Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

Edgar

Spring, TX

#163976 Oct 18, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>Er...no.
Or not.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#163977 Oct 18, 2012
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>There is usually one reason to revel at a poster leaving and that is that your butt is tired of being kicked. Lol....cover it.
Well then I'm screwed, ain't I? Aw, shucks.
Try again

Tempe, AZ

#163978 Oct 19, 2012
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>You really are dumb. First that is not true. The studies noted if the straight men had engage in anal sex, as in tried. That does not make mention of regularity. Studies showed that only 2% of straight men and women used anal sex as a primary sex method. Only 2% of the men engage in oral anal sex.
Compare:
91% of gay men engaged in regular anal penile sex.
99% of gay men engaged in regular anal oral sex.
In other words, not only do gay men have a life time "back stage pass", they have an oral fixation on it. Lunch.
Care to try again? Perhaps you should get your facts straight because as it is you're simply full of shyte! And also since sodomy is NOT illegal how about you mind your own business as to what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home,that is unless you like to watch? Do you like to watch? Are you some kind of voyeur? Simply none of your business! Who cares,certainly none of my business!

Anal sex and heterosexuals
nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/

Also.....
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/...
Edgar

Spring, TX

#163979 Oct 19, 2012
Try again wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to try again? Perhaps you should get your facts straight because as it is you're simply full of shyte! And also since sodomy is NOT illegal how about you mind your own business as to what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home,that is unless you like to watch? Do you like to watch? Are you some kind of voyeur? Simply none of your business! Who cares,certainly none of my business!
Anal sex and heterosexuals
nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/
Also.....
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/...
They always talk metaphorically about how they want to enter the bedroom to break up the sodomy.

I think they just want in on it.
Edgar

Spring, TX

#163980 Oct 19, 2012
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>You really are dumb. First that is not true. The studies noted if the straight men had engage in anal sex, as in tried. That does not make mention of regularity. Studies showed that only 2% of straight men and women used anal sex as a primary sex method. Only 2% of the men engage in oral anal sex.
Compare:
91% of gay men engaged in regular anal penile sex.
99% of gay men engaged in regular anal oral sex.
In other words, not only do gay men have a life time "back stage pass", they have an oral fixation on it. Lunch.
So, while we're talking anal, why do you give a crap (;D) about those statistics? If you're against anal sex, cool. Don't have anal sex.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163981 Oct 19, 2012
Try again wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to try again? Perhaps you should get your facts straight because as it is you're simply full of shyte! And also since sodomy is NOT illegal how about you mind your own business as to what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home,that is unless you like to watch? Do you like to watch? Are you some kind of voyeur? Simply none of your business! Who cares,certainly none of my business!
Anal sex and heterosexuals
nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/
Also.....
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/...
Aw shuddup Bill you big dope.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#163982 Oct 19, 2012
Rose Theodor wrote:
<quoted text>You really are dumb. First that is not true. The studies noted if the straight men had engage in anal sex, as in tried. That does not make mention of regularity. Studies showed that only 2% of straight men and women used anal sex as a primary sex method. Only 2% of the men engage in oral anal sex.

Compare:

91% of gay men engaged in regular anal penile sex.
99% of gay men engaged in regular anal oral sex.

In other words, not only do gay men have a life time "back stage pass", they have an oral fixation on it. Lunch.
I would love to see your source for that.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#163983 Oct 19, 2012
Last time I looked there were some 18,000 legal gay marriages in the state of California, I don’t happen to be gay, but I noticed their getting married didn’t hurt my marriage in any way at all, I feel sorry for the religious folks whose marriage are so fragile that they claim it hurt theirs.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163984 Oct 19, 2012
Big D wrote:
Last time I looked there were some 18,000 legal gay marriages in the state of California, I don’t happen to be gay, but I noticed their getting married didn’t hurt my marriage in any way at all, I feel sorry for the religious folks whose marriage are so fragile that they claim it hurt theirs.
Sure you do Biggie D. You're so compassionate.

Funny!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#163985 Oct 19, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
What a waste of beano. You ain't no picnic in the park anyway toots!
Bye. Bet you don't look like your picture.
Since your flatulence continues, I have to agree it was a waste.

You mean the hag in the habit?

:)

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163986 Oct 19, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Since your flatulence continues, I have to agree it was a waste.
You mean the hag in the habit?
:)
Slow morning eh toots?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#163987 Oct 19, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Slow morning eh toots?
So far, yes. I'm here for fun - and you're not supplying it.

Get with the program.

:P
RetardO

La Puente, CA

#163988 Oct 19, 2012
Is this another sister, sister act?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#163990 Oct 19, 2012
True I don’t look around to see who I can deny rights to, in an American, I value freedom.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#163991 Oct 19, 2012
Big D wrote:
True I don’t look around to see who I can deny rights to, in an American, I value freedom.
Wow! cool.
FT record

La Puente, CA

#163992 Oct 19, 2012
For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit.
Tata

Redondo Beach, CA

#163993 Oct 19, 2012
Big D wrote:
Last time I looked there were some 18,000 legal gay marriages in the state of California, I don’t happen to be gay, but I noticed their getting married didn’t hurt my marriage in any way at all, I feel sorry for the religious folks whose marriage are so fragile that they claim it hurt theirs.
Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#163995 Oct 19, 2012
Tata wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a closer look at your utility bills, and any other public service bill or fees (tax), these are state wide. Although these extra costs are above and beyond your actual utility usage, they off set the cost to finance meds to the Aids/HIV patients for one example, there are others however. Most company health insurance will not pay for a pre-existing illness such as and AIDS/HIV patient. The state very carefully blends these hidden costs in you monthly bills, clever huh ??? It's obvious that SSM is taking advantage of this thinking that by marring they can get double coverage. It sounds complicating because it is most people don't look at the real reasont for tax/fee increases they just pay them.
Yep, hidden medical costs in our utility bills.......are you paranoid? or just simply an azz Bruno?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#163996 Oct 19, 2012
FT record wrote:
For the record, it was President Obama who authorized the mission; it happened on his watch, so he gets credit.
And it was the House Republicans who failed to provide funding for the extra security that was asked for.......so, yes the President is overall responsible for the mission.......but the Republicans have blood on their hands as well......Boehner has done everything in his power to make the President look as bad as he can!!!

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#163997 Oct 19, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Not once have I used religion as a point in this debate, so again:
This has nothing to do with religion, so come up with a rational argument.
Perhaps you missed my point. I was saying that the only arguments that anyone has been able to come up with are based on religion. Without using false translations of the Bible, the anti-SSM crowd looses any semblance of validity.

And of course, the religious argument fails since the rules of one person's religion have NO bearing on the behavior of people who believe differently.

Beyond that, it simply comes down to the application of the 14th amendment. ALL citizens, INCLUDING unpopular minorities, are entitled to equal protection under the law. Discrimination against a minority requires a compelling state interest, but there is no compelling state interest in denying gays their right to marry.

This would hold true even if sexual orientation were merely a matter of choice, but the current scientific evidence shows that there is a genetic or epigenetic nature to orientation. Thus, the situation is completely analogous to allowing different races to marry, which the courts have already declared a basic right.

Some people vainly attempt to claim that the lack of children (without artificial aid) inhibits the right of gays to marry, yet there is no fertility test for heterosexual couple prior to marriage, not even a question of intent to have children is required. Thus, the lack of intrinsic childbearing capability cannot be viewed as a valid argument against SSM.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 min Frankie Rizzo 43,015
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 min Wish4549 4,736
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 12 min Sorry Hill 2,271
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 21 min Doyle 11
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 41 min Wish3287 22,553
News Mexican leftist senators defend battering Trump... 54 min Shirvell s Shrivel 1
News Arkansas court upholds gay marriage birth certi... 56 min Shirvell s Shrivel 1
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 277
More from around the web