Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201807 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#178587 Feb 6, 2013
CacheFly wrote:
Who is going to listen to some idiot from the UK, who were kicked out of the USA in 1776 for their english stupity.
say what?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178588 Feb 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn’t an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie don’t understand.
it doesn’t matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didn’t say me ), specifically voters.
I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.
You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference
I nave never made an argument that poly will be legal soon and you know it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178589 Feb 6, 2013
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.
Same with polygamy. How would a marriage of three women harm you? How would a marriage of two men and one woman harm you? How would a marriage of three women and a man harm you?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#178590 Feb 6, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same with polygamy. How would a marriage of three women harm you? How would a marriage of two men and one woman harm you? How would a marriage of three women and a man harm you?
They will look at that case when you bring it to them. The case before the Supreme Court now has no bearing on it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178591 Feb 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn’t an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie don’t understand.
it doesn’t matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didn’t say me ), specifically voters.
I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.
You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference
Your repeated insistence that polygamy won't be legal soon because some polygamists are bad is ignorant and bigoted. It's like saying blacks should not have civil rights because some of them are bad.

Your repeated insistence that polygamy is far off deserves a "so what?" What is your point with that schtick? I'm not arguing otherwise.

Your labeling my points on marriage equality an "obsession" is dishonest. Your thinly veiled implications that I am against same sex marriage is more of your dishonesty.

Hope that helps jackass!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#178592 Feb 6, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They will look at that case when you bring it to them. The case before the Supreme Court now has no bearing on it.
Of course not. Except that it will be used successfully in court to make the case for polygamy. Do you want to make a wager on that hotshot?
2gay4scouts

Monrovia, CA

#178593 Feb 6, 2013
Is the LDS 2 gay 4 sounts these days?

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178594 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178595 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178596 Feb 6, 2013
Never can wait for that curling iron to heat up

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#178597 Feb 6, 2013
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

Home, sweet home.

#178598 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178599 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178600 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178601 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178602 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178603 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178604 Feb 6, 2013
is*

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#178605 Feb 6, 2013
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

#178606 Feb 6, 2013
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?

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is San Jacinto Dangerous? (Jun '10) 1 hr liza 29
News Lots of earthquakes across California -- is the... 9 hr like many places 1
Earthquake? Did anyone feel that? 15 hr Chris 5
HemetHEMET: Priest and school-volunteer sentenc... Tue Buster Himen 2
HELP STOP UNJUST PERSECUTIONS of TAXPAYERS over... May 3 Un agenda 21 and ... 21
Man assaults kids at McDonalds-east florida on ... (Jul '13) May 3 Dudes crazy 147
Hold Government Accountable May 1 Law Enforcement 1
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]