Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage

Aug 8, 2012 Full story: WFAA-TV Dallas 971

A federal judge has ruled against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of enter into a civil union.

Full Story

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#172 Aug 12, 2012
Ryan Fan wrote:
<quoted text>One thing I know for sure is that I think homosexuals shouldn't be trading dirty pictures of little kids or having sex with them anymore.
It's an unrealistic hope on my part, but maybe the queers will one day pledge to cut down on all of their chicken-hawk kid-stuff.
Yeah, right.
I for one am only interested in 35+ bodybuilders. Your lies do not apply to me.

Now, let's look at Dr. Hook's song "She Was Only 16", and Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 13 yr old cousin...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#176 Aug 12, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Settle down Queer before you stroke out. Take a deep breath, su:ck another D:ck, you'll be fine. PS. That's one smart and sensible Judge.
It really is funny to see you kiss the azz of this Judge and praise him for ruling the way you liked, but if he had ruled the other way......YOU'D BE SCREAMING ACTIVIST JUDGE and all sorts of other crazy crap......but don't worry, this ruling will be handle properly on appeal!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#178 Aug 12, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way a judge will rule in you Queers favor is if he's a Queer himself. That just wasn't the case this time huh?
There have been MANY Judges who have ruled in our favor, especially regarding Section 3 of DOMA.......I guess you consider them all Gay or Lesbian, right?

Like I said, if this Judge had ruled in favor of the Lesbian Couple.....you'd have called him an ACTIVIST Judge........but like I said, don't worry.......the ruling is going to be appealed and probably corrected!!!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#179 Aug 12, 2012
Do these people realize how easy it is to skip their posts?

I see those antigay individuals answered like, THREE POSTS of mine, so let me now *choose* to go see what they have to say.

It won't be worth it in any meaningful sense except to excoriate them for their stupidity.

Watch.

Bet you a million dollars.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#180 Aug 12, 2012
Ryan Fan wrote:
<quoted text>LMFAO!!!
Look at this laughter juxtaposed with the bitterness and savagery of the rest of the post, below.

Yeah, you're really "laughing." Why am I not buying it for a nanosecond?
Ryan Fan wrote:
Judges don't have to grant queers special rights
Then by your logic, marriage should be abolished altogether, as it is currently a special right.
Ryan Fan wrote:
just because queers are always sniveling and filing stupid lawsuits.
And you're *not* blowing snot and vomit all over the forum?

You're *not* sniveling and crying all day while you're here?

You're somehow *exempt* from this classification?
Ryan Fan wrote:
Some of those suits actually wind up before judges who think queers should just trade child porn and lurk near playgrounds instead of dragging their bedrooms into the courtrooms.
Hats off to this judge!
Dare you, dare you, dare you to go join one of the lawsuits and present this stuff in court. Or do you not have the backbone to open your mouth like that in a court of law?

Hmmmm?

I triple, quadruple, quintuple dare you.

Seriously.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#181 Aug 12, 2012
Ryan Fan wrote:
<quoted text>One thing I know for sure is that I think homosexuals shouldn't be trading dirty pictures of little kids or having sex with them anymore.
It's an unrealistic hope on my part, but maybe the queers will one day pledge to cut down on all of their chicken-hawk kid-stuff.
Yeah, right.
I read the first six words and can only say, One thing I know for sure is, I'm not reading your vomit.

Sucks to be you.

Skipping posts is very easy and your personal problems and your attempt to infect others with them are not interesting.

Whoever fucked you up like this sure did a hell of a number, I will give them that. I will give them that.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#182 Aug 12, 2012
You guys, look at this post.
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Settle down Queer
Self-referential.
NoQ wrote:
before you stroke out.
Self-referential.
NoQ wrote:
Take a deep breath, su:ck another D:ck,
Self-referential?!?!?
NoQ wrote:
you'll be fine.
Yet the poster won't take his own advice.
NoQ wrote:
PS. That's one smart and sensible
Judge.
Yet a piece from a person who IS NOT a judge was able to rip the verdict to shreds -- substantiated, point for point.

Publicly.

In a piece published on the internet.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#183 Aug 13, 2012
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
You would think after a couple of decades the anti-gay would realize their obvious hatred for the gay community undermines any claim to possessing a just and rational stance on these issues.
You reap what you sow .

2010
The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men was 44 times that of other men and 40 times that of women, and primary and secondary syphilis rates were 46 times that of other men and 71 times that of women, according to data presented at the 2010 National STD Prevention Conference in Atlanta.
Study results also showed that the range of new HIV diagnoses among MSM was significantly higher 522 to 989 per 100,000 when compared with 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

Similarly, the range of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM was 91 to 173 cases per 100,000 as opposed to two per 100,000 other men and one per 100,000 women.

http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/article/...



The Hepatitis C Research Oversight Partnership (HepCop), has publicly denounced the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for misappropriating millions of dollars budgeted for research on the hepatitis C virus (HCV)-- already on a shoestring budget -- to funding for HIV/AIDS which has an enormous $2.9 billion research allocation.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/misappropriated...
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#184 Aug 13, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Mostly, those flowery sentences were vague and allusive, and probably intended to mollify the Ms. Grundys among the population.
Almost Rohrshach ink blots ... read into them what you want to hear.
Seems like they were both saying what homosexuals do in private is their business, in public, that is another story. Just saying.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#185 Aug 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because these cases weren't intended to establish a right to marry.
If you actually read the cases, you'd realize these couples who sued in the DOMA cases are ALREADY MARRIED. They didn't to sue for a right to marry.
The state marriage laws/amendments will be either changed by the people/legislature or by the state or federal courts.
Every year we get another state in the equality column. This year we'll get California back, along with Washington, Maine, & possibly Maryland.
It's only a matter of time before we get the rest as well.
blah blah, rah rah....
sure... suggest I didn't read the cases i keep cutting quotes out of...
as delusional as the rest of what you wrote (with more knowledge than most though...that's for sure)

are you suggesting DOMA doesn't implicate a gay marriage right?
it does...it was addressed and DENIED.
EXPLICITLY.
and you know it.

psst...you couldn't get a vote in CA...
31 constitutions, 13 statutes...
legally soeaking, you should have taken CU's...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#186 Aug 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
About the same chance as court decision on inter-racial marriage bans........
Btw, they once had bans is all 50 states; you've only got bans in 32 states, and at least 3 of those will fall this year, with another 3 next year.
Hate to tell you, but the bigots have peaked.
your agenda is nothing lie racial civil rights and you should know it...
not legally, and not in reality...
ever notice how inter-racial couples can;t have a gay marriage?
cause they are not rationally connected...
talk about red herrings!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#187 Aug 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah, rah rah....
sure... suggest I didn't read the cases i keep cutting quotes out of...
as delusional as the rest of what you wrote (with more knowledge than most though...that's for sure)
are you suggesting DOMA doesn't implicate a gay marriage right?
it does...it was addressed and DENIED.
EXPLICITLY.
and you know it.
psst...you couldn't get a vote in CA...
31 constitutions, 13 statutes...
legally soeaking, you should have taken CU's...
We don't need a vote in California because the courts have already overtunred Prop 8. Marriage equality returns Sep 25th right after the SCOTUS refuses to accept the anti-gays appeal.

Washington & Maine will follow in November when they vote in favor of marriage equality.

Illinois, Hawaii, Rhode Island, & Delaware will approve marriage equality next year.

Why take civil unions when I'm already married?

What you don't realize is that once the federal govt is forced to treat all marriage equally, that will only increase the pressure on states to dump their marriage bans.

It's only a matter of time before every state ban falls.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#188 Aug 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

What you don't realize is that once the federal govt is forced to treat all marriage equally, that will only increase the pressure on states to dump their marriage bans.
.
what you don't realize is that is the states are allowed to define marriage, THEY WILL...
31 so far have defined as man and woman...

by saying the federal gov't CANNOT define marriage and make states follow as these DOMA cases do, it means there can be no federal legislation defining marriage in ANY way, for or against ssm...
similarly, the US constitution would not apply to define marriage either!
only if a fundamental right is at stake, and gay marriage has NEVER been one...
I really don't think you get where all this is going...

when state's have the power....gays do not...
every time its voted...every-time....in overwhelming numbers and you know it...

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#189 Aug 13, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
You reap what you sow .
I reap what I sow? Really? I am in a committed relationship with the my husband and am 100% STD free. Yet, you feel the need to stereotype me and everyone else together because you hate.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#190 Aug 13, 2012
Ryan Fan wrote:
<quoted text>LMFAO!!!
Judges don't have to grant queers special rights just because queers are always sniveling and filing stupid lawsuits.
Some of those suits actually wind up before judges who think queers should just trade child porn and lurk near playgrounds instead of dragging their bedrooms into the courtrooms.
Hats off to this judge!
Hats off to the dozen+ judges who've ruled same-sex couples DO have a right to equal treatment, including marriage equality.

California resumes marriage equality Sep 25th, the day after the SCOTUS refuses the Prop 8 appeal from the anti-gays.

Then Washington & Maine both approve marriage equality at the ballot box in Nov.

Then the SCOTUS overturns DOMA by Jun 2013 when they rule on the Gill v OPM case.

It's all falling apart for the anti-gays, though you may still get one short lived victory in my home state of Minnesota this year (so sad; I expected more from my fellow Minnesotans).

It's only a matter of time now before equality sweeps the nation!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#191 Aug 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
your agenda is nothing lie racial civil rights and you should know it...
not legally, and not in reality...
ever notice how inter-racial couples can;t have a gay marriage?
cause they are not rationally connected...
talk about red herrings!
I don't know of anyone who has a "gay marriage", though many marriages are certainly happy.

Same-sex interracial couples have the same right to marry as any other same-sex couple.

It's only a matter of time before that right is extended to couples in all states, especially after DOMA is overturned.

Whether through the legislature, courts, or popular vote, all marriage bans for same-sex couples will fall by the end of the decade.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#192 Aug 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what you don't realize is that is the states are allowed to define marriage, THEY WILL...
31 so far have defined as man and woman...
by saying the federal gov't CANNOT define marriage and make states follow as these DOMA cases do, it means there can be no federal legislation defining marriage in ANY way, for or against ssm...
similarly, the US constitution would not apply to define marriage either!
only if a fundamental right is at stake, and gay marriage has NEVER been one...
I really don't think you get where all this is going...
when state's have the power....gays do not...
every time its voted...every-time....in overwhelming numbers and you know it...
Marriage is the fundamental right; the only question is whether same-sex couples can be constitutionally denied marriage, just like inter-racial couples were once denied marriage rights.

The judges & courts change over the years along with society. Deny it all you want, but it's obvious the courts & society's views about same-sex couples having the right to marry is changing.

It's only a matter of time.

As for the state votes, we'll see what happens in November. Washington, Maine, and even possibly Maryland are on the cusp of passing marriage equality by popular vote. Will we win all three? Possible, but most likely we get 2 out of the 3 (Washington & Maine). California is an indication of the changing attitudes; even though the pro-equality side lost in '08, the margin of difference was 9 points LESS than it was for essentially the same vote in 2000.

There was a time when no state could ever pass marriage equality legislatively either; that changed over time, just as the popular votes will change over time.

Your supporters are primarily the elderly, and even though they reliably vote against equality, they are also dying off at a rate of 6,000+ per day, while the pro-equality side is gaining an equal number of supporters every day. It's not stictly age, but rather generational- the baby boom generation is the LAST generation where a majority oppose marriage equality. It's all in the demographics.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#193 Aug 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is the fundamental right; the only question is whether same-sex couples can be constitutionally denied marriage, just like inter-racial couples were once denied marriage rights.
The judges & courts change over the years along with society. Deny it all you want, but it's obvious the courts & society's views about same-sex couples having the right to marry is changing.
It's only a matter of time.
As for the state votes, we'll see what happens in November. Washington, Maine, and even possibly Maryland are on the cusp of passing marriage equality by popular vote. Will we win all three? Possible, but most likely we get 2 out of the 3 (Washington & Maine). California is an indication of the changing attitudes; even though the pro-equality side lost in '08, the margin of difference was 9 points LESS than it was for essentially the same vote in 2000.
There was a time when no state could ever pass marriage equality legislatively either; that changed over time, just as the popular votes will change over time.
Your supporters are primarily the elderly, and even though they reliably vote against equality, they are also dying off at a rate of 6,000+ per day, while the pro-equality side is gaining an equal number of supporters every day. It's not stictly age, but rather generational- the baby boom generation is the LAST generation where a majority oppose marriage equality. It's all in the demographics.
you need to read these cases more and those silly sites less...

can the US CONSTITUTION define marriage if that is a power beyond the federal gov't and left with the states?
exactly.

Rah rah sis boom bah right back acha...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#194 Aug 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what you don't realize is that is the states are allowed to define marriage, THEY WILL...
31 so far have defined as man and woman...
by saying the federal gov't CANNOT define marriage and make states follow as these DOMA cases do, it means there can be no federal legislation defining marriage in ANY way, for or against ssm...
similarly, the US constitution would not apply to define marriage either!
only if a fundamental right is at stake, and gay marriage has NEVER been one...
I really don't think you get where all this is going...
when state's have the power....gays do not...
every time its voted...every-time....in overwhelming numbers and you know it...
Please explain why the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has NEVER defined what a marriage is until the FEAR OF HAVING TO RECOGNIZED THE LEGAL MARRIAGES OF GAYS AND LESBIANS.

How can the federal government pick and choose which marriages they will provide legal recognition to, along with benefits and rights? How is this NOT discriminatory? How would you feel if it was YOUR MARRIAGE that they decided not to recognized?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#195 Aug 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you need to read these cases more and those silly sites less...
can the US CONSTITUTION define marriage if that is a power beyond the federal gov't and left with the states?
exactly.
Rah rah sis boom bah right back acha...
Of course the constitution doesn't define marriage. The constitution doesn't need to define marriage. The constitution defines equal protection & due process. And just like inter-racial bans, bans against same-sex couples marrying will eventually be found unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection and/or due process.

Using your logic, states would currently be able to have bans on inter-racial marriages.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why (R1) Righteous One is a POS (Dec '12) 10 min Cletus 76
The Thursday Morning NE Jade Thread 19 min Cletus 1
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr Static Charge 26,601
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Cowobunga 201,150
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 3 hr Hooogle It 5
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 4 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 2,791
Op-ed: My Lesbian Moms Saved My Life 4 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 3
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 hr KiMerde 5,267
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 7 hr Mikey 4,941
More from around the web