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
148,641 - 148,660 of 200,602 Comments Last updated 18 hrs ago
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169676
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169677
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169678
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169679
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169680
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169681
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169682
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169683
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169684
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169685
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169686
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169687
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169688
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169689
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here's your second lie of the night.

I never denied marriage to polygamists.

'Dumbass'...wear the sign.

LOL!!!

Next.
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169690
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But the same rationale and reasoning exists for both issues, so the same results must be achieved, to avoid arbitrarily doling out justice. Can't have double standards...
The only double standard exists when heterosexuals want to ban homosexuals from marrying.

It's OK for heterosexuals to marry given it's a basic liberty all American adults should have but not homosexuals albeit they too are American citizens wishing to pursue a freedom which exhibits no harm.

You just got busted son.
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169691
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But I'm not lonely, and, I'm not a loser...
Your opinion.

ROFL!!!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169692
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your second lie of the night.
I never denied marriage to polygamists.
'Dumbass'...wear the sign.
LOL!!!
Next.
You can dance ad parse words, but the fact is, you don't have any problem brushing off any other form of marriage currently not allowed by the government as a non-issue or red herring- aside from same sex marriage. There in lies your inner bigot no matter how much you wish to deny it.
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169693
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You can dance ad parse words, but the fact is, you don't have any problem brushing off any other form of marriage currently not allowed by the government as a non-issue or red herring- aside from same sex marriage. There in lies your inner bigot no matter how much you wish to deny it.
Have you read my posts dumbass?

Have you read my responses to your sad inclusion of polygamy?

Go back and read them shitforbrains. There is no mention of any bigotry from me you complete moron.

Like I repeatedly stated but you being a dumbfuck failed to read - I could give a shit less if the incredibly few poloygamists want to pursue their format of marriage as long as it did not include underage brides, coercion or hiding spouses from each other.

Get lost punk...you're such a lost soul it's pathetic.

By the way....this thread is about gay marriage...not men having sex with cars, necrophelia, beastiality or those who wonder who in the HELL your sad ass could possibly bed down with at night.

LOL!!!

Geeezus already.
WWBD

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169694
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Testing

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169695
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read my posts dumbass?
Yes Dan, we have all suffered through your posts. You are very good at dancing, but not very good at reality.

You are like Rose, trying to speak in all kinds of cryptic terms, trying to leave yourselves a way out of all of your nonsense by attempting to never really commit to anything. The problem is, neither of you are intelligent enough to do so, and not one person is falling for your nonsense.

You cannot claim that you are for equal rights on one hand, and then deny those right's on the other. You cannot claim that it is OK to deny right's from one group because of- A,B,C- and then claim you cannot deny those same right's from another group because A,B,C does not apply to them.

You don't get a pass on being a bigot because you are in favor of same sex marriage anymore than a black person gets a pass on being a racist because of the color of their skin.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 News Video

•••
•••

Redwood City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Redwood City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Redwood City
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••