Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
155,721 - 155,740 of 200,565 Comments Last updated 30 min ago
2gay4scouts

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178593
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Is the LDS 2 gay 4 sounts these days?

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178594
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1: Marriage is not a "right", it's a benefit society gives to a certain class of people.
.....
Not true. According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which clear states that marraige is a basic human right.
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
....
2: Society gives the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples because long experience shows that marriage of heterosexual couples carries a great number of benefits to society (for example: it civilizes men, making them more productive, and less foolhardy (and therefore less destructive)(see lowered car insurance rates for young males who marry)).
...
Absurd. Society cannot give a benefit on behalf of marriage. Society may be shaped by its cultural norms (including marriage practices) but society cannot give what it doesn't own. And insurance companies model risk; they seek mores to reward.
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...3: There is no evidence that homosexual marriage provides similar benefits to society.
4: Following the age old principle that intelligent agreements give benefits to both sides, it is therefore not in society's interest to give homosexual couples benefits that they haven't "earned"....
What do think? For starter's society doesn't have any vested interested as it is not a living and critical thinking being - it is a collection of individuals... clearly with very real, different intersts, no?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...Marriage is a contract. It's a contract between the people getting married. It's also a contract between, that couple. and the State...
Marriage is much more than a state revenue generating license (contract). But, how would your statement here be any different if it were a gay couple?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
.... Valid contracts require that both sides get benefits....
Whoa, bessie! You must not be a business owner... what a whopper this one is!
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
.... What is the benefit to society of giving a marriage contract to homosexual couples?
....
Remember, society isn't a person! It doesn't get benefits the way humans do. That being said, a society that recognizes the basic human right of marriage is almost surely a more desireable one than the society which denies basic human rights... wouldn't you agree?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...Until that's answered, there's no rational reason to give homosexual couples such a contract.
*ahem* The answers are readily available for the open minded.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178595
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter who you are,...
No of course it doesn't! and I never said it did. Focus now...
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
... you are ignoring mating and evolutionary practices......
Oh really? Then where do all the gays come from? Oh yeah, straight people.... sounds a lot like mating and evolutionary practices to me? Are you that blind!?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
...So, you might as well admit that you are the dolt. Dolt. The burden of proof lies with you....
Hardly, on BOTH counts. I think you've been called a dolt before, yes? Bothers you , doesn't it?
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
... We have biology and anatomy on our side. You have the burden to disprove the purposes of both....
WE.. we? Who is this WE exactly? And I can assure you plenty of straight marriages are NOT about procreating....
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
..Get busy, b!tch...
Fantastically insulting. Oh my! hehe *yawn*
CurlingIron

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178596
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Never can wait for that curling iron to heat up

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178597
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Jazybird58 wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TBQ0DHC...
So I will not find any post by you on this thread, correct?
You won't find any post by me, claiming homosexuality is a sin; I don't discuss theology. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

You'll find Jazybird58 defames political opponents because the truth is too complicated for him to deal with.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178598
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Largelanguage wrote:
Jazybird58's only way of countering you is using the cliche sock puppet argument.
That's true, can't keep up with the real argument.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178599
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Only 8 more days until Illinois approves marriage equality! After that, federal recognition.

Lordy, my Kimare is going to be cranky!!!(So will the rest of the haters.)

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178600
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior...
...
Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Gay couples are clearly a blunder of the the fundamental goal of evolution.
...
The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178601
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Dusty Mangina wrote:
Only 8 more days until Illinois approves marriage equality! After that, federal recognition.
Lordy, my Kimare is going to be cranky!!!(So will the rest of the haters.)
The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy

by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012
Print PDF

[media-credit id=96 align="alignright" width="234"]
I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?
A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.
Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.
When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?
However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.
The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.
“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.
Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.
The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.
The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.
This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178602
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you have to prove that it does someone harm, that is why Prop 8 was overturned and that decision upheld by the California appellate courts.
You can’t just deny people the right to happiness just because you don’t like them. You aren’t royalty, you don’t get to just decide on a whim who is protected under the law and who is not.
You have to show how it harms others, your lawyers have already failed in that task twice, and now at the supreme court no new evidence can be presented, only failed evidence already presented.
You are on the wrong side of history.
So anyone can get married unless you prove harm?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178603
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?
<quoted text>
The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.
I'm sorry, but you make far too much sense for Kimare. He's going to have to copy and paste some old material in order to reply. The old wind bag it's pretty much a one-trick pony.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178604
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

is*

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178605
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?
<quoted text>
The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.
1. Depends. Doesn't change the constraint.

2. Where did I say that?

3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Lessons...

4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

Smile.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178606
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy
by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012
Print PDF
[media-credit id=96 align="alignright" width="234"]
I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?
A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.
Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.
When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?
However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.
The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.
“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.
Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.
The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.
The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.
This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.
So what?
CurlingIron

Monrovia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178607
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

It's really hard to believe the iron is really turned on?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178608
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
Smile.
This is really awkward, because you have yet to prove that this it's anything other than opinion.
I'm so embarrassed.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178610
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
lets see
-I don't care.... true
-Polygamists are bad people.... not all, but far too many are.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.... true
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.... very very true
Right. Those are you arguments against polygamy. They're stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178611
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
Chicken butt!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178612
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

chance47 wrote:
<quoted text>

... hmmmm... missed that one at university....
I bet you missed a lot more than that before you dropped out!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178613
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Depends. Doesn't change the constraint.
...
Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...2. Where did I say that?
...
Say what exactly?
KiMare wrote:
Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
...
"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...Smile.
Thank you, smiles back to you.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Atascadero Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 4 hr Donny B 7,922
Judge OKs Court-Appointed Attorney For Lead Def... 12 hr Maria 2
SLO is in fact Flush with Illicit Narcotics 18 hr Drugs Lord 7
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Tue matches lighters 15,961
Gangs Drugs and Murder SLO Tue Caretl De Sinaloa 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Aug 24 Mono 4,996
Dave Congalton, Adulterer Aug 23 Phil 1

Search the Atascadero Forum:
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for San Luis Obispo County was issued at August 27 at 8:42AM PDT

•••
•••
Atascadero Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Atascadero Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Atascadero People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Atascadero News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Atascadero
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••