Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201846 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#178652 Feb 7, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Many do not give a flip about SSM, but are forced to watch as it becomes valid. But for those that give a flip about poly and incest, it must be a slap in the face to watch "equality' being doled out, but only for some....Like "Animal Farm". We are all created equal, but some are more equal than others...
What the? Way ta go! Man oh man.....I actually used the 'Animal Farm' analogy on another thread, "Obama announces support for Gay Marriage. Glad to know I'm not the only one who sees the connection.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178653 Feb 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Smile.
chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:
Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)
Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with mar
riage (or sex)
Human rights are innate, not granted
Equate… diversity … redundancy.. what???
Surely, sacred religions aren’t afraid of the doing of you or I…
Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!
Things don’t get better without change
Laws do change this – for instance the marriage tax credit
WTF is duplicating sexuality
So children of single parents are also condemned? Really?
WTF is design of sexual union
Evolution has no laws. Not one... none at all…
Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: it’s not SSM)
Reproduction doesn’t require marriage; and marriage does not imply kids
Dilute.. the..what, huh?
1. Which makes the gay (pun intended) claim that not having access to marriage stops love.

2. Of course rights are innate. However, certain rights are unique to select people/groups. You avoid answering the assertion; Why discriminate with only gays relationships instead of all relationships?

3. You don't need marriage to acquire any legitimate rights due a gay couple.

4. Another simpleton response... Using a classic analogy, Marriage is the union of Mars and Venus, Gay couples are the collision of Uranus and Uranus.

5. You are not just culturally insensitive, you are culturally stupid. All major religions hold marriage sacred. Calling gay couples married is a sacrilege.

Slavery and intellectual repression have been rejected over and over through history. Gay couples being designated married has never been accepted or legal in any culture from start to finish in all of human history. Simply because they are viewed as a defective distinct relationship.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178654 Feb 7, 2013
6. Your answer has nothing to do with my statement and makes an unproved, unlikely assumption.

7. You confuse innate distinctions with external issues. No law can equate a hetero couple with a homo couple.

8. The union of a male and female create a unique relationship. The redumbancy of a single gender is simply duplication.

9. According to social scientists, severely so. And according to the latest, largest and most scientific study of family types, children in lesbian homes fare even worse!

10. The male and female body are designed for sexual union. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

11. Please re-study the fundamentals of evolution, it is not that complicated...

12. You are avoiding the point. Marriage is the healthiest relationship. Gay relationships are 'one of' the most unhealthy.

13. No one except a relationship that is totally desolate is asserting that marriage 'requires' procreation. It is simply expected. Please re-read the apple/walnut analogy again real slowely...

14. Please re-read the entire 'If You'. Then ignore all the distinctions noted and dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship'. Which simply means any relationship of two people is supposed to be called marriage. Which by the way, is discriminatory towards three or more people in a relationship...

Like I said, a buff ego with no head...

Smirk.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#178655 Feb 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
10. The male and female body are designed for sexual union. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Smirk.
but we are both male and female. what union or we designed for?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#178656 Feb 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
but we are both male and female. what union or we designed for?
Plumber's union.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#178657 Feb 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The real arguments include the probable consequences of introducing gender segregation to marriage.
LIke forced marriages in prison? Yeah, we've already seen just how many of those have occured in Canada. Perhaps you need to rethink, with some intelligence for a change, what those probable consequences might be before banging on about them.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178658 Feb 7, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
This argument, RIGHT HERE, sounds an awful lot like the one used to benefit the gays:
"The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex."
...doesn't it ? In fact, if we delete a couple of words..."then the number should not matter any more than sex.", then it is a carbon copy. As is proper. As Frank and I have been saying.
Smile. You're the guest star of "Ooops, Guess I F**ked Up Again"....Played nightly on Topix.
Oh no, I am on the right side of history, same sex marriage is legal now, in a growing number of states and countries.

You can cry and whine and pine for the "good old days" all you want, but it isn’t going to do you any good, same sex marriage will continue to become legal in more and more states

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#178659 Feb 7, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>i agree and just like the boy scouts, it will be a matter of time when Churches will be sued that refuse a homosexual marriage.
1) the boy scouts are a club somewhat, open for all boys to join, unless of course if you are gay.

2) Who said you have to be married in a church? BTW there are a few churches that will preform a traditional marriage ceremony.
DorN

La Puente, CA

#178660 Feb 7, 2013
The topic of this blog is:“Judge overturns ban on same sex marriage in California.”
Everything else is off topic.
Of course homosexuals should have equal rights to legal marriage.
Everything else is off topic. I have seen both homosexual and heterosexuals display lust, and I have seem both homosexuals and heterosexuals display love. Only a couple should decide if they are in love and want to have the legal right to be married.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178661 Feb 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Those are you arguments against polygamy. They're stupid.
Not one of those arguments were against it, just pointing out some facts. I am not against it, I just dont care, as I know nothing is going to happen with it for a long long time.

Immoral religious degenerates have made absolutely certain of that.

If you think otherwise then build your case, put it on a ballot, have a vote, send it to the Supreme Court, but don’t be asking me for a donation because I could not care less. I already know the outcome of your efforts.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178662 Feb 7, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>i agree and just like the boy scouts, it will be a matter of time when Churches will be sued that refuse a homosexual marriage.
Wrong, a church is a private little club, they can refuse to marry people with blue eyes, they can refuse to marry someone because they are a republican.

This is not about some church or other, this is about legal marriage, which requires no church at all, no mention of any "holy books" or beliefs and can take place in your kitchen if you want it to with someone with the right paperwork and authorized by the state to do so.( I know, I have been to one of those )

Also, who is defending the rights of churches that WANT to preform same sex marriages and are being denied the right to do so? There are tens of thousands of those as well.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178663 Feb 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one of those arguments were against it, just pointing out some facts. I am not against it, I just dont care, as I know nothing is going to happen with it for a long long time.
Immoral religious degenerates have made absolutely certain of that.
If you think otherwise then build your case, put it on a ballot, have a vote, send it to the Supreme Court, but don’t be asking me for a donation because I could not care less. I already know the outcome of your efforts.
Wow! Imagine if someone posted similar hate, ignorance and bigotry against gay marriage.
BlueAlert

Monrovia, CA

#178664 Feb 7, 2013
The shoe is on the other foot,now the hunter's have become the hunted?
Nay Nay

Corona, CA

#178665 Feb 7, 2013
But it's completely acceptable to violate the constitution and mandate government healthcare.
I see how this works...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178666 Feb 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Imagine if someone posted similar hate, ignorance and bigotry against gay marriage.
What hate, I am explaining that any church can decide not to marry anyone for any reason they want, no matter how silly the reason, as their rules only apply to their little church.

I am defending a churches right to specifically deny doing a marriage regardless of the legality of same sex marriage.

learn to read
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#178667 Feb 7, 2013
Nay Nay wrote:
But it's completely acceptable to violate the constitution and mandate government healthcare.
I see how this works...
Government healthcare? What have you got against Medicare?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178668 Feb 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Imagine if someone posted similar hate, ignorance and bigotry against gay marriage.
sorry wrong post I replied to

are you complaining about my hatred of Immoral religious child molesters?

Too bad
WW they thinking

Monrovia, CA

#178669 Feb 7, 2013
A police officer has been demoted for sending sexually-explicit video to her boyfriend.

Lopez herself is now reportedly considering a lawsuit against the city.

Her lawyer explained that her case would be based on "constitutional issues over lawful off-duty behavior and violation of privacy."
WWJD

Fullerton, CA

#178670 Feb 7, 2013
Smoke out
WWJD

Los Angeles, CA

#178671 Feb 7, 2013
Thank you Jesus

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.

Thermal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Jul 26 Maria Anderson 157
News Ernest Kimme: Thank our forefathers for opportu... Jul 21 Birds Landing Bob 7
News Santa Cruz native awarded fellowship Jul 20 Pissed off native... 3
Looking for a horny girl in indio Jul 14 Drewhas8 1
News Man petitions road name change to mend racial t... Jul 11 inewsmaster 1
Slamming Meth Jul 8 Martin 1
Plus Size clothes - Draper's & Damon's Jun '15 Tracy 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Thermal Mortgages