Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,192

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
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186873 Apr 5, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
There was a ban ?!
There must have been, Super Big D said that if we made guns legal, we'd be building backyard nukes next....Must've been something that I wasn't told.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186874 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing. Come on, you know it's how we do it, in here.... Did I hate when you broke up with Jerry? No, I got all soft about you, then, didn't I? I stopped with the hate then. We come in here to be all Springer, you know that. It's why Frankie said that to VV, "out of place in here"... We don't communicate, we hurl insults. Any real communication would be lost in the wind...
Rules were made to be broken. I still believe it's possible to communicate with one another in a respectful manner.

Did you know that I used to live in the same town as Kimare? I still only live a few miles away.

At one time I offered to meet with him, face to face. I wanted him to know me personally. I wanted him to look into the eyes of the person he had such animosity towards.

I was hopeful that we could come together and have a conversation.

But he wouldn't meet. Instead he became increasingly nasty towards me.

I'm not shrinking violet. I can get down in the gutter too.

I've all but written him off.

My "bleeding heart" won't let me give up on him entirely. I am the "forever optimist".

And I like to use quotation marks. I'm also a big fan of the ellipsis.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186875 Apr 5, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I already posted it.
Diminished respect for the institution.
Soon, marriage won't mean anything special, it will simply mean mated to someone, "baby mama" etc.
That is enough damage, if you ask me. I never said that people cannot be gay, far from it, but marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman. The basic family unit. The damage to the family unit is passed on to the children of such sham "marriages". This has been documented. The children of such unions are deprived of the balanced input from the complimentary union. And I am glad to make such merry for you, and yours. Can't say that it is a surprise, I enjoy mauling Chongo, and am glad if you are able to derive some small enjoyment from my presence. It's nice to be noticed.
:-D
I've got to tell you, me amigo; the "marriage" that you're worried about being diminished kind of bit the dust when people started spending more on them than my parents spent on their first house. And those bitter and expensive divorces hasn't helped the institution much either.

Can't blame that on us.

Might not have been your personal decision to make marriages into spectacles, but it was the heterosexual community that created such monstrosities.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186876 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me correct one little bit of your "comment".
"Fag hags" hang around gay men because we treat them with respect. They have no concern that we're going to come on to them. They feel a certain amount of safety around us. They can let their guards down.
Unfortunately, straight guys tend to get very jealous of us when we're around your girlfriends or wives. You observe that we can have a level of comfort around women that you cannot.
I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say that. It's just the facts.
I've had "girlfriends" all of my life. They totally understood our friendship. And I've had to deal with my share of jealous boyfriends--guys who just HATED my being friends with their women.
I, personally, hate the word "fag hag". It's demeaning to women. No woman is a "hag". And just for the record, I hate the word "fag". It's been carved into the bodies of too many young gay men by hate-filled assholes.
I swear to God, I thought you were different. I honestly did. Where did I get that idea?
Are you really so shallow? Are you really that mean-spirited? Do you really have that level of disdain for gay people? Do you dislike gay women with the same intensity as you dislike gay men?
I really do hope that the nasty back-and-forth that takes place on this forum hasn't made you more bitter toward gay people.
You're not being a jerk, at all. I do not dislike gay men or women, regardless of how we play this game, in here. Don't you understand the true nature of this forum yet? It is not about communication, it is a version of the Springer Show. We all have roles to fulfill, and mine is to be the "easily hateable bad guy" for my side. i actually have that same level of comfort around the women that you have, because I respect my marriage and my wife. I am a 1-woman man, and that is a rare thing in today's world. I also trust my wife around other men, for the same reasons. I am old school. "Fag Hag" is a term that is commonly used in this world. Not a declaration of how I feel. And, I am not bitter towards gays, but the hearing about "semen cocktails" on the public radio today rattled my cage badly, it is extremely inappropriate, to say the least, and I do hate the "Coming out" in the media. I despise it.
As to the back and forth in here, it is why we collect here and throw down. Hell, if it wasn't for that, many of us wouldn't come here, at all. We get to vent.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186877 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Randy, but studies are pretty much show that heterosexuals enjoy anal sex about as much as homosexuals. In fact, anal sex has been used throughout history by heterosexual couples as a means of birth control; you know, like back in the days before condoms... It was also (still is) used to "preserve virginity" of women who wished to remain "intact" for their future husbands.
Heterosexual anal sex is also in the Kama Sutra--a collection of sexual positions that dates back to 400 BC.
And contrary to what you say, according to the info I've read on the internet (just Google it), there are more nerve endings in the anus than there are in the vaginal walls.
Having never seen a vaginal wall, I wouldn't know.
Sometimes it's better to do a little research before posting something that you're not really sure about.
I'm being censored again...Don't know why. I posted "Research the purpose a butthole? Might have to look into that.... Actually, I won't. It is Biology 101. Perhaps it is you who needs to brush up on it, and look up the word "Misuse" while you're at it." and got censored, so I will edit a bit.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186878 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I will say it again--will keep saying it until you "get it"... Announcing that I am attracted to men is in NO WAY telling you or anyone about my sexual business.
It is no more inappropriate that you holding hands with a woman, stealing a kiss, or announcing an engagement.
In school there are all kinds of social structures where heterosexual preteens and teens are ushered into expressing their age-appropriate attractions to one another.
Do you not remember your own childhood?
Would you have found it inappropriate for two guys or two girls to have held hands in the hallways of your high school? Would it have been inappropriate for two guys or two girls to have attended their 8th grade dance?
Until recently, we have been invisible. The same social structures available to heterosexual teens and preteens were not available to us.
It has been through vocal homosexuals that we are now reaching a time in our history where gays are able to begin living a normal life; without fear of being outed, rejected by family, or rejected by society.
Obviously, we have a long way to go before we are totally and openly integrated into larger society.
When a sports figure or another celebrity announces that they are openly gay--that they have no shame of their attractions--they are setting an example for young gays and lesbians.
Our community does not want them to be burdened by the closet.
As I have said repeatedly, as time goes on, this will become less and less of an issue. Already I see young gays and lesbians who have no interest in being vocal or political. They already feel fully integrated. Their families and friends are aware of who they are and are totally accepting. So it's not a big deal to them.
But they only got where they are because of a bunch of loud-mouthed homosexuals who refused to continue living in the shadows.
It is, if you stand up in front of an audience, collected together for another purpose (usually a sports outing)(or an award ceremony)(or a political rally), and use the newspaper, or the radio, or the TV, to get your message across to half of the country, in one fell swoop.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186879 Apr 5, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Rules were made to be broken. I still believe it's possible to communicate with one another in a respectful manner.
Did you know that I used to live in the same town as Kimare? I still only live a few miles away.
At one time I offered to meet with him, face to face. I wanted him to know me personally. I wanted him to look into the eyes of the person he had such animosity towards.
I was hopeful that we could come together and have a conversation.
But he wouldn't meet. Instead he became increasingly nasty towards me.
I'm not shrinking violet. I can get down in the gutter too.
I've all but written him off.
My "bleeding heart" won't let me give up on him entirely. I am the "forever optimist".
And I like to use quotation marks. I'm also a big fan of the ellipsis.
I would have met with you, invited you for a drink and gotten to know you. Hell, we could have been pals across the lines, who knows? No need to hate ones adversary. Some people are wound up too tight. I don't get all uptight about what we say in here, I've had my Mrs. insulted, I've had my kids dragged in, etc. All water on a duck's back.
:-D
Don't hate me because I throw down, enjoy me for it. Throw back.
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#186880 Apr 5, 2013
Catch you tomorrow, or so, VV good night, Mon ami.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#186881 Apr 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
No, in no law in any state is ability or intent to have children any kind of requirement for a marriage license. I don’t know how many times you will need to have this pointed out to you, but I can continue as long as you can.
Then inbreeding isn't a justification to not license incest unions, so the only other explanation for the ban on incest marriage is religion. Religion can be a valid justification to keep marriage one man and one woman. And not just one religion, every religious text that mentions marriage defines it as a male/female union.

Thanks for your help.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#186882 Apr 6, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
some do get emotional about it - on both sides of the debate.
That's cute:

1. I make the argument incest laws are based on religion and they are valid reasons for government to restrict marriage.

2. I'm challenged, incest laws are based on the problem of inbreeding, not religion, therefore my argument is invalid.

3. I respond, if inbreeding is a legitimate reason to ban incest marriage then marriage and procreation are related; therefore government has a valid reason to restrict same sex marriage.

4. I'm challenged, marriage "marriage has nothing to do with procreation", thus the challenge in step 2. is void and religion can is a valid reason to restrict same sex marriage.

5. heartandmind loses track of the argument and claims the arguments are based on 'emotion'.

BTW, the British Actor Jeremy Irons makes an interesting point about father/son marriage to avoid estate taxes and same sex marriage here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/04/je...

Speaking to Huffington Post Live host Josh Zepps, Irons asked: "Could a father not marry his son?"

When Zepps reminded him of incest laws, Irons responded with: "It's not incest between men", because "incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#186883 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court has supported citizen's fundamental rights to marry 14 times since 1888
Here are a few of their comments regarding marriage...
Loving v. Virginia,(1967):“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut,(1971):“[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur,(1974)“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland,(1977)(plurality):“[ W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Zablocki v. Redhail,(1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley,(1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,(1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Lawrence v. Texas,(2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
----------
In all those cases, the Supreme Court based their decision on the definition of marriage as a union of husband AND wife.
Only when all unrelated, consenting, adult couples are able to marry the person of their choice will we be fully equal.
So many points.....

*Marriage is an individual right, not a couples right.

*Marriage is still defined and regulated by the state.

*A person can marry whomever they want without state recognition.

*First cousins can legally marry in several states.

*Polygamy is a valid form of marriage world wide, and is practiced in this country, albeit without state recognition.

*The list goes on

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#186884 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
As you know, each decision of the court can contain multiple findings, on which future conclusions may be drawn.
Just because "Loving" dealt with interracial marriage, one aspect of the case found that marriage is a fundamental right of U.S. citizens.
Gay twirl censored bs.

The basis for government recognition of marriage is procreation. Here is the context of the SCOTUS decisions you sited;

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

Why do you always discriminate against honesty and truth?

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#186885 Apr 6, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "Slippery Slope", Logical Implication. Please get it right.
Bazinga! That nails it. Bravo!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#186886 Apr 6, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
As you know, each decision of the court can contain multiple findings, on which future conclusions may be drawn.
Just because "Loving" dealt with interracial marriage, one aspect of the case found that marriage is a fundamental right of U.S. citizens.
Marriage, the lawfully wedded union of husband and wife. That is the definition of marriage within that fundamental right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#186888 Apr 6, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>No its not.
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
In the various USSC rulings on marriage, which definition of marriage did they use?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186889 Apr 6, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>No its not.
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Aw shuddup Jizzybirdy you dopey jackass!

P.S. Cool beans! YUK!YUK!YUK! What a dope!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#186890 Apr 6, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Gays are fruity pansies! The only motorized bikes they could handle operating are scooters!lmfao!
Why are you so immature?

http://www.gbmcc.co.uk/home

http://dartmouthharleyclub.com/

http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Magazine/InThisIssu...

http://www.outsports.com/2012/1/10/4052364/me...

http://www.riderclubs.com/clubs/gay-and-lesbi...

If the last three links don't work, here they are in parts, just copy & paste them together in a new window.

http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Magazine/
InThisIssue-articleid-3499-sec tionid-651.html

http://www.outsports.com/2012/1/10/4052364/
meet-openly-gay-pro-motorcycle -racer-luke-huff

http://www.riderclubs.com/clubs/
gay-and-lesbian-motorcycle-clu bs.html
Anonymous

Becket, MA

#186891 Apr 6, 2013
poledancer45 wrote:
<quoted text>why do you hate america
Wow, that was relevant right!? I don't hate my country! I was simply saying I have never seen a masculine gay man.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#186892 Apr 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The key word misused here is "always". Simply because it was done in the past, doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be done now, or should be. If SSM is such a hot idea, why having societies, across time and place, incorporated it into their societal structures? Why didn't it naturally develop alongside of both monogamous, and polygamous, opposite sex marriage?
Many countries are incorporating it. The Netherlaands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Portugal, Denmark, Argentina, Canada and South Africa. Several more are working at recognising same sex marriage soon. If something is going to happen it has to have a start.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186893 Apr 6, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, that was relevant right!? I don't hate my country! I was simply saying I have never seen a masculine gay man.
If you disagree with Lilith, she thinks that means you hate your country. A real genius eh?

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.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Trojan 27,934
Lozano and Garcia Don't Care About City Workers... 7 hr Losers 2
Monica Garcia Losing Hair For Real 8 hr Out Garcia 3
Mother Murdered at LM Swap Meet 11 hr Juanito 2
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 13 hr nick 710
Man enters plea in abduction, rape (May '10) 14 hr Set u straight 33
Louie Lujan Government Relations Advisor 19 hr Dave Brooks 6

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at October 25 at 12:39PM PDT

Rowland Heights News Video

Rowland Heights Dating
Find my Match

Rowland Heights Jobs

Rowland Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Rowland Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Rowland Heights

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]