Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,317

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
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228020 Jan 17, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> Alrite bad breath. You is doing it again. The constiturion does not say that two gays can marry up. You is jest writin that. I expect that this fool judge is either a homeysexual or a liberal or both of them. One man can decide that the vote of a whole state is wrong. That ain't democracy. You can hoop and holler all you wants and you might even have Obomer appoint enough judges to over the will of the people, but you will never be normal. Duck Dynasty is back and stronger than ever. They gays and liberals tried to take away their freedom of speech and religion. It did not work. Someday I hopes that the gays learn that they would be better off if they shut up about peckers, butts and mouths and just do their thing in private.
Look, Cletus. The USA is not a direct democracy. We have a republic that includes a system of checks and balances. WHAT THE FUCK do you think the judicial branch is for?

And another thing....no one tried to take away Duck Dick's freedom of speech or religion. Is Duck Dick in jail? Was he arrested for what he said? And Duck Dick's ratings were DOWN for their first new show so how do you get off saying they are back stronger than ever?

Never be normal? Like you can judge normal! Honey, there is NOTHING normal about you. You have the grammar skills of a child and the logic of a brain-damaged retard. Normal people don't care about the sex lives of other people.

Educate yourself and come back when you know what you're talking about.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228021 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the truth, sir.
As always, concise and clear.
...and yet gay couples have been getting married for 10 years. Who's out of touch with reality? It must really sting when the courts reject your feeble-minded attempts at making a point. I don't know how any judge can control themselves without going off on stupid people wasting the court's time.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#228022 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
The vast majority of those nations would never term ss couples as married, and you know it.
Marriage describes a distinct relationship in every single culture.
A ss couple can never equate to marriage.
Your deceit only exposes the weakness of your position.
<quoted text>
Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.
Marriage involves two people. A man and woman. That mix is rooted in our genes and the foundation of any healthy society.
If marriage is a personal right (what you are insinuating), than every person can claim that with anyone, anything and as many as they please.
Moreover, a manipulated law does not change the fact that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Time to face reality 'hun'...
SMile.
If you had bothered to read my post, chief22's rpely and my counter reply you would know better than call my post a lie. Learn to follow the discussions before plopping your ignorance in the middle of it.
And as for 'censoring your post', I will quote the part of it I wish to respond to for the sake of clarity. See above and how cluttered it is when your entire post is left? Normally I would have simply shared the part of the quote that was relevant to my reply, like this:
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
...Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.....
See how much cleaner and direct that is? Do ya? Well? It is called editing and is the opposite of vomitting out some unfocused stream of consciousness. Bet a dollar you completely don't understand....
Spare

Covina, CA

#228023 Jan 17, 2014
That was a spare you just threw,#228022

Try harder next time.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#228024 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Your failure to see intertwining webs confirms my suspicions re: your pre-frontal cortex.
...
Your not the first man to think about part of my body, have fun.
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Furthermore, your side has relied (heavily) on the attempted dismissals of any relevant info as presented by my side (although, my side doesn't always aim straight and true, any more than yours does) in attempts to gain the upper hand in a debate that consumed us, to the point of numbness.
I am not one for dismissing people's evidence. Maybe I have not seen yours yet. I tell you what, I will again restate my position and I promise to carefully read and consider your evidence as to why you feel I am wrong. Fair?
Here is my position:
Denying a couple the right to marry on for the sole reason that they are gay is hurtful and does not benefit anyone.
Okay, your evidence that shows how I am wrong is welcome.
Poof

Roscoe, IL

#228025 Jan 17, 2014
Cali Girl 14 wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot... Ha ha ha ha
Sup stank snatch?

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#228026 Jan 17, 2014
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is a right, why do we need government permission to marry and pay government for it...
We only 'need' to lawful citizens. However, the better question is why did the government ever decide they needed to be a part of the business of regulating marriage? Marriage wasn't always regulated by governments. Even in the USA, cohabitation (common law) marriage was the rule of the day until the mid 1800's. Gotta ask, "why do we need government permission to marry and pay government for it. " - oh wait! that IS what you asked, right? A very, VERY good question although I doubt you knew just how good it is when you asked it ;-)
.
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
... By the way, has no affect in this country, as it was never ratified by the senate nor did it get congressional approval, it does not overthrow the laws or Constituions of states
I believe you are saying that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no affect in this country, right? Well that depends on whether or not you only believe in legal impacts or if you also believe in ethical impacts.
I take it ethical value from recognizing human rights.. doesn't interest you.
.
Cali Girl 14

Idyllwild, CA

#228028 Jan 17, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Sup stank snatch?
Grow up weed head!
red robin

Wellsville, NY

#228029 Jan 17, 2014
Cute babies!http://butchandsampson. blogspot.com/2014/01/this-is-m y-happy-face.html
Spare

Covina, CA

#228030 Jan 17, 2014
Do you use your right or left wen you try this?
#228029

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228031 Jan 17, 2014
Randy Hudson Wooster Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the truth, sir.
As always, concise and clear.
Thanks,

I learned from the best.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228032 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
How deceitful.
The vast majority of those nations would never term ss couples as married, and you know it.
Marriage describes a distinct relationship in every single culture.
A ss couple can never equate to marriage.
Your deceit only exposes the weakness of your position.
<quoted text>
Now you lie to cover your lie by censoring my post.
Marriage involves two people. A man and woman. That mix is rooted in our genes and the foundation of any healthy society.
If marriage is a personal right (what you are insinuating), than every person can claim that with anyone, anything and as many as they please.
Moreover, a manipulated law does not change the fact that ss marriage is an oxymoron. Ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.
Time to face reality 'hun'...
SMile.
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had bothered to read my post, chief22's rpely and my counter reply you would know better than call my post a lie. Learn to follow the discussions before plopping your ignorance in the middle of it.
And as for 'censoring your post', I will quote the part of it I wish to respond to for the sake of clarity. See above and how cluttered it is when your entire post is left? Normally I would have simply shared the part of the quote that was relevant to my reply, like this:
<quoted text>
See how much cleaner and direct that is? Do ya? Well? It is called editing and is the opposite of vomitting out some unfocused stream of consciousness. Bet a dollar you completely don't understand....
You didn't censor for clarity, you censored to shape response with partial information. It is why an oath is to tell the 'whole' truth.

You were unable to honestly answer the first post, and you certainly failed to address my last post.

You've made your lack of character clear, now lets see if you can make your rebuttal clear.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228033 Jan 17, 2014
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying a couple the right to marry on for the sole reason that they are gay is hurtful and does not benefit anyone.
Okay, your evidence that shows how I am wrong is welcome.
You lie again.

Gays are not denied marriage for the 'sole reason that they are gay'.

Can you not post and be honest? Is your defense so weak it must be cloaked in distortion and deceit???

Sad.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#228034 Jan 17, 2014
Science is allowing older and older couples to bear children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Many infertile couples have corrective surgery that enables them to bear children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Many couples that were not going to procreate, change their minds and become parents.
Ss couples? Zero.
96% of marriages historically include children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Don't you think we should require ss couples to mutually procreate at least SOME of the time???
Smirk.
Spare

Covina, CA

#228035 Jan 17, 2014
That was a spare you just threw,#228034

Try harder next time.
blue duck

Gardnerville, NV

#228036 Jan 17, 2014
That was a gutter ball you just threw #228035. Look in your silverware drawer, take out the toenail clippers and give yourself a lobotomy.
Spare

Covina, CA

#228037 Jan 17, 2014
That was a spare you just thru,#228036

Try harder next time.
blue duck

Gardnerville, NV

#228038 Jan 17, 2014
I just picked up the 7 - 10 split. Has the lobotomy affected your vision?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228040 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Science is allowing older and older couples to bear children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Many infertile couples have corrective surgery that enables them to bear children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Many couples that were not going to procreate, change their minds and become parents.
Ss couples? Zero.
96% of marriages historically include children.
Ss couples? Zero.
Don't you think we should require ss couples to mutually procreate at least SOME of the time???
Smirk.
Marriages where procreation is required: Zero
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#228041 Jan 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie again.
Gays are not denied marriage for the 'sole reason that they are gay'.
Can you not post and be honest? Is your defense so weak it must be cloaked in distortion and deceit???
Sad.
So weak? Who didn't prove their case in Prop 8 litigation? This matter has been litigated and it is over. These are the finding of facts in this case:

Marriage is a civil, not religious, matter.[94]:FOF 19 p.60
How the State defines civil marriage.[94]:FOF 34, p.67
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction.[94]:FOF 43, p.71–72
Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. An individual does not, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change sexual orientation.[94]:FOF 46, p.74
The State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.[94]:FOF 47, p.76
Marriage has benefits which the State and individuals gain from, which apply to same and opposite sex marriage alike.[94]:FOF 35–41, p.67–71
Same sex couples are identical to opposite sex couples in terms of characteristics relevant to successful marriage and union.[94]:FOF 48, p.79
Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gays and lesbians.[94]:FOF 51, p.79
Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage.[94]:FOF 52, p.80
Marriage of other groups, controversial on comparable grounds at the time, such as race or ethnicity, has not reduced the "vibrancy" or importance of marriage as a social institution, although many people raised concerns of its degradation at the time.[94]:FOF 66–67, p.66
The costs and harm (to the State and to lesbians and gays) resulting from denial of marriage to same-sex couples.[94]:FOF 64–68, p.77–78
A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.[94]:FOF 70, p.95
Gay and lesbian adoption is widespread and is supported and encouraged in California law, providing evidence concerning same sex couples and parenting, with around 18% of same sex couples in California raising children.[94]:FOF 69–73, p.94–96 As a corollary, this provides evidence of fact that Proposition 8 is not rationally connected to improving parenting, since it makes no attempt to amend or revoke state approval of any aspect of parenting by non-married same sex couples.[94]:Pp.Int. 3 p.127–128
Gays and lesbians have a long history of being victims of discrimination.[94]:FOF 74, p.96
Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.[94]:FOF 77, p.101

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
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min Reverend Alan 8,193
Judge: Michigan must recognize 300-plus gay mar... 4 min Evilgelicalling 273
Evangelicals to Gays: We Have Nothing For You |... (Mar '10) 5 min Nc watching 18,830
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 10 min Cali Girl 2014 57,065
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 27 min Selecia Jones- JA... 29,076
Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Endorses Stoning Gays (Jun '14) 36 min swedenforever 68
Sally Kern, saving America, one anti-gay crusad... 39 min Quest 22
Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... 42 min cancer lost 42
Analysis: Equal rights or statesa rights on gay... 1 hr Reverend Alan 240
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage 2 hr Responsibility 67
More from around the web