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
Michael Clark Duncan

Tempe, AZ

#158561 Sep 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
http://www.clipsandcomment.com /2008/08/17/full-transcript-sa ddleback-presidential-forum-se n-barack-obama-john-mccain-mod erated-by-rick-warren/
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/de...
Q: Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take [Sarah Palin] at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
And so what Brian? Many Americans have evolved and changed their opinion over the last few years who were once not in favor of marriage equality but have since changed their minds! They have over come their predigests and moved on! That happens to be the case with the President and vice president! I happen to be another that has changed my beliefs also over the last decade or so! Although Obama first did an interview as a state senator way back and went on record then as being for marriage equality! According to all the latest national polls including Gallup,53% of all Americans now are in favor of marriage equality! 20 years ago it was only 24%! So sad,to bad!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#158562 Sep 8, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>...
Finally, the paucity of intact gay households Regnerus faced would be the same problem a lesbian-authored study would encounter which is not to say Regnerus purposefully ignored intact gay households, but rather, such households simply don't last -- mostcrash and burn long before the child reaches adulthood.
If Regnerus could only locate two respondents who were actually raised by same-sex couples, how could he have reached the following conclusion:

"The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

Notice the shift within that paragraph. He goes from a statement of past claims about gay and lesbian PARENTS and shifts to comparing that to what young adults report about "lesbian or gay BEHAVIOR". His categorizations as to what constitutes "gay and lesbian parents" isn't recognized by any professional in the field. And his study simply doesn't include children who are actually raised by same-sex couples. He studies one thing and draws conclusions about a totally different area of concern.

Millions of children are being raised by hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples RIGHT NOW, TODAY. Regnerus couldn't locate them because he wasn't paid $750,000 by the Witherspoon Institute (read NOM) to find them.

He was paid to provide ammunition to anti-gay groups that needed the facade of academia to burnish their claims.

The problem is that science doesn't work that way, as Regnerus is quickly finding out. He can't lay claim to conclusions that his evidence doesn't bear out.
Winston Smith

Columbia, MD

#158563 Sep 8, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot.
How does that prove "Gary Lloyd" is my name?
Still no links to the hundreds of studies proving homosexuality is a mental illness, eh Gary?
Michael Clark Duncan

Beacon, NY

#158564 Sep 8, 2012
Plain wrap wrote:
Just opening up this site makes one just sick.
WoW! Now that's logical! LOL,Do you also enjoy shoving a pointy stick into your eye? You must love to feel sick as you did open the thread now didn't you? LOL,Anyway,thanks for playing and I'd be happy to shove a stick in your eye if you'd like! LOL

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#158565 Sep 8, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot.
How does that prove "Gary Lloyd" is my name?
LOL. You asked for evidence, not proof.

Here is some more.

"I am Gary Lloyd, the author."
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T65MQOAFRD1HO...

So, while this might not prove that your real name is Gary Lloyd, it does prove that you posted that it is your name.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#158566 Sep 8, 2012
Michael Clark Duncan wrote:
And so what Brian? Many Americans have evolved and changed their opinion over the last few years who were once not in favor of marriage equality but have since changed their minds! They have over come their predigests and moved on! That happens to be the case with the President and vice president! I happen to be another that has changed my beliefs also over the last decade or so! Although Obama first did an interview as a state senator way back and went on record then as being for marriage equality! According to all the latest national polls including Gallup,53% of all Americans now are in favor of marriage equality! 20 years ago it was only 24%! So sad,to bad!
The difference is, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's position on marriage hasn't changed over the past four years.

Do you want a president that keeps promises or one that changes his mind if it's politically convenient?

Blast from the past, two reasons for keeping marriage one man and one woman:

22 Marriage is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.- B. Obama
23 Faith - J. Biden
Porpose

Covina, CA

#158571 Sep 9, 2012
Mackeral are swimming free.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158572 Sep 9, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
http://www.clipsandcomment.com /2008/08/17/full-transcript-sa ddleback-presidential-forum-se n-barack-obama-john-mccain-mod erated-by-rick-warren/
OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But –
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?
OBAMA: No, I would not.
WARREN: Why not?
OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/de...
Q: Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take [Sarah Palin] at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
I was delighted when Obama flip-flopped on same-sex marriage because I knew he was sighing his own death warrant.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158573 Sep 9, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You asked for evidence, not proof.
And she resorts to semantics to make her case.
Here is some more.
"I am Gary Lloyd, the author."
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T65MQOAFRD1HO...
So, while this might not prove that your real name is Gary Lloyd, it does prove that you posted that it is your name.
Actually, it doesn't prove either --and that's because Gary Lloyd is not my name.

But that's not what prompted you to say I used my "real" name in any case. What prompted you to make that erroneous claim is your slavish parroting of everything the homosexuals in this forum say. The white homosexuals, I might add.

You didn't use the information you've since discovered through your Google search. You mimicked the homosexuals attacking me because that's what dumb dikes like you do -- that's your modus operandi -- Uncle Tom mimicry!

That's what you do in every post you write -- Uncle Tom mimicry!

And that's probably why you became a bull dagger in the first place -- Uncle Tom mimicry!

You don't reflect on anything.

You embrace every plank -- every freaking splinter!-- in the LGBT agenda. That's why it's no use talking to you about anything -- look how you're writing reams of posts telling me what my own frigging name is, for crissakes!

The Little Black Book is a testimount to homosexual excess. They got it wrong, realized it and to their credit stopped handing it out to underage boys.

But that doesn't matter to you, does it, Rose?

You're still defending it. You're still here telling everyone the filth inside the booklet is safe, normal, and as wholesome as mom's apple pie.

All of which is why your LGBT mentality is a menace to society -- why people who think like you should not be allowed anywhere near kids.

You're poison, Rose.

You're a polluting influence -- and if I ever catch you around my kids it will be the first time you get penetrated by a man -- albeit, not exactly in the place you'd liked.

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158574 Sep 9, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no links to the hundreds of studies proving homosexuality is a mental illness, eh Gary?
Huh ...?

I provided the quote from Dr. Charles Socarides' book "Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic" in which he writes:

----------
"To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"
----------

That's a quote and cite.

Did you miss it or are you too stupid to grasp the meaning of the words "hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports ... also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years..."
Michael Clark Duncan

Netherlands

#158575 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
And she resorts to semantics to make her case.
<quoted text>
Actually, it doesn't prove either --and that's because Gary Lloyd is not my name.
But that's not what prompted you to say I used my "real" name in any case. What prompted you to make that erroneous claim is your slavish parroting of everything the homosexuals in this forum say. The white homosexuals, I might add.
You didn't use the information you've since discovered through your Google search. You mimicked the homosexuals attacking me because that's what dumb dikes like you do -- that's your modus operandi -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
That's what you do in every post you write -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
And that's probably why you became a bull dagger in the first place -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
You don't reflect on anything.
You embrace every plank -- every freaking splinter!-- in the LGBT agenda. That's why it's no use talking to you about anything -- look how you're writing reams of posts telling me what my own frigging name is, for crissakes!
The Little Black Book is a testimount to homosexual excess. They got it wrong, realized it and to their credit stopped handing it out to underage boys.
But that doesn't matter to you, does it, Rose?
You're still defending it. You're still here telling everyone the filth inside the booklet is safe, normal, and as wholesome as mom's apple pie.
All of which is why your LGBT mentality is a menace to society -- why people who think like you should not be allowed anywhere near kids.
You're poison, Rose.
You're a polluting influence -- and if I ever catch you around my kids it will be the first time you get penetrated by a man -- albeit, not exactly in the place you'd liked.
Off topic shyte for brains! Get with the program or STFU and take your bigotry home GaYrY!

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158576 Sep 9, 2012
Michael Clark Duncan wrote:
<quoted text>
Because your picture matches your Rap sheet,YOU CON,YOU convicted Felon! Gonna vote this year GaYrY??? LOLOLOL
Might I ask what exactly was I convicted of?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158577 Sep 9, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
If Regnerus could only locate two respondents who were actually raised by same-sex couples, how could he have reached the following conclusion:
"The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
Notice the shift within that paragraph. He goes from a statement of past claims about gay and lesbian PARENTS and shifts to comparing that to what young adults report about "lesbian or gay BEHAVIOR". His categorizations as to what constitutes "gay and lesbian parents" isn't recognized by any professional in the field. And his study simply doesn't include children who are actually raised by same-sex couples. He studies one thing and draws conclusions about a totally different area of concern.
Millions of children are being raised by hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples RIGHT NOW, TODAY. Regnerus couldn't locate them because he wasn't paid $750,000 by the Witherspoon Institute (read NOM) to find them.
He was paid to provide ammunition to anti-gay groups that needed the facade of academia to burnish their claims.
The problem is that science doesn't work that way, as Regnerus is quickly finding out. He can't lay claim to conclusions that his evidence doesn't bear out.
You people need to pick a story and stick with it.

First you tell us Regnerus used fraudulent data.

But that's now been disproven, hasn't it?

Not missing a beat, you now tell us he didn't actually study gay and lesbian parents and his study didn't actually include kids raised by same-sex parents.

Well, your latter claim may prove to be correct -- the problem is you people are neither qualified or in the peer-review loop.

Scott Rose is a homosexual blogger and activist. This alone disqualifies him from presenting an unbiased opinion -- but more than this, he is not a social scientist or scholar -- he has no credentials in anything in fact.

Worse still, it's now clear he besmirched Regnerus's reputation based on not a whit of evidence. Mind you, he accused Regnerus of "fraud." That's a serious indictment -- one that can get a person fired and ruin his career.

And Rose went to the media with his accusations of fraud. He created a national initiative to have Regnerus' study disowned by UT and removed from publication.

All this before the peer-review process even started. Indeed, doesn't it look like Rose and the LGBT community were trying to prevent the peer-review process from starting?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158578 Sep 9, 2012
Michael Clark Duncan wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic shyte for brains! Get with the program or STFU and take your bigotry home GaYrY!
You know, Michael Duncan, when you first came here you pretended to have a brain. I wasn't fooled, but a lot of people were.

You've since abandoned all pretense of having a brain.

Why the change in tactics, son?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#158579 Sep 9, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you -- hard of reading? Feel free to show anywhere in my post where I claim that UT should have "peer-reviewed" the study.
You can't cite UT's decision not to go after Regnerus as some kind of praise for the substance of his work, especially not "the gold standard." They didn't do that.
Show anywhere in my post where I said YOU SAID "UT should have peer-reviewed" the study.

What I wrote is this:
if a university were to peer-review its own studies, these studies wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.
Now tell us how's that saying YOU SAID "UT Should have peer-reviewed the study."

What are you -- hard of reading?
The publisher of the study is set to acknowledge in an audit that Social Science Research failed in a number of respects in running the Regnerus study.
"The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study."
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controv...
Eh ... there's some background on that. Consider:
Wright (the publisher) has suffered sleepless nights since the publication of Regnerus’s paper, and has received a steady stream of angry e-mails, from both colleagues and irate strangers. In his response, he writes that accusations that he was trying to foster gay-bashing are “hurtful and preposterous” and that he also believes, along with critics of the paper, in civil rights for gay people and lesbians.
So what does Wright do? He hires a gay editor to trash the Regnerus study which gets his ass out of the hot-seat.

Where I come from we call that flying the yellow feather.

What do you call it where you come from, fella?
Ibrahim

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#158580 Sep 9, 2012
The voice should be for the people not for the judge. People voice should be louder or why they voted at first!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#158581 Sep 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I don't know. Why would a peach pie be different than a blueberry pie?
You mean like marriage and gay unions???

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#158582 Sep 9, 2012
Leader of Denial wrote:
<quoted text>
Bunk, and you know it! How many of your foster children did you or your wife abuse? A decent human being is capable of loving and caring for a child! IF they can't or don't want to they usually choose not to be a parent.
I didn't say it, the professionals did.

Of course a decent human is capable of loving and caring for a child. Social scientists simply say a biological parent is simply more capable.

And their children prefer it.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#158583 Sep 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you haven't even bothered to read the study. Here's a little snippet from it you may find interesting:
"There are several things the NFSS is not. The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation. It is a cross-sectional study, and collected data from respondents at only one point in time, when they were between the ages of 18 and 39. It does not evaluate the offspring of gay marriages since the vast majority of its respondents came of age prior to the legalization of gay marriage in several states. This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy."
from section 1.3 The New Family Structures Study
Looks like your hero himself wrote a mea culpa clause to save his own hide. He knew the retarded fundies would draw their own conclusions and spread the lie he didn't dare write.
Apparently you did not read the last line;

"This study cannot answer POLITICAL questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy."

The fact is, there was simply not enough stable gay unions with children to provide a solid base for judgment.

Which begs the question, how did far smaller supposed 'studies' supposedly provide the answer?

Smirk.
Reality

Madison, WI

#158584 Sep 9, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
And she resorts to semantics to make her case.
<quoted text>
Actually, it doesn't prove either --and that's because Gary Lloyd is not my name.
But that's not what prompted you to say I used my "real" name in any case. What prompted you to make that erroneous claim is your slavish parroting of everything the homosexuals in this forum say. The white homosexuals, I might add.
You didn't use the information you've since discovered through your Google search. You mimicked the homosexuals attacking me because that's what dumb dikes like you do -- that's your modus operandi -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
That's what you do in every post you write -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
And that's probably why you became a bull dagger in the first place -- Uncle Tom mimicry!
You don't reflect on anything.
You embrace every plank -- every freaking splinter!-- in the LGBT agenda. That's why it's no use talking to you about anything -- look how you're writing reams of posts telling me what my own frigging name is, for crissakes!
The Little Black Book is a testimount to homosexual excess. They got it wrong, realized it and to their credit stopped handing it out to underage boys.
But that doesn't matter to you, does it, Rose?
You're still defending it. You're still here telling everyone the filth inside the booklet is safe, normal, and as wholesome as mom's apple pie.
All of which is why your LGBT mentality is a menace to society -- why people who think like you should not be allowed anywhere near kids.
You're poison, Rose.
You're a polluting influence -- and if I ever catch you around my kids it will be the first time you get penetrated by a man -- albeit, not exactly in the place you'd liked.
Well Gary, lets cut to the chase shall we? Now on more than one occasion you posted you where an author, you also complained that someone had used a name from one of your books. As Rose pointed out that in fact you posted your name, Gary Lloyd. That being said, you have either lied about being Gar Lloyd or its you. Granted that could be your pen name, but nonetheless its you or you lied. That how ever does not change the fact that you are a racist and homophobic bigot.

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.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Earthquake could imperil L.A.'s water supply 9 hr squeezers 4
Marco Rubio in 2016! 13 hr Tony 10
A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06) 13 hr Skew da Poich 4,504
Chinese tourists power-shopping in U.S. (Aug '13) 16 hr You Sociopath di... 7
Buy High Quality Documents - Replica's and Rest... 20 hr docsforyoufast 1
Preliminary Injunction Granted Against White Fe... (Feb '08) 21 hr ESE MAGA 66
King: Before the Avro Arrow came the Canadian J... Fri Canadian Jetliner 1

Beverly Hills News Video

Beverly Hills Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:10 pm PST