Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Rational Adult wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong, gay boy, drug cartel = healthcare and pharmacy, so that makes Osama a gay drug dealer.

ok now you have 2 names you go by. Thanks for the info.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Don't blame me if you support gender segregation marriage; I tried to warn you.
Husband and wife marriage has perfect gender diversity, qualitatively different from gender segregation unions; gender diversity if fertile.
Same sex marriage is like infertility.

Wrong. Insisting that all marriages be the same ignores marriage diversity. Bigots like you came up with this same kind of twisted reasoning when you were against interracial marriage (and some of you still are).

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is like infertility.

So you're saying we shouldn't allow infertile couples to marry. And you're all for "diversity". Rigghhht.

Wat the Tyler wrote:

<quoted text>
See the 14th amendment
<quoted text>
DOMA tramples on state's rights because it denies the federal government to grant benefits and tax exemptions for same sex couples in states with same sex unions. DOMA is unconstitutional and needs to be abolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA#Impact
<quoted text>
See the 14th amendment
<quoted text>
Tyranny of the majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_m...

If I did not know the 14th Amendment, I would not have posted what I did. Not only in the 14th, but NOWHERE in the entire Constitution of the United States is marriage mentioned even ONCE. There are no "gay rights", only human rights. Marriage is not a right, PERIOD.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

You are one of the swishy, verbose ones I see.

Attempting to demonstrate to me just how perceptive you are and failing badly. Welcome to a writing style I only use here.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

I can cut to the chase and be absolutely correct: 1) There is NO Constitutional right to marriage for anyone in the United States. 2) DOMA is not a law, it is a legal definition. Under that definition, there is no such thing as same sex marriage or gay marriage recognized by the government of the United States of America. PERIOD. I am correct, and you cannot debunk those facts and you know it. Try it, and you make yourself foolish at the antics you do to try to be correct when you simply are not.

Actually, you can cut to the chase and be absolutely wrong. 1) While the right to marry has not been spelled out for you in the constitution, taking that to mean that there is no right to marry is sadly mistaken. The concept that the individual has a fundamental right to be married actually dates back more than a century and was formalized by the Court's ruling in Loving and other subsequent cases. 2) The Defense of Marriage Act is a law enacted by Congress you moron. It consists of two active provisions. Section 2 which offers states which do not recognize the rights of same sex married couples from legal challenges based on violations of the full faith and credit clause and Section 3, the so-called federal definition of marriage. Section 2 is presumed constitutional, Section 3 has been overturned as unconstitutional in EVERY SINGLE CASE on the federal level where it has been considered. Seven trial level cases completed thus far and seven times the law has been ripped to shreds.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Says you? You are nobody. You are a delusional because you are sitting on this thread stating matter of factly that you have this right, and "they" cannot infringe upon that right...the FACT is that gay people do not have the right to marry in this country. Your agenda is to get that right by chanding what the fundamental meaning of marriage is: a union of man and woman ONLY.

Not says me buttercup, says the Supreme Court of the United States, you may not like it, but they have said on a number of occasions that the ONLY way that the state can prevent you from marrying the otherwise legally qualified person of your choice is that they can prove that a compelling state interest is served by doing so. The states couldn't prove that they had a compelling interest in preventing you from marrying a child molesting baby rapist doing life in prison, tell us what interest of the state is served by saying no to that marriage because they aren't of the right sex? If you want to believe that marriage is between only a man and a woman, that is your problem, not the state's. A marriage in the eyes of the law has to be a marriage, regardless of the sex or sexes of the participants.

Continued...

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

<quoted text>
If I did not know the 14th Amendment, I would not have posted what I did. Not only in the 14th, but NOWHERE in the entire Constitution of the United States is marriage mentioned even ONCE. There are no "gay rights", only human rights. Marriage is not a right, PERIOD.

If marriage is not a right then no one should get one.........OR ALL SHOULD GET ONE.........That is called EQUALITY..........Something I know nazi fascist christain GOP scum hate....but to bad.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Just a few years ago we only had the votes in one liberal state to ban SSM and now we have more than 30 states.....
And we thank people like the rose ho and other perverts everyday.....
Please keep bashing us normal people and you will soon see..........LOL

Yep.... we sure will, won't we? It's gonna be a happy day when SCOTUS gives all you ignoids a good kick in the teeth.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

COMPLETE DELUSION. You sound like a "sea lawyer" or a paralegal, and you write will but you make a failed argument. You assume too much in the way of what your rights are. Gays do not have SPECIAL rights, and they have NO right to marriage under the Constitution. Not even the California constitution (at the moment). More than 2/3 of the Union have constitutional bans against same sex marriage, and a well funded, coordinated campaign could make DOMA much more permanent than you want to know.

Pay attention, take notes if you need to, but I'll say this one more time. All citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry which can only be denied to us when it serves a compelling state interest in doing so. You can argue against this all you want, but I can point you to where that concept has been spelled out in the common law of the land. All you can do is stamp your little feet and insist it's me who is wrong, what you can't do is prove me wrong, primarily because the moment you look into it you'll know I'm right. As far as giving DOMA constitutional protection, don't count on it. The numbers in Congress just won't ever be in your favor to get that ball rolling. Y'all should have thought of that before setting off on the state by state process which will ultimately prove to be your undoing. Oh wait a sec, y'all did, the whole constitutional amendment paranoia in Congress after the Hawaii Supreme Court case in Baehr went absolutely nowhere at the only moment it could have and was forever silenced by offering up DOMA as red meat to the ravening wolves. Now those chickens are coming home to roost. Section 3 of DOMA is DOA, Congress neither has the constitutional authority to determine who the states may legally consider as married, nor do they have the constitutional authority to deny recognition to those who the states say are. It is in violation of equal protection and due process guarantees as well as a violation of the rights of the states, specifically those states which have legalized same sex marriages. The death of Section 3 paints a target both on Section 2 and on the state amendments themselves. The federal government will be recognizing state sanctioned same sex marriages and will have to do so even in the event the couple resides in a state which remains openly hostile to their rights. Can you say equal protection? To heck with the full faith claims, they'd be fun to argue, but we don't really need them. A sneak preview of the gay agenda, the first states which will be begging for mercy from the courts are the ones gullible enough to have passed one of those "we don't care what you call it, gay couples get no rights" amendments. Toast.

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

You ignore the most basic issue: two people of the same sex cannot enter into "marriage". There is simply no such thing.

According to whom?

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:

Call it something else.

No. Your issues with the concept of two people of the same sex being considered legally married are neither our concern nor our problem. You just need to hone your coping skills. The legal right of same sex couples to marry and to be married is coming sooner than you think.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep.... we sure will, won't we? It's gonna be a happy day when SCOTUS gives all you ignoids a good kick in the teeth.

What do you REALLY want Mona Lott? Marriage equality, or kicking "ignoids" in the teeth?

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If you check your post, you asserted all I had was gender diversity, which by the way is significant enough to distinguish between marriage and gay unions.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's ignorant. Using that argument you could claim that all same race marriages should be banned because they aren't diverse enough. You're just playing word games.

No, that is really a stupid attempt to slide by a significant point.

1. You are equating numerous racial distinctions with male/female distinction. Hardly apples to apples.

2. As noted before, marriage is a historically consistent cross-cultural relationship. Interracial marriages are too. Gay 'marriages' are not.

The only thing you did by attempting this is to show how desperate you are.

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But here is another one;
Every single culture in all of known human history have marriage from start to finish.
Gay marriage? Zero (0).

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Every single culture had adults marrying children from start to modern times. We stopped it. But of course there were types like you arguing that pedophilia wasn't a problem from start to finish. In fact in this country in 1900 do you know what the age of consent was in many states? TEN YEARS OLD ("A Guide to America's $ex Laws - Silbaugh/Posner") Know why? Because 'good Christian legislators' were making the laws using a bible that doesn't say one word about adults having $ex with children even though it thinks to mention bestia1ity. Was god more concerned with the welfare of animals than children? Evidently so. And that's why it's frightening that the Christians want to regain control of things. We'll be back to adults marrying children because it was 'biblical'.
It's modern psychology, which you all hate, that began doing studies and collecting evidence that children as old as 17 can be harmed by $exual relationships with adults. This is the same modern psychology that says homosexuality is normal and healthy. The testimony of these psychologists has been used to RAISE the age of consent in every state in the US.

You are consistent...

What does your response change about my facts?

Why do you find it necessary to shift the focus?

Why do you find it necessary to pick partial information to make a point(not quite the whole truth, is it...)?

Here is one of many overviews of your selective information;

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

Just a side note; Christianity has only been partially influential for less than a third of known human history. It is only exposure of your bigotry to imply otherwise.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But here is another one;
Every single culture in all of known human history have marriage from start to finish.
Gay marriage? Zero (0).
<quoted text>
You are consistent...
What does your response change about my facts?
Why do you find it necessary to shift the focus?
Why do you find it necessary to pick partial information to make a point(not quite the whole truth, is it...)?
Here is one of many overviews of your selective information;
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
Just a side note; Christianity has only been partially influential for less than a third of known human history. It is only exposure of your bigotry to imply otherwise.

You're arguing that marriage should be a certain way because of tradition. Then when I point out polygamy and adults marrying prepubescent children as a part of that tradition, you backtrack. You need to make up your mind.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like eye color and hand dominance which are genetic, homosexuality is also not a defect. Just like men having nipples which serve no purpose and and all humans having an appendix that serves no purpose, homosexuality is not a defect.
Either that or you can argue that we're ALL defective.

Consistently trying to slip things by with shallow, cheap and ignorant distortions.

You forgot to mention red hair...

None of those things affect the foundation of evolution; The ability to reproduce, and the desire to do so. In fact, many if not all enhance those two fundamentals.

Homosexuality on the other hand, critically fails on the second count.

Just a side note; I have three nipples. Now that IS a genetic defect, right?

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But here is another one;
Every single culture in all of known human history have marriage from start to finish.
Gay marriage? Zero (0).
<quoted text>
You are consistent...
What does your response change about my facts?
Why do you find it necessary to shift the focus?
Why do you find it necessary to pick partial information to make a point(not quite the whole truth, is it...)?
Here is one of many overviews of your selective information;
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
Just a side note; Christianity has only been partially influential for less than a third of known human history. It is only exposure of your bigotry to imply otherwise.

Seriously, no one's falling for this.

We all know what you'd say to a friend that had never heard of civil unions and asked what it meant. You'd reply "Oh it's when gays get M A R R I E D". DUH.

Marriage means two people making a commitment to spend their lives together. End of story. There's no need to invent a new word for it. We already have one. "Marriage". You just want your special rights.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But here is another one;
Every single culture in all of known human history have marriage from start to finish.
Gay marriage? Zero (0).
<quoted text>
You are consistent...
What does your response change about my facts?
Why do you find it necessary to shift the focus?
Why do you find it necessary to pick partial information to make a point(not quite the whole truth, is it...)?
Here is one of many overviews of your selective information;
http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230
Just a side note; Christianity has only been partially influential for less than a third of known human history. It is only exposure of your bigotry to imply otherwise.

I guess you forgot about the differences I noted before;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love then you should be okay with your
heterosexual marriage being outlawed.

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage, then you're a hypocrite
if you think your heterosexual marriage is the only
one entitled to be called marrage.

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage, then you as a heterosexual in
a marriage should be just fine with your rights and benefits
being taken away.

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders then you ignore the
diversity of same sex couples in a world of opposite sex
couples.

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
then you disagree with incest and polygamy.

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no effect you should consider the benefit
of adopting couples in a world with 4 plus million orphans.

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
then you shouldn't be banning and redefining marriages.

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity then
you ignore the fact that hermphoridites are born every day as well
as people with over 20 different conditions that give them the PHYSICAL
characteristics of both genders and have a mind too tiny to imagine
that 5% of the population may in fact be attracted to only the same
gender.

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
then you should be working to ban single parents from adopting
as they do in every state in the Union.

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act, then you should ask yourself if
every sexual attempt that doesn't result in procreation is a
harmful act as the bible describes.

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end, then you should ask yourself why
it is that infertile heterosexuals continue to be born.

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest, then you should ask yourself
why, since according to the CDC, as of 2005, they knew of not one single case
of le$bain to le$bian transmitted HIV and well over 200,000 cases of women who
contracted HIV through heterosexual $ex, you aren't suggesting that all straight
women turn le$bian for the sake of their health and lives. Why the double standard???

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none, you should congratulate yourself that you
aren't so selfish as to have to biologically reproduce in a world with over 4
million orphans.

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people', then you've defined
marriage accurately, two people making a commitment to spend their lives together.

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

AND WE DO.

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is like infertility.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're saying we shouldn't allow infertile couples to marry. And you're all for "diversity". Rigghhht.

I would think a adult would be ashamed to parrot stupid sound bites.

Brian insinuates no such thing. You are again trying to make a utterly idiotic comparison. There is a profound difference between a incredibly rare inability to reproduce by a heterosexual couple and a gay couple who can NEVER reproduce.

Once again, you show a lack of character. You need to ask yourself why that is so consistently necessary for your cause.

Cheyenne277 wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like eye color and hand dominance which are genetic, homosexuality is also not a defect. Just like men having nipples which serve no purpose and and all humans having an appendix that serves no purpose, homosexuality is not a defect.
Either that or you can argue that we're ALL defective.

keep repeating it, that is how it's being believed. No one is born gay. All scientific studies including those by gay scientists, have not found any gay gene or gay brain center. There is no medical test for a gay gene. There is no scientific or DNA test for sexual orientation. Ex-gays are living proof that homosexual orientation is not fixed permanently. Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies. It's more like a sex cult. The notion that people are 'born gay' is nothing less than The Big Lie of the entire homosexual movement. Science has not proven that there is a 'gay gene' or that people are 'born gay.'" Liberal media have been only too willing to anticipate the verdict of the scientific community and spread the false impression that science validates homosexuality. The evidence could not be more contrary.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Consistently trying to slip things by with shallow, cheap and ignorant distortions.
You forgot to mention red hair...
None of those things affect the foundation of evolution; The ability to reproduce, and the desire to do so. In fact, many if not all enhance those two fundamentals.
Homosexuality on the other hand, critically fails on the second count.
Just a side note; I have three nipples. Now that IS a genetic defect, right?

If you choose to view yourself as being defective because you have 3 nipples, that's fine. I know a girl who has 4, and she doesn't view herself as defective, nor do I. It's just a normal variation. And it's pretty common.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Consistently trying to slip things by with shallow, cheap and ignorant distortions.
You forgot to mention red hair...
None of those things affect the foundation of evolution; The ability to reproduce, and the desire to do so. In fact, many if not all enhance those two fundamentals.
Homosexuality on the other hand, critically fails on the second count.
Just a side note; I have three nipples. Now that IS a genetic defect, right?

What you're ignoring is that both Mother Nature and God may allow for the fact that the sex drive is so strong that there are many unwanted children. Over 4 million orphans on the planet right now. And who better to take care of the unwanted children than the infertile and homosexuals? And that may be why many many species have a percentage of the population that is exclusively homosexual and will never mate, never reproduce, yet often adopt young that aren't their own.

KiMare wrote:

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is like infertility.
<quoted text>
I would think a adult would be ashamed to parrot stupid sound bites.
Brian insinuates no such thing. You are again trying to make a utterly idiotic comparison. There is a profound difference between a incredibly rare inability to reproduce by a heterosexual couple and a gay couple who can NEVER reproduce.
Once again, you show a lack of character. You need to ask yourself why that is so consistently necessary for your cause.

Actually the numbers of heterosexual couples that can't reproduce because they're infertile is about the same as the number of homosexual couples that can't reproduce. And no I don't mean as a percentage, I mean the actual numbers. About 5% of the population is gay. About 5% of the population has one partner or another that is infertile.

Try reading.