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
143,781 - 143,800 of 200,587 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163097 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know, the doctors made a mistake. They should have discarded you and kept the placenta instead. Your mother and all of us would be better off today if they had.
Yup, here come the ad hominen.

So far you've called me a "chimp" and suggested I should have been killed at birth. Nice. Proves nothing of course except that you lost.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163098 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know, the doctors made a mistake. They should have discarded you and kept the placenta instead. Your mother and all of us would be better off today if they had.
i guess I cant help it if others want to use my awesome names..

but I dont agree with you on ole mike....
Winston Smith

Woodbridge, VA

#163099 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid post.
I agree. I was just reaching for your level.

Stupid post, BTW.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163100 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
still nothing new on the policy front huh??
peace.
Where did you get the idea that I'll be answering your dumb questions toots?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163101 Oct 14, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
AK, NorCal Native sums up my feelings quite nicely, but if I may elaborate.
The comparison to skin color is valid as there was a time when whites didn't want to serve along side blacks and this was SOP. It wasn't rational (sadly it is a feeling that persists in some/many individuals). Likewise there are those in the military that don't want to serve with homosexuals. These feelings are based upon irrational thoughts. One of the yammering idiots in here brings up rape. I can just see that one in an open barrack. I wouldn't think that the percentages would change in the service as compared to the general population. That means, depending upon what you believe, 2 to 10% of the military is gay. This ought to be a fairly constant rate all the way down to a single barrack. Soooo, 2% are going to launch an assault on 98% in an open barrack. I seriously have my doubts about any sort of assault going in that direction. OTOH, it isn't unreasonable to think that a gay man might get the shxt beat out of him under those same numbers.
All that said, it is a hurdle that needs jumping. Eventually we'll get there, but it'll probably involve a few bloody noses.
I simply don't agree with the comparison of homosexuals to blacks.

Part of the reason why DADT was repealed was due to a survey conducted in the military where it was found that a vast majority didn't give a damn about it.

While simply banning or segregating based on sexual orientation does walk a fine line, I do not find it irrational for a heterosexual or homosexuals to be uncomfortable with being housed together anymore than I find it irrational for that same feeling to be present among men and woman under the same conditions.

This issue is far more complex than simply screaming "bigot" or "homophobe."
Winston Smith

Woodbridge, VA

#163102 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, here come the ad hominen.
So far you've called me a "chimp" and suggested I should have been killed at birth. Nice. Proves nothing of course except that you lost.
Take note of the poster's locations. They're different. It is a common tactic for spackers to use someone's name to post insults and/or self deprecating comments. Mildly annoying and mildly amusing at the same time. I have been a popular target from time to time.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163103 Oct 14, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. I was just reaching for your level.
Stupid post, BTW.
Yup it was. If you're going to resort to ad hominen, at least make them funny. But of course using ad hominen is stupid in itself, it means you have nothing left.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163104 Oct 14, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Take note of the poster's locations. They're different. It is a common tactic for spackers to use someone's name to post insults and/or self deprecating comments. Mildly annoying and mildly amusing at the same time. I have been a popular target from time to time.
That's why you should register Winston.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163105 Oct 14, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume someone is a woman based upon a name that they adopt for a topix forum? Some folks actually put a little thought into their handles when they choose them. I'm surprised you haven't got a grasp of the guy's forum name as of yet. I'll give you a hint. Google is your friend and the search terms you want are Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan. The irony in Ryan's affections for Rand's philosophy is hilarious. He's had a turn of thought recently. I suppose it took him a while to get a grasp of Rand's religious belief.
So, instead of using your noggin in order to figure out why he'd use the name he chose you made an assumption. That's dumb.
So assuming someone with a girl's name is a girl is dumb, but assuming you know everything about a person's political views based on just their sympathy for terror victims is not dumb. Priceless!
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163106 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get the idea that I'll be answering your dumb questions toots?
I didnt....
have it your way
have a good day
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#163107 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply don't agree with the comparison of homosexuals to blacks.
Part of the reason why DADT was repealed was due to a survey conducted in the military where it was found that a vast majority didn't give a damn about it.
While simply banning or segregating based on sexual orientation does walk a fine line, I do not find it irrational for a heterosexual or homosexuals to be uncomfortable with being housed together anymore than I find it irrational for that same feeling to be present among men and woman under the same conditions.
This issue is far more complex than simply screaming "bigot" or "homophobe."
I'm not really equating blacks to homosexuals. I'm equating the poor treatment both groups receive. It is all based on fear and irrational BS.
Why should they be uncomfortable in the same housing? If one takes an adult view point sans all the religious rabble about God hating fags then there really isn't a valid reason. What is the rational reasoning for not wanting to share quarters with a gay man if you're heterosexual? It is a housing unit, not a brothel.
As far as coed housing, if there is adequate privacy offered then it isn't a big deal. But in a dormitory style unit there is the need to segregate genders. Not orientations. If DADT allowed them to occupy common housing why not post DADT?
It may be a complex issue, but homophobia is a part of the problem in terms of mixing orientations just as racism was/is part of the problem with mixing of races. It is one of the hurdles that needs to be crossed, no?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163108 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
have it your way!!
good luck next month
My candidate won't win. But I will vote my conscience anyway. I always do. You should too.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163109 Oct 14, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not really equating blacks to homosexuals. I'm equating the poor treatment both groups receive. It is all based on fear and irrational BS.
Why should they be uncomfortable in the same housing? If one takes an adult view point sans all the religious rabble about God hating fags then there really isn't a valid reason. What is the rational reasoning for not wanting to share quarters with a gay man if you're heterosexual? It is a housing unit, not a brothel.
As far as coed housing, if there is adequate privacy offered then it isn't a big deal. But in a dormitory style unit there is the need to segregate genders. Not orientations. If DADT allowed them to occupy common housing why not post DADT?
It may be a complex issue, but homophobia is a part of the problem in terms of mixing orientations just as racism was/is part of the problem with mixing of races. It is one of the hurdles that needs to be crossed, no?
You are not thinking this through. I appreciate your fantasy that we all just need to be adult about this, but that is not reality.

We are not just talking about a "college dorm" when we speak of the military. We are talking about the possibility of being housed with many in a tent, open bay showering facilities etc., where privacy simply isn't an option.

This isn't as simple as saying "grow up." And I do not think that people who take exception and show concern in these situations are being irrational or bigoted.

Again, the issue simply isn't that simple.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163110 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
My candidate won't win. But I will vote my conscience anyway. I always do. You should too.
ron paul voter huh?

or is gary?

nice guys both of them.....

both of them have much more character personally speaking, than ROmney could ever even dream of having....
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#163111 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
So assuming someone with a girl's name is a girl is dumb, but assuming you know everything about a person's political views based on just their sympathy for terror victims is not dumb. Priceless!
I think you're overstating the bit about sympathy for terror victims. It appears that his problem is that you're beating a dead horse and ignoring the rest of the dead horses. It is part of the problem with our politics. Someone can be ruined by a single issue in spite of the rest of what they bring to the table. There is a whole lot of he said she said style crap going on in the current side show. When the fact checkers get rolling along it becomes apparent that we're being drawn along but a flood of lies. Pick the ones you want to drift with.

You've given more hints about your political leanings than just having sympathy for victims. You seem to be opposed to homosexuality. At least for marriage. At least that appears to be the side you're taking (no, I'm not going to trawl back through your every witty retort and dissect your psychological profile for accuracy). It is the side you seem to have selected and if it isn't you need to work on your clarity with more than insults. It isn't a leap of faith to assume that you might be republican, right wing, or conservative depending upon what labeling system you favor. On balance there are more of them in opposition than there are people who would identify as left wing, liberal, or democrat.

I doubt anyone, left, right, center, democrat, republican, independent doesn't have sympathy for any victims. Whether they be collateral damage or the result of terrorist actions.

As far as the name is concerned, he used not only a girl's name, but the name of a man that ought to be recognised by anyone keeping track of US politics at the federal level.
Winston Smith

Los Angeles, CA

#163112 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why you should register Winston.
I thought about it over the past few months, but since my conviction I'm already on too many registered lists.
LYIN AYN RYAN

Anderson, CA

#163113 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not thinking this through. I appreciate your fantasy that we all just need to be adult about this, but that is not reality.
We are not just talking about a "college dorm" when we speak of the military. We are talking about the possibility of being housed with many in a tent, open bay showering facilities etc., where privacy simply isn't an option.
This isn't as simple as saying "grow up." And I do not think that people who take exception and show concern in these situations are being irrational or bigoted.
Again, the issue simply isn't that simple.
is this really even still an issue in the dorms??

i havent heard of any fullmetal jacket style hazings because of staright and gay soldiers living together?? have you?

rememeber? if it is not broken??

though I appreciate your concerns.
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#163114 Oct 14, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why you should register Winston.
I've got a registered account under a different name and don't bother with it anymore. Winston Smith was adopted as it fit by context into I was saying to someone sometime ago. I don't care to register as I may change it again. Usually it is pretty obvious when I've changed it. I'm not attempting to appear to be a large group of posters. That hat trick belongs to Gary Lloyd/The Prof/et al.

Like I said, it is only mildly amusing and annoying. But not by very much.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#163115 Oct 14, 2012
LYIN AYN RYAN wrote:
<quoted text>
is this really even still an issue in the dorms??
i havent heard of any fullmetal jacket style hazings because of staright and gay soldiers living together?? have you?
rememeber? if it is not broken??
though I appreciate your concerns.
Issues do not always appear as violent acts. Again, you are trying to dumb down a very complex issue.

You should learn basic grammar and spelling before you attempt critical thinking.
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#163116 Oct 14, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not thinking this through. I appreciate your fantasy that we all just need to be adult about this, but that is not reality.
We are not just talking about a "college dorm" when we speak of the military. We are talking about the possibility of being housed with many in a tent, open bay showering facilities etc., where privacy simply isn't an option.
This isn't as simple as saying "grow up." And I do not think that people who take exception and show concern in these situations are being irrational or bigoted.
Again, the issue simply isn't that simple.
If the majority of the military didn't have a problem with DADT getting dumped then why is there a privacy issue? What is the rational basis for needing privacy in a men's dorm/tent/ship/etc. if it didn't matter under DADT? The only thing that has changed is the "need" to hide your orientation. You have mentioned it being uncomfortable and rational twice, but you've not elaborated on the substance of that rationality.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Colombia allows lesbian couple to adopt child 2 min Albert 5
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 min KiMerde 54,886
Protester storms Families meeting 7 min JohnInToronto 1
Author says Putin should not be allowed at G20 ... 11 min JohnInToronto 4
7 Surprising Ways Your Company Can Still Discri... 14 min JohnInToronto 4
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 22 min JohnInToronto 43
Biggest Gay Lies 40 min Mikey 1,683
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 52 min lides 408
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 53 min Wondering 543
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••