rest of your post.)
Rose_NoHo.

Yes. "Racist" is a vague political emotionalism of no fixed defined meaning. It is similar to the invented emotionalism "Homophobe". The purpose of emotionalisms of like kind is to move the political debate ever leftward in order to achieve revolutionary objectives.

Ronald

jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162420 Oct 7, 2012
NY4now wrote:
<quoted text>
Now stop and think about that for a minute...What do you suppose would have happened in the 60's/70's if we let the states vote on whether or not interracial marriage should be legal? Would it have been acceptable at that time, because you know there were a lot of bigots who would have said NO WAY!
I need to stop you right there, you homosexual.

The majority of states allowed blacks and whites to marry before Loving.

In fact the state that was the defendant in Loving allowed all races to marry with one exception, being of course blacks could not marry whites.

You've already been humiliated: to top it off, the very same Supreme Court laughed you homosexuals out of court in Baker v Nelson, and reportedly (if Bob Woodward is to be believed) Thurgood Marshall, THE Civil Rights attorney, fell off his chair.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#162421 Oct 7, 2012
NY4now wrote:
<quoted text>
Now stop and think about that for a minute...What do you suppose would have happened in the 60's/70's if we let the states vote on whether or not interracial marriage should be legal? Would it have been acceptable at that time, because you know there were a lot of bigots who would have said NO WAY!
NY4now.

Your point is well taken. One chink in the argument though, is that the same ones who loudly demand the nation should observe republican ideals when it suits them are also the most vocal in their demands that the nation is "a democracy" when it likewise suits them.

This has been an especial dilemma since the revolution, afterward of which the judicial system was changed to reflect revolutionary change, rather than strict constitutional interpretation - the Republican's 14th Amendment notwithstanding.

The outcome has been the establishment of a dysfunctional arbitrary and capricious Government. The elimination of individual rights and the replacement of those individual rights with easily manipulable group "rights" has left the individual powerless and uncertain before an all-powerful central Government. No one knows where he stands.

Ronald

“"W.T.F."”

Since: Aug 12

Tempe, AZ

#162422 Oct 7, 2012
jacques renault wrote:
<quoted text>
I need to stop you right there, you homosexual.
The majority of states allowed blacks and whites to marry before Loving.
In fact the state that was the defendant in Loving allowed all races to marry with one exception, being of course blacks could not marry whites.
You've already been humiliated: to top it off, the very same Supreme Court laughed you homosexuals out of court in Baker v Nelson, and reportedly (if Bob Woodward is to be believed) Thurgood Marshall, THE Civil Rights attorney, fell off his chair.
The very first national polls that came out in favor of inter-racial marriages did not happen until 1992! Before then the majority of Americans were in fact against inter-racial marriages! Care to try again? LOL
jacques renault

Justice, IL

#162423 Oct 7, 2012
Some Day Never Comes wrote:
<quoted text>
The very first national polls that came out in favor of inter-racial marriages did not happen until 1992! Before then the majority of Americans were in fact against inter-racial marriages! Care to try again? LOL
It's your brain that never came

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Soledad Canyon a " California Mar 25 Ravenite Coffee 2
does anyone need a good dog walker (May '07) Mar 25 chicagodawg 46
does 4-stroke scooter take regular oil Mar 21 styxxx116 1
News German-American International School will move ... Mar 20 Samuel 1
News City Council Approves Parks and Recreation Depa... Mar 9 Nita Singler 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Feb '15 tera 112
News City Blows the Whistle on High-Speed Trains Feb '15 CTYKE 1
Redwood City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]