Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201811 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.

thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144918 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is proposing gay porn in the classroom, dipshit. Were you deprived of oxygen at birth? fetal alcohol syndrome?
^Says the lesbian who recruits kids of her own LMAO
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144919 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also a FACT that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Is everyone in your town retarded or just you?
Then what are straight married couples doing? Giving birth to biological children of their own? Plueeeeez. The whole purpose of marriage is stay committed & REPRODUCE. So spare me the heterophobic insolence

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144920 Jun 8, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
Well excuse my rudeness but it was rude of you to equate polygamists with forced child brides etc.
Not rude, just part of the reality. When you look at the cases which have challenged state laws against polygamy as a violation of rights guaranteed under the US Constitution over the last 20 years or so, you'll find that they are all cases which involve child brides and/or forced marriages. It's men behaving very badly, who have been at the forefront, waving the banner of the right to polygamy, get used to it. Although you may finally get a respectable case out of that TV family, unless he's married sisters or something that automatically sets off the creepy meter. You'll also find that these cases all come out of Utah, which not only does not allow official polygamous marriages, it criminalizes the unofficial ones to boot, something almost all other states don't.

There is one reason and one reason only that there will never be a constitutionally recognized right to poly relationships as legal marriage under the US Constitution and it has nothing to do with creepy marriages, hatred of Mormons, Muslims or anyone else who wants such a relationship, the compelling state interest of the state actually being able to regulate marriage and the reality that any limit beyond one marriage per person at a time would be indefensibly arbitrary. Two spouses? Once you answer the question of whether your second wife counts against your first wife's total and vice versa, or if they can have a second spouse too and what, if any, are the rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities and obligations of the parties to these marriages are to be, you get asked the question of why the hell are you discriminating against those of us who want 3, 4, 5, 6...??? If you want a poly relationship, the state shouldn't prohibit it. Issues of underage "brides" and/or "grooms", forced relationships, fraud, etc, aren't problems inherent to poly but to some people who do it and shouldn't be overlooked. But if you want the states to regulate that Gordian knot for you, because you have that "right", forget about it, you're going to have to work that one out for yourselves.
Blake

Lacon, IL

#144921 Jun 8, 2012
Hick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Not rude, just part of the reality. When you look at the cases which have challenged state laws against polygamy as a violation of rights guaranteed under the US Constitution over the last 20 years or so, you'll find that they are all cases which involve child brides and/or forced marriages.
Hick, you really need to go back for that GED.

Supreme Court rulings enforcing the national definition of marriage as solely between man and wife in fact had nothing to do with child brides or forced marriages.

Plural marriage was very common throughout the Americas before your white trash ancestors got here. The same was true in Asia and Africa and even pre-Christian Europe.

“Mona-Little ”

Since: Jun 12

Gardena California

#144923 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what are straight married couples doing? Giving birth to biological children of their own? Plueeeeez. The whole purpose of marriage is stay committed & REPRODUCE. So spare me the heterophobic insolence
You got it all wrong.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144925 Jun 8, 2012
Mona-Little wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it all wrong.
No, YOU got it all wrong. You goddamn gay hypocrite

“Mona-Little ”

Since: Jun 12

Gardena California

#144926 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU got it all wrong. You goddamn gay hypocrite
I may be Gay, but I sure as hell am not a hypocrite. Do you know what a hypocrite is? Well, let me tell you, it's someone just like you. Someone who pretends to be a Christian, goes to church and pretends to serve the Lord, then outside of church they insult, curse and judge other people. You better go look at yourself in the mirror, stupid homophobia creep!
ARGUING with IDIOTS

United States

#144927 Jun 8, 2012
Mona-Little wrote:
<quoted text>I may be Gay, but I sure as hell am not a hypocrite. Do you know what a hypocrite is? Well, let me tell you, it's someone just like you. Someone who pretends to be a Christian, goes to church and pretends to serve the Lord, then outside of church they insult, curse and judge other people. You better go look at yourself in the mirror, stupid homophobia creep!
Who claims Christians don't sin?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#144928 Jun 8, 2012
Blake wrote:
Hick, you really need to go back for that GED.
You prove that you would have failed the reading comprehension portion that test and yet it is I who should get a GED. Interesting. Maybe I'll try and fit one in after that PhD I've been thinking about now that I don't have a business to bother with.
Blake wrote:
Supreme Court rulings enforcing the national definition of marriage as solely between man and wife in fact had nothing to do with child brides or forced marriages.
Pay attention dear, the cases which have dealt with the issue of Utah's polygamy law, over the last 20 odd years, have involved men for whom being charged with polygamy was the LEAST of their legal problems, but the issue that would make most of the others go away if the law against it were overturned. Their other legal problems involved at least one underage "bride" and a "forced" marriage or two among others.
Blake wrote:
Plural marriage was very common throughout the Americas before your white trash ancestors got here. The same was true in Asia and Africa and even pre-Christian Europe.
Yes dear, we're all aware that poly relationships have been around as long, if not longer than mono relationships, but since in most parts of the world, mono relationships predominate, poly relationships, much like same sex relationships, have been in and out of favor with the "majority". Was there a point to telling us something we already knew, other than it being another opportunity for another childish insult?
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144931 Jun 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>And then what... we'll have to deny voting rights to stupid people like you?
You mean deny rights that are NATURAL & JUST, like heterosexuality?

Cool Story Bro.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144932 Jun 8, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well excuse my rudeness but it was rude of you to equate polygamists with forced child brides etc.
frank, i never made mention of forced child brides.

i did, however, mention polygamists have been known to have child brides.

child+brides+polygamy

http://gosw.about.com/od/southwesthistory/a/p...

http://helpthechildbrides.com/

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/30/on-polygam...

there are several more articles available on the subject.

please in the future do not purposely misconstrue what i state because it starts looking like a lie.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144933 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow no sense of humour bro
i don't think beastiality is funny nor do i understand the connection to this topic. i also do not have and uncle and i am a woman.

please apply yourself to either the discussion at hand or make relevant sense if you choose to converse with me. i would appreciate it.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144934 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL "with no factual basis"? Oh PLuueeeezzz. I don't support gay marriage for the same reason I don't support bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, & god forbidden furries! They are perversions & nothing else. They don't accomplish anything! The way I see it, if you're going to call gay marriage "equal", then you might was well call those who marry kids, animals, objects, & even themselves as "equal" to. It's a slippery slope, many of which I see many sexual deviants here support!
It is a FACT gays cannot reproduce, because it takes a man & a woman to procreate. This is a FACTUAL BASIS of biology!
i understand many people think of homosexuality as a perversion. of course beastiality and pedophelia are. i do not know about 'furries' but this may be equally deemed a perversion.

the distinct nature or difference in gays versus the others you mentioned are that they include 2 adults whom apparently have the makings and capability to form a couple. there are no animals or objects directly involved. myself i am heterosexual. i do not fully understand why someone would find attraction in some members of the same sex but we as individuals find attractions in each other that are distinctly our own as humans. gays find this with some of their own gender who exhibit features they themselves find attractive.

you may consider this a perversion which is within your rights but the psychology professionals no longer see being gay as abnormal. and i would think had it truly been a perversion it would have been illegal for just cause. it is not.

and you are incorrect. gays can reproduce. many have. of course same sex couples cannot have children which contain each dna examples of the two partners involved but gays have had children either through previous relationships or other methods. they can also adopt children whom were unwanted by their own biological parents which can prove to be a benefit.

you are entitled to your opinion hoever.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144935 Jun 8, 2012
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also a FACT that marriage is between a man and a woman only. You want to change the facts to suit you and we just wont let you. Keep puching and we will keep pushing back even harder. WE are winning, not you.
reality speaks,

that is incorrect. many gay couples are now being married in the states that currently allow it. i strongly feel we will see other states follow suit but like in your post that is my opinion at this point in time.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144936 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what are straight married couples doing? Giving birth to biological children of their own? Plueeeeez. The whole purpose of marriage is stay committed & REPRODUCE. So spare me the heterophobic insolence
that is incorrect as well. there is no inherent rule that married couples must have offspring.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144937 Jun 8, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean deny rights that are NATURAL & JUST, like heterosexuality?
Cool Story Bro.
i would hope some gays would not take the action to belittle heterosexuality like many sdtraight individuals have taken the effort to belittle homosexuality. it would make no sense.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144938 Jun 8, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You prove that you would have failed the reading comprehension portion that test and yet it is I who should get a GED. Interesting. Maybe I'll try and fit one in after that PhD I've been thinking about now that I don't have a business to bother with.
<quoted text>Pay attention dear, the cases which have dealt with the issue of Utah's polygamy law, over the last 20 odd years, have involved men for whom being charged with polygamy was the LEAST of their legal problems, but the issue that would make most of the others go away if the law against it were overturned. Their other legal problems involved at least one underage "bride" and a "forced" marriage or two among others.
<quoted text>Yes dear, we're all aware that poly relationships have been around as long, if not longer than mono relationships, but since in most parts of the world, mono relationships predominate, poly relationships, much like same sex relationships, have been in and out of favor with the "majority". Was there a point to telling us something we already knew, other than it being another opportunity for another childish insult?
rick,

from what i have read many child brides were essentially brainwashed into taking older husbands in a culture that could be considered cultist. this apparently is one of the reasons the government banned polygamy with official rulings in the late 19th century and again in the early 20th century.

still it's inclusion in this discussion has no bearing given we are not discussing multiple parties involved in a single marriage. i would cease to banter on with those choosing to include it.
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144939 Jun 8, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
that is incorrect as well. there is no inherent rule that married couples must have offspring.
No it's not a rule. But if you pay attention to the amount of heterosexual getting married, you can expect there will be many of them having offsprings of their own
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144940 Jun 8, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
i would hope some gays would not take the action to belittle heterosexuality like many sdtraight individuals have taken the effort to belittle homosexuality. it would make no sense.
No it would make perfect sense! Homosexuals can't procreate, & their sex practices don't accomplish anything..except higher STD rates lol
thisGuy

Stephenville, TX

#144941 Jun 8, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
i understand many people think of homosexuality as a perversion. of course beastiality and pedophelia are. i do not know about 'furries' but this may be equally deemed a perversion.
the distinct nature or difference in gays versus the others you mentioned are that they include 2 adults whom apparently have the makings and capability to form a couple. there are no animals or objects directly involved. myself i am heterosexual. i do not fully understand why someone would find attraction in some members of the same sex but we as individuals find attractions in each other that are distinctly our own as humans. gays find this with some of their own gender who exhibit features they themselves find attractive.
you may consider this a perversion which is within your rights but the psychology professionals no longer see being gay as abnormal. and i would think had it truly been a perversion it would have been illegal for just cause. it is not.
and you are incorrect. gays can reproduce. many have. of course same sex couples cannot have children which contain each dna examples of the two partners involved but gays have had children either through previous relationships or other methods. they can also adopt children whom were unwanted by their own biological parents which can prove to be a benefit.
you are entitled to your opinion hoever.
It is no longer considered a mental illness because the Sodomites harassed them. Just wait until the zoophiles do the same thing for their sick destructive behaviors

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.

Atwater Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Debate: Gay Marriage - Delhi, CA (Sep '10) May 26 raju 72
News Thompson not guilty (Jul '08) May 1 Mikey 16
i m sameer Mar '15 Gilligan 2
why did castle abf close Mar '15 desperado 1
Anyone hear shots fired on thursday near winton... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Anonymous 1
gangs and drugs in atwater (Feb '09) Aug '14 jenn 21
News Fishers at California Aqueduct should take prec... (Apr '07) Jul '14 jessica 33
More from around the web

Atwater People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]