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
156,121 - 156,140 of 200,593 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago
DorN

La Puente, CA

#179036 Feb 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays and lesbians can legally marry in any state in the union. Always had that right, and did, exercise that right, just like anybody else.
Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet". Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179037 Feb 9, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
...starting with dumb.
Substance Janey-Doody substance.

Jizybird looks up to you. Impress him! He likes kindergarten type ad hominem best and you the man when it comes to dopey ad hominem!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179038 Feb 9, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
...starting with dumb.
And in your case, ending with dumb.

Why do you believe polygamy doesn't deserve the same consideration and respect as same sex marriage? We know it's illegal, so don't try to say that's why. That's silly!
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179039 Feb 9, 2013
DorN wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet". Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?
I think it wouldn't harm anyone and it should be allowed. I also think a marriage of three wouldn't harm anyone and should be allowed. Marriage is a good thing for society.

It would be best if we could vote on it. I think people get angry more at the judicial fiat way of enacting it than with same sex marriage itself.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#179040 Feb 9, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. Tell me was the judge correct?
Yes he was correct, such an unconstitutional measure should never have been allowed on the ballot

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179041 Feb 9, 2013
DorN wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet".
True.....and it came as a shock to many a spouse. There are openly mixed orientation marriages today. For those either it began that way, or endured after the "coming out".
Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?
A couple of points. First, same sex couples can marry, it simply won't be legally recognized. No different than polygamous marriages. Second, as "nice" as it maybe, I don't believe marriage should be legally changed for it. Some other form of legal structure could just as easily be, and has been, created in some states.

Is it about protection, or "legitimacy"?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179042 Feb 9, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly would be accepted better if it was done by popular vote. I think much of the opposition to same sex marriage isn't against it per se, but it is a backlash against making it legal by judicial fiat.
I think if a popular vote were held today, it would probably pass. And avoid much backlash against it.
In what scenario is a popular vote of the majority regarding the minority ever appropriate? Should we have voted to repress women? Should we have voted to requires non-whites?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179043 Feb 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it about protection, or "legitimacy"?
No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179045 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
In what scenario is a popular vote of the majority regarding the minority ever appropriate? Should we have voted to repress women? Should we have voted to requires non-whites?
Of course not. Pure democracy is a lamb and two wolves voting on what's for dinner. We need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Like 99% of us voting for the candidate that would raise taxes on 1% of us! Stuff like that.

I am just trying to make the point that new laws are always more acceptable to doubters when the majority favors them. And that much of the opposition to gay marriage is not opposition per se, but opposition to it being imposed by judicial fiat.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179046 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.
Does that go for the haters against poly and incest marriage too?
ReadySetGo

Monrovia, CA

#179048 Feb 9, 2013
What do ya say we jack this up to a couple hundred thousand postings?

Are ya game for it?

Ready Set Go.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179049 Feb 9, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. Pure democracy is a lamb and two wolves voting on what's for dinner. We need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Like 99% of us voting for the candidate that would raise taxes on 1% of us! Stuff like that.
I am just trying to make the point that new laws are always more acceptable to doubters when the majority favors them. And that much of the opposition to gay marriage is not opposition per se, but opposition to it being imposed by judicial fiat.
This isn't judicial, it's constitutional. Why is it that everytime a judge proves something is constitutional everyone starts screaming about activist judges?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179050 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't judicial, it's constitutional. Why is it that everytime a judge proves something is constitutional everyone starts screaming about activist judges?
That's the way it is. That was my point in case you missed it.

People don't like law by judicial fiat. It's unfortunate it has to happen that way. Much of the opposition stems from that, and not gay marriage per se.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#179051 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like abortion or women combat troops in the front lines. Same sex marriage is like gender apartheid marriage where before marriage had perfect gender diversity, integration and union.
Judges should rule by law, not wright law. Sympathy isn't the function of justice, maybe they should go to church, where they encourage charity and mercy. Law is for consistent results along tradition and precedent, not radical new standards of marriage.
Oh boy, more bumper sticker slogans with no substance offered in explanation.
Gender apartheid is separation of the sexes keeping them apart. Same sex marriage doesn't accomplish this. It only permits roughly 2%(or whatever your favorite stat) of the population the ability to marry their partner. It has no bearing on my marriage. These are just more of your unsupportable claims, like the whole forced marriages in prison (thanks, BTW, for the link showing Canada's experiences over the last 6 or 7 years regarding the "epidemic" of forced marriages in their prison system).

Judges do rule based upon laws. They often have to interpret laws. They also rule upon the constitutionality of laws. They don't "wright" laws.

I am intetested in seeing whether or not you can expand upon your first sentence in the post I've quoted. Tell us just how same sex marriage is like abortion or putting women in combat. Try some clear and cogent arguments rather than just making the claim that they're alike.
ReadySetGo

Monrovia, CA

#179052 Feb 9, 2013
Your getting better at this, but maybe you could pick up the pace a little your still dragging your feet.
anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#179053 Feb 9, 2013
putting aside the issue of the vote, a vote should be upheld both sides rallied and the losers of the vote should not have voted if they were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.

regarding this issue, america should relabel marriages as domestic partnership. this would render all couples equal and "marriage" would remain a religious ceremony for those whom choose to do it.. like baptism

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179055 Feb 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
putting aside the issue of the vote, a vote should be upheld both sides rallied and the losers of the vote should not have voted if they were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.
regarding this issue, america should relabel marriages as domestic partnership. this would render all couples equal and "marriage" would remain a religious ceremony for those whom choose to do it.. like baptism
Civil ceremonies are marriages, church weddings are already called Holy Matrimony.
anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#179056 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil ceremonies are marriages, church weddings are already called Holy Matrimony.
okay i didn't know this thank you, i think this should be more publically addressed. I would like to see equal rights for all, and some atheists choose not to get married, i would like to see equal rights for all and putting fanaic haters aside, it seems most religous people want to save "their" word/rite "marriage" which is actually already sepertately catagorized as Holy Matrimony
Knots landing

Monrovia, CA

#179057 Feb 9, 2013
Since when hasn't a knot hole worked for you in the past?

Get off the subject and go play in knots landing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179058 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.
Why bother regulating marriage at all? Why does it matter who marries who? You could've easily said, "....legally marry two dusty manginas, or a related dusty mangina, or dusty womangina? Why does it mmatter who marries who legally, that is?

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.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 6 hr go away 5,007
Riverside County:Tap Water Taste and Smell Unpl... 10 hr james marple 50
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 15 hr lazy posts 15,963
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) Fri Kandy 476
Debate: Ferguson - Hemet, CA Fri Go Blue Forever 5
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
The Waterfalls (May '09) Aug 28 Chris 20
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Hemet News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••