Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,419

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
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130677 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You said only idiots go to combat.


No, I said that YOU as a WHITE MALE must have been an idiot since you could not figure out how to get out of going the Vietnam.

At the height of the war (1965-69) black men, who formed 11 percent of the American population, made up 12.6 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam.

The MAJORITY of these were in the infantry and the percentage of black combat fatalities in that period was (a staggering) 14.9 percent.

I could make a pretty good case for most current combat soldiers coming from poverty, being under educated and having few options besides joining the military.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130678 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow you sure did read a lot into my comments. I am pretty sure that my husband and father of our six biological and three adopted children is sure going to be surprised that I hate men!
<quoted text>
BIAS? A bias like YOUR bias against lesbian parents being allowed contact with their children after the relationship fails? My probably agree about the wallet part. But only because I was smart enough to marry a man who can provide for my in the manner I was already accustom who I was also sure would be a wonderful father to our children.
<quoted text>
A man has no right to his sperm after it leave his body. and knowing this should behave accordingly.
However knowing where the person you are about to merge with stands on abortion/pregnancy/adoption BEFORE having sex without a condom would be helpful. Or BETTER YET establishing a long term, mutually committed relationship BEFORE you have sex in the first place.
<quoted text>
And in my experience (15 years of OB/GYN) women that use men as unwitting sperm donors with the resources to do so generally do take full responsibility..
<quoted text>
I doubt there are very many women who have babies for the big payday they get by collecting public assistance.
But are you aware that most of the contested child support cases are initiated by DA's on behalf of women collecting public assistance and most requires the "father" to fork over between $50. and $100. a month directly to the STATE AFTER paternity is established?
The topic continues to be OFF TOPIC and the bottom line is still the same.
Yes, you always assume bad dads and good moms. You hate men.

So its a woman's choice to have the baby on her own and have the PUBLIC fund it? That's your position? Have you ever been anywhere where PUBLIC assistance is considered a payday? If not you should get out more. My little sister (from big brothers big sisters) and all of her family sisters had more kids for more public assistance money. They used to cheer pregnancies for that reason. No Joke!

Same as you put the onus on the FATHER to find out if she is pro life, so should SHE find out the father's intentions if pregnant. IF HE IS PRO-LIFE.
Every bit of it you try to put on men is applicable to the woman.
Her choice was to " establishing a long term, mutually committed relationship BEFORE you have sex in the first place."

You write like all men are predators and all women are saints.

"women that use men as unwitting sperm donors with the resources to do so generally do take full responsibility."

So its okay for them to use the man and throw him away..hey its a woman's CHOICE right?

Why do men not have this same option?
Why can they not have the baby and toss ole mom once she pops and foot the entire bill?

The baby is in the mom's body, but she consenting to carrying it by consenting to intercourse (the act of reproducing)!

All I am saying is if we are to have equal rights, the rights need to be EQUAL. You obviously disagree and think we should have an equal right for a woman to have the choice and the man to have the bill.

Put another way, If daddy opts for abortion and mommy ignores, daddy should be off the hook and vice versa. Either way it has to be one rule that applies to both sexes EQUALLY.

A "woman's right to choose" is chauvinism. Either the parents are in it together or they are not.
SpamOlater

Monrovia, CA

#130679 Feb 28, 2012
Newer models offer tear-gas.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130681 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
In case it isn't OBVIOUS to you, polygamy is a choice being gay/lesbian is NOT.And that is just one reason why the two issues have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other
But, as I have ALREADY STATED many times, I have no problem with polygamy. Is that clear enough for you?
oh boy...how do you not see that you do to polygamist exactly what they do to gays.

to them Polygamy is a calling from god...

yes they do. You cite all the same reason against polygamy that you call hate when cited against gays. Polygamy as a marriage right itself is instructive in a conversation about marriage rights as well as a strong indicator of hypocrisy.

So you assume polygamy is a choice like so many gay rights opposers who say gay is a choice...that had to feel funny for you to write knowing I would throw it back at you.

You know gay is a calling from birth, but THEY say its a choice. How did you feel saying polygamy is a choice? Like a bigot?

I don't think you hate anyone as I don't hate anyone. I am only showing that gays calling opposition hate is the same as me calling you a hater of polygamy by analogy as I understand you are not really a hater. There is no logical connection on either count. Thats my point!
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#130682 Feb 28, 2012
Technically...I am not so sure polygamy should be illegal.

I think it's a crazy idea myself, as one woman is plenty trouble enough if you pick them like I do, but illegal?

Why, exactly?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

#130683 Feb 28, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
Polygamy, plural marriage.....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as SSM! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!! If 3 gay men want to marry take them with you on your quest! Report back when you are DONE!
YUK!YUK!YUK!
BACK TO TOPIC
NEXT!
ROTFL!
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"

See how that works?
SpamOlater

Monrovia, CA

#130686 Feb 28, 2012
SpamOlater also removes RUST.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130687 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
Yes, you always assume bad dads and good moms. You hate men.


I often make comments about crappy mothers. So do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you just not bother to read the reply's to your increasingly long winded rants?
Reality wrote:
So its a woman's choice to have the baby on her own and have the PUBLIC fund it? That's your position?
It's not my position it's the law. My position, since you asked is that a woman who decides to keep a child she can not support physically or emotionally is nine times out of ten incompetent to parent. However that does not mean that we as society should turn our backs on the child. However I also think that subsequent pregnancies (except in cases of rape or incest) should NOT be subsidized by additional benefits.

And actually, this makes a pretty good case against polygamy since the (well documented) social costs of polygamy are quite high. Domestic battering, forced marriages and sexual abuse of minor girls, welfare fraud and tax fraud and lack of educational opportunities are rampant in polygamist communities.

One of my biggest issues with polygamist having children. Widespread reliance on welfare and the unusually high levels of CHILD POVERTY.

The TV series "Big Love" aside, according to the 1997 U.S. Census there are areas in Utah EVERY school-age child is living below the poverty level, The legal wife is declares on a mans taxes but the other wives as "single mothers" ofter get benefits including cash assistance, food stamps and free medical care for them selves and multiple children. Medicaid pays for more than 1/3 of the babies born in Utah.

Oh dear, it looks like I just built a pretty strong case, at least where CHILDREN are concerned for there being a "compelling government interest" to justify existing laws against polygamy.

But Frank, you can still have all the husbands and wives you want as long as you agree not to breed.

The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130688 Feb 28, 2012
Strel wrote:
Technically...I am not so sure polygamy should be illegal.

I think it's a crazy idea myself, as one woman is plenty trouble enough if you pick them like I do,

but illegal? Why, exactly?
One of my biggest issues with polygamist having children. is the widespread reliance on welfare and the unusually high levels of CHILD POVERTY.

The TV series "Big Love" aside, according to the 1997 U.S. Census there are areas in Utah EVERY school-age child is living below the poverty level, Assuming he even work, the legal wife is declared on a man's taxes but the other wives as "single mothers" often get benefits including cash assistance, food stamps and free medical care for them selves and multiple children. Medicaid pays for more than 1/3 of the babies born in Utah.

We have a larger that average family and we support our children without any assistance. IMO if a man want eight wives and 32 kids, he needs to be able to support eight wives and 32 kids.

No one has a right to expect taxpayers to pay the cost of their religious convictions.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130690 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Off topic blather... Does that make my position that marriage should be allowed for every consenting adult that wants it wrong? Of course not. Does that make your position that some groups don't deserve equal rights correct? Of course not. Try again.


I don't need to try again because I don't give a crap how many husbands and wives you have in you dreams.

I have already made a pretty good case against you idiotic off topic argument.

And you have become tiresome and repetitive.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130691 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an atrocious example of ignorance and bigotry against group marriage. Despicable. If this hateful ignorance were used against same sex marriage it would make you scream bloody murder.
Except the case I was making, that high rates of social service fraud, resource abuse and child poverty is very well documented among polygamist in Utah.

The same case CAN NOT be made for same sex marriage so your "argument" is untenable.

Care to try again?

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#130692 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"
See how that works?
Jokes on you ....we have it!ROTFL
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130693 Feb 28, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
P.S. If you think I am also the poster "Reality" you're really dumb. But fine, it makes your responses to both of us extra stupid.
Your kidding right? I was just acknowledging your right to marry as many men and women as will have you, which at last count was ZERO.

PS: You could not write posts as articulate has "Reality" has of your life depended on it.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130694 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Domestic partnership, gay marriage....whatever you want to call it.....GO FOR IT! It's YOUR baby! It will NEVER EVER be the same as straight marriage! NOBODY gives a rats azz!!!!!!"
See how that works?
So YOU have been posting here pretty much non-stop for the past few day because You don't give a rat's azz? OK then...
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130696 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
to them Polygamy is a calling from god...
Then they should be responsible enough to not bring children into a world of POVERTY by making sure they can SUPPORT the children they make the same way I support the child I made.

Simple enough.
The Lady Doctor

Vancouver, WA

#130698 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
You hate men.
Reality wrote:
I don't think you hate anyone
Um...Do try to keep up with your own comments!
Rules Of Evidence

Livermore, CA

#130702 Feb 28, 2012
The Lady Doctor wrote:
<quoted text>
Your kidding right? I was just acknowledging your right to marry as many men and women as will have you, which at last count was ZERO.
PS: You could not write posts as articulate has "Reality" has of your life depended on it.
Oopsey daisy! LOL,It seems ratzo rizzo's posts go POOF! Praise and hallelujah! It seems even the Moderators agree that all his posts are off topic B.S.? Yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!!! Now,any bets as to when the stay on prop 8 in California is lifted? It's only a matter of time!
Winston Smith

Franklinville, NJ

#130703 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, I do, but a decision to have the child knowing there would be no father present actually places no value on the effort required to raise a child.
We ignore the father role and equate it to merely "paying up".
Why do we give the mother the choice to have a baby without a daddy? As Lady doctor said, her choice was to use contraception.
I am not right to life, I am just saying that this "its a woman's body its a woman'd choice" is fine, but then leave the men out of it. They cannot be in at your whim. They are either responsible or not.
Let me preface the following by stating that I am a medical professional. I have positioned myself, occasionally, to testify as an expert witness. I have first hand knowledge of how both the legal and medical professions work.

As a practitioner I am often called upon to make decisions in seconds that may have an impact on the rest of a patient's life.

In the legal system the rate of progress is exceeded by leaps and bounds by the speed of smell. I have performed examinations on patients that have had court dates scheduled a few months later. Thanks to the efforts of the latest judge I've been appearing before these cases get streamlined in that by the time I appear all parties have to have their ducks in a row, so to speak. In the past it wasn't unusual for me to make three separate appearances over a period of months on the same case because someone hadn't arranged for a public defender or a lawyer asked for a case to be continued or a defendant begged a jury trial.

Gestation takes 9 months. Finding out one is pregnant may take a little time. One would think a month sans menses would make a woman curious enough to investigate. But that doesn't always ring true.

So a woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to abort. Her boyfriend disagrees and it gets to the point that lawyers are called in. One would hope it didn't come to this, but as we're at an impasse who ya gonna call? Ghost busters? Nope, an attorney.

A day in court is scheduled. All the boyfriend's lawyer needs to do to "win" is to stall until it is too late. Right off the bat it isn't hard to predict that the lawyers won't be contacted until the second month is up, at least. Now we need a hearing. The dockets are full so we'll watch another month pass.

I don't think this is out of the realm of possibility in our litigious society.

There is a built in problem when the legal system becomes intertwined with the practice of medicine while a medical case is in progress.

So, how are you going to make the decision? Who gets final say in a 50/50 dispute. Should a woman be forced, against her will, to bear nine months of pregnancy, parturition, and post partum medical issues?
Winston Smith

Franklinville, NJ

#130704 Feb 28, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>

We ignore the father role and equate it to merely "paying up".
That isn't necessarily a fair assessment about exactly who is ignoring the father role.
SpamOlater

Monrovia, CA

#130705 Feb 28, 2012
What ever makes the world go round, is the sure fire method of spinning a circle in to the ground.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Downtown North 6 hr ralph 1
Review: Cathy Jean Shoes (Jan '09) Mar 1 Arians 83
Clash of clans Feb 27 Clash of Clans Forum 1
Moderators why have i been shadow banned? (Jun '14) Feb 27 Fracking Doodooda 4
Tesla gearing up for release of batteries for t... Feb 26 Solarman 1
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Feb 26 tera 112
City Blows the Whistle on High-Speed Trains Feb 20 CTYKE 1

Redwood City News Video

Redwood City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Redwood City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:51 am PST

Bleacher Report10:51AM
Tyvon Branch: Latest News, Rumors and Speculation on Free-Agent S
Bleacher Report11:29 AM
Dynamic WR Top Priority on 49ers Free-Agency Big Board
NBC Sports 2:30 PM
Report: 49ers offering LB Michael Wilhoite in trade
Bleacher Report 2:39 PM
Will 49ers Spend Big or Draft RB to Replace Gore?
Bleacher Report 9:02 PM
San Francisco 49ers: Post-Combine 7-Round Mock Draft