Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

@ Rick in Kansas:

I am NOT religious at all, not Christian, Muslim, or part of any religion. I have a graduate degree, am not a homophobe and am married. I have a white mother and a black father. I have never lived in a ghetto and am in the upper middle class.

I do not have an issue with homosexuality, although I am aware that most blacks do.

Getting a picture here?

I am against gay marriage because there is no such thing. It is ridiculous. It is as clear as seeling people naked. Instantly, you know who is female and who is male. Humans come in two models, one male and one female. Participation of BOTH is absolutely necessary to reproduce. For me, a scientifically thinking individual free of the idiotic morality of religions, "marriage" is the name given to the mating of the male and female of the species in a familial unit which later serves as a basis for raising children. The legal aspect of marriage merely recognizes this relationship. It is not a right, it is not a job or a business. It is not once mentioned in the Constitution of the United States.

Having said all of that, there can never be anything called gay marriage. To most Americans, the term "same sex marriage" is like saying "invisible visibility". The polls which seem to be showing increased support, Obama supporting gay marriage all of a sudden, the underhanded overturning of Prop 8 in California, it is all being paid for by Big Gay Money to force gay marriage on America. But it is actually failing and strengthening resolve amongst Americans.

So again the facts are:

Gay marriage is currently banned in California.

Gay marriage is not recognized by the government of the United States.

A gay married couple is not a married couple in states which do not recognize their marriage.

No law requires any state to recognize any gay marriage.

Marriage is not a civil right, and it is not a Constitutional right.

Marriage is not once mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.

THOSE ARE FACTS, Dear.

GAYS ARE CLUELESS wrote:

<quoted text>Prove it idiot, prove that there are 18,000 legally married same-sex couples still married in California.
You prove that and I will prove that there are only l000 same sex couples married in California.
Yes, gays were assured that the USSC will hear and uphold DOMA because homosexuality is a behavior and urge and that is it, which prohibits the Supreme Court from prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The USSC can hear every single argument for same sex marriage, rule that it is discrimination and then rule that gays don't get the protection. They have done this very thing, numerous times, as they followed the law.
Maybe, you should claim that gay is the new black and then we can ship all gays off to Africa or some isolated jungle in the Congo.

Hi Doc........if you can actually provide a link to only 1000 Same-Sex Couples being married in California.....please do.....and if you can do this......please correct the court documents......because obviously they are wrong.......lol!!!

You CAN'T do anything to American Citizens regardless of what you think......and if GLBTQI Advocates want to claim that we are the new Blacks......then that is their right!!!

Really? Please cite these NUMEROUS SCOTUS cases that back up your claims......to the best of my knowledge......SCOTUS HAS YET TO ACTUALLY HEAR ARGUMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.......so, it will be interesting for you to post links or cases that they have ruled on!!!

Good Luck:-)

GAYS ARE CLUELESS wrote:

<quoted text>Hi daddy licker...like I said dick licker, when you prove that there are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California, I will prove you wrong and that there are only 1000 same sex couples married in California.
If straights want to claim that gays are the new Jewish gas chamber fuel, then that is their right. Trust me, when can disrespect gays as much as you love to disrespect blacks. So, I guess gays are the new gas chamber fuel....that is our right!!!
If you think that I am the Doc, then you are a daddy licker.
Idiot, if I gave them the actual records then the court would still not correct the statement. The court never took the statement as evidentiary, which is why it did not require proof.
Wow, you are a clueless miniature bot, SCOTUS gas heard numerous cases on the lack of homosexuality being a suspect class.
DO A RESEARCH ON IT, DUMMY. IT IS CALLED GOOGLE SEARCH.
Fool, the issue that SCOTUS has heard is the status of homosexuality and sexual orientation not being a suspect class.
If you are too stupid to know this as of June 1, 2012, then you are either stupid or a liar. WOW.

What are you ...like 12

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

@ Rick in Kansas:
I am NOT religious at all, not Christian, Muslim, or part of any religion.

Merely asking. People who speak from assumed positions of omnipotence as you do, usually claim some God or another is on their side. In other words, you've assumed your own omnipotence. Telling.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

I have a graduate degree, am not a homophobe and am married.

If you say so, the jury is still out and mazel tov.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

I have a white mother and a black father. I have never lived in a ghetto and am in the upper middle class.

Congratulations.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

I do not have an issue with homosexuality, although I am aware that most blacks do.

Your being "Black" is nothing more than your own social construct and you have a number of issues with homosexuals and/or homosexuality.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Getting a picture here?

Yes, just not the one you hoped.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

I am against gay marriage because there is no such thing.

Again dear, according to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

It is ridiculous.

If all you are going to offer is your esteemed opinion, even you have to be bright enough to figure out how little I really esteem it.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

It is as clear as seeling people naked.

Snicker.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Instantly, you know who is female and who is male.

You slept through civics, slept through science. history and Lord knows what other subjects but you were awake for anatomy of the sex male/female dichotomy version which really doesn't entirely exist. Congratulations.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Humans come in two models, one male and one female.

Not true and probably never has been, look it up, there's two basic models and a lot of hybrids in between.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Participation of BOTH is absolutely necessary to reproduce.

No??? REALLY???? What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

Continued....

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

For me, a scientifically thinking individual free of the idiotic morality of religions, "marriage" is the name given to the mating of the male and female of the species in a familial unit which later serves as a basis for raising children.

No idiotic morality, just complete idiocy. Probably not your best swap. "Marriage" is another of those social constructs dear, it's meant many different things to many different peoples throughout the course of history. To be claiming some sort of heterosexuals only biological imperative to this ever changing social construct is taking silly to heretofore unimagined levels.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

The legal aspect of marriage merely recognizes this relationship.

It also recognizes relationships which either will not or cannot result in that heterosexual reproductive imperative of yours. Therein lies the most fundamental weakness of this incredibly absurd arguent.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

It is not a right, it is not a job or a business. It is not once mentioned in the Constitution of the United States.

Although your right as an individual has not been spelled out for you in the Constitution, the thinking being that that one should be rather obvious, to say we do not have to marry is either flat out ignorant or a flat out lie.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Having said all of that, there can never be anything called gay marriage.

Again, according to whom? None of your blithering attempts at rationalization support such a conclusion based on your say so. So according to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

To most Americans, the term "same sex marriage" is like saying "invisible visibility".

Based on what? Your say so?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

The polls which seem to be showing increased support, Obama supporting gay marriage all of a sudden, the underhanded overturning of Prop 8 in California, it is all being paid for by Big Gay Money to force gay marriage on America.

Your proof of ANY of this would be what exactly?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

But it is actually failing and strengthening resolve amongst Americans.

According to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

So again the facts are:
Gay marriage is currently banned in California.

Emphasis on the currently. The amendment mandated by Prop 8 has been overturned both at trial and on appeal. The proponents chance of success in further appeals, little if any.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Gay marriage is not recognized by the government of the United States.

Emphasis on the missing currently. This section of DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by seven trial level rulings, the judges of the bankruptcy courts of the 9th circuit and an appeals court panel. The chances of success on further appeal. It's dead.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

A gay married couple is not a married couple in states which do not recognize their marriage.
No law requires any state to recognize any gay marriage.

But their marriage WILL be recognized by the federal government with the demise of DOMA and such couples will have one hell of an equal protection claim to challenge such discrimination.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Marriage is not a civil right, and it is not a Constitutional right.

Wrong on both counts. Sorry.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Marriage is not once mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.

You just keep telling yourself that, it doesn't change anything, but I love it when our opponents make complete fools of themselves with their fallacies. It wasn't spelled out for you ace, that doesn't mean it ain't there.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

THOSE ARE FACTS, Dear.

Mine are the facts buttercup, yours, not so much.

Rick, you are good at writing words, but you have no substance to them. You are the sassy gal with the cigarette holder and matching lipstick and shoes, but you are staying in motels from night to night.

You sound rather immature. I would guess between age 17 and 25.

Beyond the irrelevant speculations about you, the fact is that the gay way is a dead end. Men cannot marry each other. Women cannot marry each other. The definition of marriage reaches back into the origins of the word and before. When you see somebody pick up an apple, bite it and then chew and swallow the bite, you call that "eating". When a man and a woman form themselves into a unit and then bear children and share living spaces and resources, we call that "marriage". It could be called anything, but what is it will be defined by it being between a man and a woman.

When you see a man sexually interacting with another man, or a woman woth a woman, it is called homosexuality. When they share living spaces and resources, it becomes an anomaly rooted in homosexuality, but with the homosexual sex being the center of the relationship. Children can never come from a gay marriage. Adoption is not bearing children. Infertile heterosexual couples are still married even if they have no children.

There is simply no such thing as same sex marriage.

GAYS ARE CLUELESS wrote:

(see above if you feel the need)

The Human Genome Project found no "Gay gene", it found no "Straight gene" either. It did NOT prove that homosexuality was not at least in part genetic. Sorry.

Loving spoke to all individuals right to marry, not just those who wished to enter interracial marriages in states which continued to prohibit them. See the subsequent cases based on the Loving ruling, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley. Sorry.

You've obviously never read the Reynolds decision. You've been told that it banned polygamy, but you can't even fake having a clue as to how and why. Get back to me when you get in the neighborhood of competent.

Plagiarizing from Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment an anti-Gay hate group is probably not the best way to try and prove a point. It just makes you look pathetic and desperate to find ANYBODY willing to agree with you, no matter how embarrassing they really are.

Thanks for your help, but you're dismissed.

That gay judge is BVDevious !

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Rick, you are good at writing words, but you have no substance to them.

Another assertion lacking anything which might be confused with proof.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

You are the sassy gal with the cigarette holder and matching lipstick and shoes, but you are staying in motels from night to night.

And I have NO substance to MY words? Uh-huh.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

You sound rather immature.

You sound like an idiot, mainly because you have proved yourself to be one.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

I would guess between age 17 and 25.

I'm flattered.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Beyond the irrelevant speculations about you, the fact is that the gay way is a dead end.

If it weren't for irrelevant speculation, you'd have nothing to say. As to you latest assertion of unsubstantiated fact, according to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Men cannot marry each other.

According to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Women cannot marry each other.

According to whom.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

The definition of marriage reaches back into the origins of the word and before.

What you are failing to realize is that same sex marriages HAVE been a part of that ever changing definition of marriage at various times and places in history. Oops. Damn, don't you just hate it when the facts get in the way?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

When you see somebody pick up an apple, bite it and then chew and swallow the bite, you call that "eating".

From lacking substance to totally devoid of it.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

When a man and a woman form themselves into a unit and then bear children and share living spaces and resources, we call that "marriage".

No dear, that is one form of a family, a different social construct altogether. A "marriage" is the ritualized bringing together of two or more people.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

It could be called anything, but what is it will be defined by it being between a man and a woman.

ACAIN, according to whom? You keep making these claims of heterosexual exclusivity to your marriage concept, but you haven't offered diddly to back it up.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

When you see a man sexually interacting with another man, or a woman woth a woman, it is called homosexuality.

No dear, that would be homosexual only in the sense of same sex sexual acts, it may not involve homosexuality or even homosexuals.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

When they share living spaces and resources, it becomes an anomaly rooted in homosexuality, but with the homosexual sex being the center of the relationship.

According to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Children can never come from a gay marriage.

Tell that to the many same sex couples who have become parents.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Adoption is not bearing children.

No??? Really???

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Infertile heterosexual couples are still married even if they have no children.

Why? According to you they have failed in their heterosexual duty and since according to you, children are a part of your definition of marriage, marriage for such couples can't possibly exist by your own definition.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

There is simply no such thing as same sex marriage.

You still haven't told us on who or what's say so this is in ANYWAY true.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

<quoted text>
You are just another idiot. The Human Genome Project has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that "race" DOES NOT EXIST genetically or biologically, only as a social construct. And Men and women of a different "race" have been able to marry since before you were born. Only a few states tried to make it illegal. There were already hundreds of "interracial" black/white marriages in the United States long before Loving vs Virginia.
Your rights as an American have never been violated. No gay American has less rights than any other American. That is a fact. What gays want is SPECIAL rights, they want to change established definitions and co-opt the term "marriage" to describe their legal relationships. There is no such thing as "gay marriage". There is Marriage between men and women, and any other thing is not marriage.

You cannot call it "special rights" when someone asks for the same rights you have.

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
>
>
That is exactly what HERE IS ONE DOES
He misrepresents, obfuscates, spreads disinformation, he lies, put's words into people's mouths and when caught he just he plays dumb...

Then why can't you post any facts that prove me wrong????????

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think so.
I was a hardened anti-gay stomper not but 4 years ago.
Couldn't stand gays. Thought they had some mysterious lifestyle based on sickening habits and perversions.
Turned out I was the fool. Gays are really no different than "us" heterosexuals given they have jobs, vary in success, work for goals, contribute to this great country and button their shirts the same way.
God damn amazing...isn't it Skippy.
You don't have to like the fact your neighbor 5 houses down married a Chinese wife or that the hot blonde next to you wishes to remain single despite your offer to buy her a 1979 Chevy van with purple velvet diamond tuck trim and flared fenders or even that 6 doors down there's a gay couple living in "sin" because they probably don't dick with your saddened life for the same reason...it creates no harm and therefore ashould be allowed since we live in that land of the brave and free - America.
So please dumbfuck....raise the bar on your own IQ scale and forget about things that are none of your business to begin with.

I dont dislike gays at all.
I hired two gays.....

I just will not allow them to change the meaning of the word marriage........Period.....

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
Grandma,
Your titties are sagging, your Depends are full and you mind went past the Alzheimer's Station 562 miles ago.
There is no connection to gays and pedophiles moron because if you claim there is then there is a greater connection between heterosexuality and little kiddy molesters given there's upwards of ten times the cases of males molesting Girl Scouts than Father Flannigan making moves on the altar boy genius.
Talk about a dumbfuck...do you remember to raise the toilet lid before taking a leak or is your first indication being the wallpapered walls behing the toilet tank are becoming wetter than a Malaysian monsoon.
LOL!!!
Get lost freak.

You have not heard of NAMBLA???

The original gay organization???

Winston Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
^^^
This is what happens when simpletons gain access to method for spreading their ill conceived ideas.
Radio carbon dating is only good for a little over 50,000 years. Having a margin of erro of 150 million years for carbon dating is like having a yard stick with an error of 2 miles. Other isotopes with much longer half lives (U238, U235, & K40) are studied from the rock surrounding the fossils to give age estimates. I'm quite certain you won't be very accepting of this though, so fire away with more of your lunacy.

Sounds to me like you just proved my case that carbon dating is not very accurate.........LOL

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you really think anyone believes ANYTHING you write, especially when they can see that you have intentionally misrepresented Rose's posts?

I only post his words and the post he was replying to...

Nothing but the facts and that dude has let out some great ones......

I try and personally thank him everyday......

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds to me like you just proved my case that carbon dating is not very accurate.........LOL

Stick with your bible and 6000 years........It fits you

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
You have not heard of NAMBLA???
The original gay organization???

I beg your pardon, but please do NOT equate pedophilia with homosexuality. There is absolutely NO correlation between the two. So please, before you start spouting off at the finger, educate yourself on what is actually going on, instead of reading the Sparknotes version and taking it as an all-inclusive reality.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I dont dislike gays at all.
I hired two gays.....
I just will not allow them to change the meaning of the word marriage........Period.....

You're about 8 YEARS too late, sucker.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
I only post his words and the post he was replying to...
Nothing but the facts and that dude has let out some great ones......

You big liar. You post your interpretation of her words. Her posts are there for everyone to read, as are yours.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
You have not heard of NAMBLA???
The original gay organization???

Only from freaks like you....