Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196137 Jun 15, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oy vey. I could make up a much funnier list about gay marriage. Maybe I will later.
And it will be fun for all! Well, maybe not you.
Don't forget to mention the lesbian couple, who on their wedding day dress in "heterosexual" attire. One wears the wedding dress, the other the tuxedo. Sounds like they're heterosexuals trapped in homosexual bodies.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#196139 Jun 15, 2013
I think anderson should be released, it wasn't his fault.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196140 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Or he understands that you are a liar
No. That's not it. It's because he is a hypocrite and doesn't want to hear about it. Mind closed. Case closed, a bigot. Just like you Jizzy! No wonder you defend him.

When we cut through all your bullsh!t, the bottom line is that I support marriage equality and you and VV do not.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196142 Jun 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Another post where you focus on anal sex.
2.) Anal sex has been practiced for eons by straights and gays as a means of birth control, to maintain virginity, and for pleasure in both genders.
3.) If you, personally, find anal sex to be "harmful, unhealthy, and demeaning", then you are doing it wrong.
4.) Butt out of people's butts, butt boy.
VV, you seem very anal about all this.

Analize this with me.

I'm trying to protect gays from a serious medical condition.

BUTT you on the other hand, apparently want to leave those with sexual defects bareassed vulnerable.

It appears to me, you should be emBARRASSED about this foolishness.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196143 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Why should we as a SECULR nation change the laws regarding polygamy to make one religious cult happy. We don't change laws to make the Muslims happy do we?
What harm would a loving marriage of three atheist gay men cause you Jiz?

Why are you a hypocrite? Don't like poly marriage? Don't get poly married! Easy!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196144 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Or he understands that you are a liar
Speaking of lying, why do you change your socks all the time Jizzy?

I mean when you are a moron such as yourself, it's impossible to hide it so everyone knows it's you anyway. Stick with JizmBirdy58. That's the one we liked best.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196148 Jun 15, 2013
Bruthie Howser wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have a Salty Dog.
PLEASE!!!!
Make mine with gin and hold the fruit juice and salt. I'm salty enough by my own seaworthy self.
Joustingfun

Monrovia, CA

#196150 Jun 15, 2013
Jousting a always been fun for some and great for other's.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196151 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Why should we as a SECULR nation change the laws regarding polygamy to make one religious cult happy. We don't change laws to make the Muslims happy do we?
Because of the First Amendment.

You have the right to pursue happiness, you don't have a right to happiness. We should change laws to make everyone equal, not happy. Even the ones you hate like Muslims and Mormons.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196152 Jun 15, 2013
just wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn good question. So why should we change laws to please the Sphincter Fundies©?
Zoro's not much of a thinker.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196153 Jun 15, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask him what his kind, the feminist wackos, think about the "demeaning" part.
Since I'm not a feminist wacko, why don't you ask one yourself. I hear many of them like to use strap-ons. I encourage you to use Google if you need any more information.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196154 Jun 15, 2013
The media and the same-sex marriage lobby tend to conveniently ignore the fact that many people with same-sex attraction oppose redefining marriage. This is because it completely undermines the general branding of defenders of traditional marriage as “homophobic bigots.”

Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/1...

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#196155 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget to mention the lesbian couple, who on their wedding day dress in "heterosexual" attire. One wears the wedding dress, the other the tuxedo. Sounds like they're heterosexuals trapped in homosexual bodies.
And don't forget to mention the majority of lesbians who do not. Most folks don't really worry about what another couple wears (or doesn't) on their wedding day. Weddings are usually designed to suit the likes and dislikes of the couples involved.

Some women are more comfortable in "traditionally" female clothes. Some are more comfortable on more traditionally male clothes. Some could care less about the whole thing.

And this applies to ALL women, not just lesbians. If you disagree, you aren't living in a rural area. Most of the female farmers around here are, in dress, indistinguishable from their husbands.

And, yes, they should all be able to marry the single unrelated adult of their choice.

Choice is the key, isn't it?

In spouses and in clothes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196156 Jun 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I'm not a feminist wacko, why don't you ask one yourself. I hear many of them like to use strap-ons. I encourage you to use Google if you need any more information.
Had a g.f. once the little freak pulled a strap-on out of her drawer and wanted to deploy it on me! I *hightailed it the hell out of there fast I gotta tell you.

*Puns always intended.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196157 Jun 15, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are a few other words that you and your wife can call your "unique" relationship...
Jealous Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who are jealous that homosexuals also get to use the term "marriage".
Selfish Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who are too selfish to share the word "marriage".
Insecure Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who are too insecure with their own marriage, so they must forbid all others from having access to the word.
Meddlesome Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who believe that they know what's best for all other couples--meddling into other people's private lives.
Projection Marriage--A marriage between heterosexuals who have a rocky foundation. So they project their fears, concerns, and conflicts onto external issues, such as same-sex marriage; hoping that it will divert attention away from what it really the problem in their own marriage.
Sad Marriage--a marriage between heterosexuals who have nothing better to do with their time other than to attack other people's relationships. This makes them a very sad and kind of pathetic couple.
Whiny Marriage--a marriage between heterosexuals who LOVE to whine about gay people getting married. Friends, relatives, and co-workers of couples in a Whine Marriage" do a lot of eye-rolling, fake yawning, and lip-biting. They often stare at the clock and think to themselves, "When are they going to leave?!?"
----------
Gee, this is a lot more fun than I thought it would be!
Gosh, 36 years married, two sons, over ten foster kids, most restored to their birth parents. We didn't have time to think about an impostor relationship trying to impose on marriage and family...

It seems you have no idea about what marriage means...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196158 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, you seem very anal about all this.
Analize this with me.
I'm trying to protect gays from a serious medical condition.
BUTT you on the other hand, apparently want to leave those with sexual defects bareassed vulnerable.
It appears to me, you should be emBARRASSED about this foolishness.
There are safe ways of having anal sex. Even a BUTT-insky such as yourself should know about them.

HIV/AIDS can be prevented with the use of condoms.

HPV can be prevented through knowing ones status (about 20,000,000 adults between the ages of 18-49 have the disorder), through the use of condoms and/or vaccination.

Most people who get HPV will never have symptoms. Their body can eradicate the disease on its own.

Kids, teens, and others who have never been sexually active can get vaccinated to prevent HPV.

The American Cancer Society estimates about 1,570 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with cancer of the penis in 2012. About 2,250 men are estimated to have receive a diagnosis of anal cancer in 2012 as well.

The risk of cancer in gay/bisexual men is about 17 times higher. Multiply 1570 by 17 and you get 26,690. Multiply 2250 by 17 and you get 38,250.

Survival rates for penile cancer is about 85% depending on the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis. Survival rates for anal cancer is about 71%, depending on the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis.

These numbers are hardly indicative of a plague when you consider that there are several million sexually active gay/bisexual men in the nation. Women aren't warned to abstain from vaginal intercourse even though that is the primary method of HPV transmission. So why should gay men be warned to abstain from intercourse?

As I said, there are safe ways to have intercourse.

Now that I have helped to educate you and others, you can stop your ASS-inine scare tactics and get back to what you do best; which is to spend an inordinate amount of time obsASSing about what gay men do in their bedrooms.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196160 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The media and the same-sex marriage lobby tend to conveniently ignore the fact that many people with same-sex attraction oppose redefining marriage. This is because it completely undermines the general branding of defenders of traditional marriage as “homophobic bigots.”
Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.
"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."
Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.
But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.
"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/1...
While there are those gays and lesbians who do not want to see same-sex marriage legalized, I'm certain that most of them believe that the gay and lesbian couples who DO want access to marriage SHOULD have the CHOICE available to enter into a marriage.

This issue is about a couple having the RIGHT to make a decision to marry based on their own personal beliefs and values.

Regarding what opponents of same-sex marriage "think", I have these sage words... Opinions are like assholes--everyone has one and most of them stink.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196163 Jun 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The media and the same-sex marriage lobby tend to conveniently ignore the fact that many people with same-sex attraction oppose redefining marriage. This is because it completely undermines the general branding of defenders of traditional marriage as “homophobic bigots.”
Feel free to cite a study or poll. I doubt you would find "many" who disagree. Particularly seeing as public support has been consistently increasing.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Pietro Armando wrote:
Tom Geoghegan from BBC News has a very interesting article on his interviews with a range of people with same-sex attraction who nevertheless oppose redefining marriage. The reasons given are varied, but the telling factor is that they realise what the debate is about: the issue is not same-sex couples; the issue is marriage: what it is, and what its purpose is.
"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage - the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."
Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.
But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.
"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/1...
Of course it continues:

"Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.
"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.
"I've been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don't understand why anyone wants to do that.
"I'm not saying that people who want that shouldn't have it but for me, all that matters is the legal stuff.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

So, in reality, you have found one person with a potential objection to the wording, but not to equal protection of the law.

Do you read the articles that you post to the end, or even the middle for that matter?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196166 Jun 15, 2013
Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>
OK then which of the following religions shall we base the new law on?
Mormonism
Buddhisim
Hinduism
Wiccan
Druid
Catholicism
FSM
Remember we cant force the beliefe of one religion on the others.
Fundamentalist polygamists have a substantial first amendment right to marry multiple wives according to the dictates of their faith.

Atheist polygamists have a right to marry just like atheist homosexuals do. Glad you don't like it hypocrite, but it won't hurt you or your silly passionless straight marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196167 Jun 15, 2013
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.)

Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/...

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.

San Jacinto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr free for all 5,081
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sat surfs up 7,955
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Fri scoop 2,273
david steidell (Aug '07) Fri huhwhathaha 13
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
HemetHEMET: Firefighters not giving up fight to... Sep 18 West end Resident 2
ugly women with ugly tattoos!!!!! (Oct '12) Sep 17 Bad teachers 90
•••

San Jacinto News Video

•••
•••

San Jacinto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

San Jacinto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

San Jacinto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in San Jacinto
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••