Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

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
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203240 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>During the first fights over same sex marriage, the bible and religion where used as a way of denying marriage to gays and lesbians. In this nation we don't make laws based on religion. If the people whom want polygamy are doing so based on religion, the answer is no. Just as it was for denying same sex marriage. It works both ways. The question of polygamy was answered long ago.
Research Service 2
Christianity.6 These bodies of religious law may play as relevant a role in certain legal actions as
sharia might play in others.
In the United States, these religious laws have no legally binding effect on U.S. citizens because
religious laws cannot be adopted by federal, state, or local governments under the First
Amendment. Rather, individuals who identify with a particular religious group may voluntarily
subject themselves to such religious laws by their association with the community.7 For example,
if a particular religious sect or denomination requires its members to dress modestly, and an
individual who is a member of that particular group does not comply with the dress code, that
individual would be in violation of that group’s religious law. The individual’s belief in the
religion’s precepts would guide his or her individual actions, with any sanction for noncompliance
generally remaining a private matter between the individual and the religious group.
The individual would not be subject to any penalty by the government because the government
does not enforce such a dress code. Interestingly, this distinction between religious and secular
laws can become complicated when an action might be governed by both religious law and
secular law. For example, many religious denominations’ beliefs prohibit murder under their
religious code. Both federal and state laws also prohibit murder. Thus, an individual who
commits murder would be in violation of both a religious law and a secular law and may be
sanctioned by the religious group, the government, or both.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf
Save the cut-n-paste, charlatan, the Constitution trumps all.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203241 Jul 17, 2013
Polyp Cam wrote:
Joanie Rage Stain is covering the earth like Sherwin Williams!
Pull the trigger, Joanie. Turns out that Trayvon didn't accept you after all.
Or Jeantel, or whatever her name was...
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203242 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Can you find some examples of same sex marriage that meet the 4 reasons Big D listed?
Those that want it for religious reasons.
No, religion does not apply, remember?
Those that want it for a way to collect extra government support checks.
Adopt-a-check. G4ys do it why point at it?
Those that want it as an excuse to molest children.
NAMBLA.
Those that could care less about it but bring it up on forums that are about same sex marriage as a diversion.
No-one has used it as a diversion, it is real.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203243 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>ROFLMAO, Frankie are you a 3rd class asshat???
Aww, and you were trying so awfully hard to be funny. Pity..
Are you looking for a soulmate? Try ASS-HATS_R_US.com, you might yet score a friend..
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203244 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you did. You said it required a heterosexual couple. Do you need the post number again where you made that stupid claim? Why must you lie so if your cause is so just?!
<quoted text>
No? Really?!!!! OMGosh everyone, did you all know that a female is required in order for childbirth to occur? Quick, someone needs to get this information into the news!!!! Hurry!!! This is very important!!!!!
You also can't have a c*nt without a female. Thank you for demonstrating that so effectively with your ineffective and childish condescension.
<quoted text>
Wow! Now there's some made up fantasy!! Sorry bitch, but I'll take my children's word on the matter of that of a bitter cur like yourself! Smile.
<quoted text>
LOL!! No dear, you make it your business to lie, spread gossip, initiate discord and be a busy bodied bitch. There's quite a difference between that and protecting children from imaginary scenarios that you make up in your anal sex obsessed head.
My children neither need, nor want, your "protection". Neither do any other children of decent families.
<quoted text>
And yet I'm not behind bars, I've not been committed of anything criminal, my children are both great, and your still a bitter c*nt!
Smile.
<quoted text>
I just read that you completely make shyt up. Share this with the sheeple dear, no one else is buying your bullshyt.
<quoted text>
LOL!!! You get more pathetic everyday. if they had a contest for the most cowardly loser on Topix it would come down to you and Brian_G. You reek of desperation and skank.
You must be VERY confused about what constitutes a heterosexual couple....1 of each gender.
Yes, we knew that, you must not realize that we know that, if you are still trying to push the idea that:
1 you are gay.
2 you have a husband that gave you children.
See the problem? We are paying attention to the details, problem..
Your kids haven't been honest with you.
You will be, before you are done..c*nt.
That line about buying BS is a line that you have seen used against you. Try to be original, cupcake..
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203245 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo1 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't make me report you. Stop using MY Name. Even the bums on 42 2nd street don't get away with that crap. Try selling oranges I bet you can make twenty bucks a day doing it. That buys a lot of crappy wine. Now get a job you dead beat, and stop sucking the teat of the Government.
Nice1 one1, Jizzy1
sheesh

United States

#203246 Jul 17, 2013
Common Man Watch wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, could you steer me to the parts you wrote about Martin being a petty thief and a homophobe?
Thanks in advance.
I've got a better idea. You steer me to the part I wrote about Martin being a homophobe. You might want to put the tea on, caffeinated, as you're going to be quite busy in a futile search.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203247 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Trayvon would have beat on Jonah1 just as surely as he did on any other crazyass cracka.
At Jeantel's behest...Bet she worked him up into a lather, and made him rage and get himself killed.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203248 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! You know who else makes it their business to protect children you old biddy?
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Association of Social Workers
Child Welfare League of America
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Canadian Psychological Association
These EXPERTS all agree that children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found any differences in mental health or social adjustment.
These EXPERTS have stated that differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers.
These EXPERTS have stated that gay fathers are fewer in number but aren't any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men.
So lets see. We have the actual peer reviewed research and testimonials from ten organizations specializing in the health and welfare of children, or we have the made up bunk of a fundamentalist Christian c*nt who has proven repeatedly to be intentionally deceitful, a liar, and a sanctimonious bitch. I wonder which side is right??!!!!!
Smile cur.
EXPERTS = secretly placed subsersives and operatives. Nice mouth. You kiss you daddie with it?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203249 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>DUH why do you think Warren Jeffs went to the slammer, he married a 12 year old and a 15 year old girl. Its called polygamy. Have you looked into Islam at all? I have to tell ya putz, they marry em young, 9, 10 years old.
How polygamy affects your wallet
You may or may not agree with polygamist Warren Jeffs' lifestyle, and you may or may not think he is indeed the dangerous criminal the FBI says he is, but would you believe Jeffs and his followers are costing you money?
"Their religious belief is that they'll bleed the beast, meaning the government," said Mark Shurtleff, Utah's attorney general. "They hate the government, so they'll bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud."
It makes some sense. Polygamists have multiple wives and dozens of children, but the state only recognizes one marriage. That leaves the rest of the wives to claim themselves as single moms with armies of children to support. Doing that means they can apply for welfare, which they do. And it's all legal.
"More than 65 percent of the people are on welfare ... compared with 6 percent of the people of the general population," Shurtleff said.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.coop...
Why did David Carpenter and Joshua Brown go to the slammer? Gay rape. Next?
Hypocrisy Watch

UK

#203250 Jul 17, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
I've got a better idea. You steer me to the part I wrote about Martin being a homophobe. You might want to put the tea on, caffeinated, as you're going to be quite busy in a futile search.
It's called sarcasm, shitferbrains. We all know that you human coffee tables are going to be hypocrites and give de Blacke Mon a pass because he too is listed on The Government protected species list.

Everybody knows he was a homophobe. Chantel or Latisha (or whatever her name is) told the world.

Imbecile.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203251 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>DUH why do you think Warren Jeffs went to the slammer, he married a 12 year old and a 15 year old girl. Its called polygamy. Have you looked into Islam at all? I have to tell ya putz, they marry em young, 9, 10 years old.
How polygamy affects your wallet
You may or may not agree with polygamist Warren Jeffs' lifestyle, and you may or may not think he is indeed the dangerous criminal the FBI says he is, but would you believe Jeffs and his followers are costing you money?
"Their religious belief is that they'll bleed the beast, meaning the government," said Mark Shurtleff, Utah's attorney general. "They hate the government, so they'll bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud."
It makes some sense. Polygamists have multiple wives and dozens of children, but the state only recognizes one marriage. That leaves the rest of the wives to claim themselves as single moms with armies of children to support. Doing that means they can apply for welfare, which they do. And it's all legal.
"More than 65 percent of the people are on welfare ... compared with 6 percent of the people of the general population," Shurtleff said.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.coop...
why did David Carpenter and Joshua Brown go to the slammer? Gay murder. Next?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203252 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>DUH why do you think Warren Jeffs went to the slammer, he married a 12 year old and a 15 year old girl. Its called polygamy. Have you looked into Islam at all? I have to tell ya putz, they marry em young, 9, 10 years old.
How polygamy affects your wallet
You may or may not agree with polygamist Warren Jeffs' lifestyle, and you may or may not think he is indeed the dangerous criminal the FBI says he is, but would you believe Jeffs and his followers are costing you money?
"Their religious belief is that they'll bleed the beast, meaning the government," said Mark Shurtleff, Utah's attorney general. "They hate the government, so they'll bleed it for everything they can through welfare, tax evasion and fraud."
It makes some sense. Polygamists have multiple wives and dozens of children, but the state only recognizes one marriage. That leaves the rest of the wives to claim themselves as single moms with armies of children to support. Doing that means they can apply for welfare, which they do. And it's all legal.
"More than 65 percent of the people are on welfare ... compared with 6 percent of the people of the general population," Shurtleff said.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.coop...
Why did David Carpenter and Joshua Brown go to the slammer? Gay.... you get the idea by now..
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203253 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Interesting new thread. Come on over and discuss all things Jizzy! But especially why does he change his socks so often?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TTC5AE53H...
Because, his socks stink.
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203254 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Wow are you stupid, the laws against polygamy and child abuse did not stop Jeffs from marring two children, one 12 and one 15. Why cant you understand that? He broke the laws against polygamy and CHILD abuse, separate laws.
Just as the laws didn't prevent David Carpenter and Joshua Brown from going all ape-shyte on Jesse .. Next?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203255 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Should I start a poll?
Are you really that interested in finding out what a twink you are?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203256 Jul 17, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>I am the 1 and only, the original Frankie Rizzo. Stop impersonating me and get a job you worthless bum.
What a sad little fruit-fly you are..
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203257 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo1 wrote:
<quoted text>Back off buddy, I am the REAL, one and only Frankie Rizzo. Don't let me find you on 42 2nd street, my friends don't like that crap.
Where is 42 2nd St? Is it next to 1/2 Blvd, the home of SSM?
Rocky Hudsony

Wooster, OH

#203258 Jul 17, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But only one Jizzy boy!
P.S. You forgot about Philadelphia Frank Rizzo, you know the one you whine about me supposedly impersonating as if it's a crime, Zoro.
Yes, he forgot, just as he forgot which sock he was using, when he posted about being you, with his other tag "Poof"...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#203259 Jul 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one to start with. There are many more that you could have easily found (maybe you did and just pretended ignorance again...).
Read the first paragraph.
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/
bussandschmitt.pdf
The authors of this study are looking at the evolutionary process of determining a mate for the purposes of reproduction.
This is not a study that looks at “marriage”, which is a legal union that ties people together.
Just because the first paragraph mentions “marriage”, it is not a discussion about marriage. In fact, the authors specifically use the words “mating relationships”; which, as we know, not all marriages are “mating relationships”.

Now you may say I’m splitting hairs, but in the opening paragraph, did you happen to notice how the authors define marriages as being “usually” regarded as formal reproductive alliances? Another way of saying this would be “While some marriages are ‘usually regarded as formal reproductive alliances’, NOT ALL marriages are defined in this manner.”
I think this is an important distinction; one that cannot be overlooked.

Next, this article is focused exclusively on heterosexual RELATIONSHPS (not marriage) that are SPECIFICALLY for the purposes of reproducing.
It doesn’t touch on those relationships in which couples make the conscious and mutually agreed upon decision that they will not reproduce.
As I’ve pointed out to you time and again, the numbers of married couples who are choosing NOT to have children has been increasing over the past few decades. This article doesn’t not address it and therefore does not ask or answer the question “why?”

Another problem with this article is that it does not examine homosexual relationships (long-term or short-term) at all.
Obviously same-sex relationships exist. They’ve always existed.
But since this is an article about the evolutionary processes involved with regards to opposite-gender couples in determining who to mate with; and NOT an article about marriage; the authors don’t spend time talking about gays.
Their exclusion of researching same-sex relationships probably has more to do with the specific interests of the authors and the fact that in 1993, the same-sex marriage movement was not as prominent an issue as it is today.
Keep in mind, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage happened seven years after this article was published and who knows how long after the authors began their research.
Regardless of why homosexuality is not discussed by the authors, their exclusion of the subject CANNOT be viewed as an endorsement that marriage MUST BE reserved for opposite-gender relationships only.

Lastly, I did a search on David M. Buss, just to see what he has to say about homosexuality. One of his “theories” is that some men “choose” homosexuality because they are unattractive to women.
We know that homosexuality is not a choice. That’s stupid. Even the most homely straight man could not—would not—“choose” to become gay.
And all that David Schmitt has to say about gay men is that they, like heterosexual men, enjoy having more sexual partners than gay and straight women.

Here’s the bottom line, you total rube; the article you cite is not about marriage. It’s about mating and how it MAY have evolved over the millennia. Since it does not examine heterosexual relationships in which couples consciously decide to forgo having children and since there is no discussion at all about homosexual relationships, you CANNOT conclude that this article in ANY WAY supports the belief that marriage should be confined to opposite-gender couples.

Perhaps you should read beyond the first paragraph of an article before you decide to throw it around as proof-positive for your notions.

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
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 5 min Jose 3,066
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 8 min gjest 57,251
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 11 min Tendresse 68,782
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 16 min Christshariahns 8,740
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 22 min Hazel 665
Witness disputes sex assault charges against ga... 24 min Big Boob Babe 12
Cashier tells lesbian couple 'all gay people sh... 34 min Charlie Feather 42
Top Catholics and evangelicals: Gay marriage wo... 3 hr Rick in Kansas 52
More from around the web