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 (Page 8,037)

Showing posts 160,721 - 160,740 of200,213
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184103
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Yup you're right, it should have read moral-less liberals. As in lacking morals.
oh, i see.

wanting to the principles of feeding the poor, offering homes to the homeless, clothing those in need are all principles of "moral-less" liberals.

and the "high-morals" of the republicans include not spending any money on those less fortunate or the healing the sick or even creating a second class citizen of the tax paying homosexuals.

gotcha, nutcase.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184105
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
oh, i see.
wanting to the principles of feeding the poor, offering homes to the homeless, clothing those in need are all principles of "moral-less" liberals.
and the "high-morals" of the republicans include not spending any money on those less fortunate or the healing the sick or even creating a second class citizen of the tax paying homosexuals.
gotcha, nutcase.
I don’t find their stance to be "moral" to single out people based on their orientation and deny specific rights.

I consider those "low morals" and certainly un-American, however as I suspect the republicans are currently changing their stance on this issue as quickly as they can ( they can see the political and historic wind blowing ) it will only be the fringe of their party complaining.

A dwindling minority

We have "right", and "moral" on our side, that is why I do not doubt the outcome.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184106
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t find their stance to be "moral" to single out people based on their orientation and deny specific rights.
I consider those "low morals" and certainly un-American, however as I suspect the republicans are currently changing their stance on this issue as quickly as they can ( they can see the political and historic wind blowing ) it will only be the fringe of their party complaining.
A dwindling minority
We have "right", and "moral" on our side, that is why I do not doubt the outcome.
hence the quotation marks. LOL. i call those types of "christians" self-avowed because it's a little difficult for me to buy into the line of thinking that it's ok to be derisive of my fellow mankind or to think "christians" are better than any other type of human on the earth (athiest, muslim, etc) and are to be treated deferentially by the laws of this nation.

i get disgusted by these types of self avowed christians that paint an ugly face of christ for others to see and to be pushed away from that which all christians should feel, share and understand : God's grace.

i respect your choice in being an athiest. i do not desire to force my christian outlook or expectations upon you or anyone else via legislation.

i think this swing that we're seeing in numbers of christians that are falling away and the rise in polling of people that are for same sex marriage is a direct result of the verbiage of these self avowed christians - and how they treat non-christians. why would anyone want to join their 'club' if they treat people the way they do? i think, by and large, people aren't buying into the way christ is depicted and certainly aren't buying what the self avowed christians are selling.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184107
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they do....babies can't change themselves.
<quoted text>
Religion? Even fundamentalist Mormons? Muslims..... hmmmmm...what do they have in common....what practice....
<quoted text>
Shoot for the moon.
<quoted text>
Perhaps..... or perhaps those who oppose redefing legal marriage will be vindicated by history. Opponent s of "no fault divorce" are one such example. Sounded great in theory, not in reality. We are paying the price today. Certain institutions are tampered with at our own peril
My point is, noticing a difference, and designing laws to grant rights on those differences are two very different things.

No fault divorce is a fact, "irreconcilable difference" is a nice catch- all that allows any individual a divorce if desired.

What price are we paying? I agree with no-fault divorce. But then marriage is a contract, a promise, and contracts are broken, as are some promises.

we are not talking form a religious perspective here, as there are many religions here, including none at all, but from a legal perspective.

Yes there are consequences to breaking a contract, who everyone that has been through a divorce knows very well.

But as a society we are better off for it, wives of men who abuse them are no longer without an avenue of escape, those who remain married do so because it is their desire to do so.

I personally think we are much better off than before.

But before you respond, realized that I don’t consider the number of divorces a problem, the goal is NOT to keep people married, but for people who are married stay that way because they have a good marriage. I do not think wedding rings should be forged into a ball and chain
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184108
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
hence the quotation marks. LOL. i call those types of "christians" self-avowed because it's a little difficult for me to buy into the line of thinking that it's ok to be derisive of my fellow mankind or to think "christians" are better than any other type of human on the earth (athiest, muslim, etc) and are to be treated deferentially by the laws of this nation.
i get disgusted by these types of self avowed christians that paint an ugly face of christ for others to see and to be pushed away from that which all christians should feel, share and understand : God's grace.
i respect your choice in being an athiest. i do not desire to force my christian outlook or expectations upon you or anyone else via legislation.
i think this swing that we're seeing in numbers of christians that are falling away and the rise in polling of people that are for same sex marriage is a direct result of the verbiage of these self avowed christians - and how they treat non-christians. why would anyone want to join their 'club' if they treat people the way they do? i think, by and large, people aren't buying into the way christ is depicted and certainly aren't buying what the self avowed christians are selling.
Oh I knew...I was agreeing with you, I am disgusted by them as well.

The republican party is shifting on the subject now, I suspect 50 years from now, most Christian churches will support it as well, it will take them longer. The biggest flaw I have is believing in people, and I happen to believe that they actually want to do the right thing, they are having difficulty seeing past the dogma beat into them to see what the right thing is.

Look back not all that long ago, and they were burning people at the stake depending on of they were one sect of Christianity or another, few ( any?) of the churches would support that today.( maybe that one in Westborough Kansas )

I may be naive, but I would rather think good of people.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184109
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I knew...I was agreeing with you, I am disgusted by them as well.
The republican party is shifting on the subject now, I suspect 50 years from now, most Christian churches will support it as well, it will take them longer. The biggest flaw I have is believing in people, and I happen to believe that they actually want to do the right thing, they are having difficulty seeing past the dogma beat into them to see what the right thing is.
Look back not all that long ago, and they were burning people at the stake depending on of they were one sect of Christianity or another, few ( any?) of the churches would support that today.( maybe that one in Westborough Kansas )
I may be naive, but I would rather think good of people.
it's hard, for me annyway, to keep those rose colored glasses on in reading through these threads. all that hate & disgust that's expressed. the only glimmering hope is when i read the polls that are conducted regularly that more and more people disagree with the ideology expressed in these threads.

it wasn't that long ago that we saw blacks villified for stepping up and demanding the right to vote or to equal treatment in schools and laws....or women back in the teens and 20s of the 20th century. now, we see our society stand almost in total unity (granted, there are pockets of idiocy) in regards to those rights. i remember hearing older relatives back in the 60s talk about in disgust about the rulings regarding segregated schools. those relatives were in their 60s and 70s back then and are all gone now. they've all died off - and we'll most likely see the same sequence in the same sex marriage issue.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184110
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Proposition 8 won at the polls; that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184111
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it's hard, for me annyway, to keep those rose colored glasses on in reading through these threads. all that hate & disgust that's expressed. the only glimmering hope is when i read the polls that are conducted regularly that more and more people disagree with the ideology expressed in these threads.
it wasn't that long ago that we saw blacks villified for stepping up and demanding the right to vote or to equal treatment in schools and laws....or women back in the teens and 20s of the 20th century. now, we see our society stand almost in total unity (granted, there are pockets of idiocy) in regards to those rights. i remember hearing older relatives back in the 60s talk about in disgust about the rulings regarding segregated schools. those relatives were in their 60s and 70s back then and are all gone now. they've all died off - and we'll most likely see the same sequence in the same sex marriage issue.
I have to use epoxy to keep them on LOL

But I would hate to lose that, I really would, I want… desperately, to think better of people than what they show.

But look at history, you started with black people, it wasn’t 200 years before that one could be burned at the state for being a Protestant, or Catholic ( depending on where you were )

it goes back and back and back

But you could be right, we may have to wait for them to die off, my relatives were from the deep south, so you can imagine what I heard as a child, but the children of those same people, are supportive of equal rights for everyone, even same sex marrage.

What annoys me is the people that we are waiting to die off, are my age, that bothers me no end. It was my generation that was supposed to get past all this garbage, we failed, however when I look at my children ( now in their 30's and 40's ) and their friends, where we have failed we at least taught those values to the next generation, even if we could not live up to them ourselves.

I have kept young by keeping young people around me, and listening ( not waiting my turn to talk ) to what they are saying, and thinking about why they are saying that. Sometimes that takes some effort on my part… my opinions are pretty ingrained.

If you look at the polls,( by young I mean 35 and younger ) they have overwhelming support for same sex marriage.

It helps, I may be an old man ( well older anyway ) but I have kept an open mind.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184112
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
Proposition 8 won at the polls; that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
If that vote were held today it would fail in a landslide, and on the outside chance that the supreme court surprises me and chooses the wrong way, you will get to see that, as the removal of that will be on the next ballot.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184113
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>yaYaya, we all evolved from a puddle of crud. lol. If you knew anything about science and the odds of that happening you would change your tune.
A fundie talking about science...LOL.

I pass gas that knows more about odds than you do.
You are talking about odds after the fact.
That's like asking what are the odds Lou Gehrig would have died of Lou Gehrig's disease.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184114
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
Proposition 8 won at the polls; that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
No, dear, it just showed that people can vote against the constitution - and have it recinded and declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch of the government. that's their job, by the way.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184115
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I almost feel bad making fun of you Rose, I feel like I shouldn't pile on to what the rest of the world already does to you.
You don't have the 'nads to admit you made a mistake.
That's one thing that is pathetic about you.
Another is you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how little you think I matter.
And you searched through tens of thousands of posts to find a specific post I made.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184116
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't very bright are you?
The point was that you can have restrictive laws while not having an equal right's violation under the Constitution.
In the instance of the POTUS, the example used, not every US Citizen is eligible to hold said office. In the example, a naturalized US Citizen, whom is a citizen, is not treated as an equal to the Natural Born Citizen, as such they cannot hold the office of the President.
Apply the same logic as is applied by the likes of you an Rose
Can you make a post that doesn't mention me?
akpilot wrote:
among others to the same sex marriage issue, the previous example would be a violation of the equal rights provisions of the 14th Amendment, and as such Article II Sec 1 of the US Constitution is itself Unconstitutional.
What an interesting quandary?
Only to a simpleton like you.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184117
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

MsSoccerMom wrote:
<quoted text>thanks for proving you are an idiot. I noticed you left out any odds. That's kind of odd. When you factor in:
A. The requirements for a hospitable, life-sustaining world with…
B. The requirements for a hospitable, life-sustaining universe with…
C. The requirements for generating complex life from seeming nothingness (without getting into the actual complexity of the organisms involved which makes it all the worse)…
You arrive at
D. A number so vast that not only does it beggar the imagination, but any individual that isn’t moved to at least a very, very cautious atheism or a very curious agnosticism isn’t a terribly intelligent or honest person.
LOL. The irony is, we don't know what those odds are!
Could be that under "earth like" conditions the development and evolution of life is a certain as a ball falling if you drop it.

And we do know the creation myth in Genesis is just that, a myth. It's full of absurdities. So, while we don't know how life began, we do know it didn't begin *that* way.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184118
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to use epoxy to keep them on LOL
But I would hate to lose that, I really would, I want… desperately, to think better of people than what they show.
But look at history, you started with black people, it wasn’t 200 years before that one could be burned at the state for being a Protestant, or Catholic ( depending on where you were )
it goes back and back and back
But you could be right, we may have to wait for them to die off, my relatives were from the deep south, so you can imagine what I heard as a child, but the children of those same people, are supportive of equal rights for everyone, even same sex marrage.
What annoys me is the people that we are waiting to die off, are my age, that bothers me no end. It was my generation that was supposed to get past all this garbage, we failed, however when I look at my children ( now in their 30's and 40's ) and their friends, where we have failed we at least taught those values to the next generation, even if we could not live up to them ourselves.
I have kept young by keeping young people around me, and listening ( not waiting my turn to talk ) to what they are saying, and thinking about why they are saying that. Sometimes that takes some effort on my part… my opinions are pretty ingrained.
If you look at the polls,( by young I mean 35 and younger ) they have overwhelming support for same sex marriage.
It helps, I may be an old man ( well older anyway ) but I have kept an open mind.
hope does spring eternal....this thin thread of sanity that strings together generations and different regions of our country is stronger as the years go by, judging by the polling trends of the past few years. like you, i see the dividing line seems to be my generation - i was born in the early 60s and have watched a lot of tumultuous changes in america as she stretched for fairness & equality for all. i grew up in north east texas (bubbaville central, as i affectionately call it) and the grumblings were strong and loud when the desegregation laws came about. i can't recall sitting in a classroom that was segregated. there's even growing world awareness in that home town of mine - that started when they got cable television and CNN in the 80s in the community. LOL.
from what i understand from friends that still live in my old home town, things have changed even there (population at below 15k and is a farming community)...they're considerably more open minded and hearted than they were back in the 70s while i was attending high school. from what i gather, there's a number of younger adults and teens that are pretty "avant garde" living there....LOL. I'm sure the old guard is quite agog and atwitter with gossip..but for the most part they all kind of blend in and are accepted. it's far easier for a young person to be themselves now than it was when i was a teen. there's even a gay segment of the population there that's not harrassed by the masses - they live peacably with their neighbors. that's what amazes me and makes me so very proud of my home town. that's proof positive that change can occur, in as little as 30 yrs. don't get me wrong - there's no gay pride parades happening there, but at least my gay brothers and lesbian sisters don't have to fear being beaten or shot for being the way they are, unlike the years of my teen yrs.
hey, maybe i'm showing signs of life in my rose colored glasses. LOL

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184119
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that nature partakes in homosexuality is irrevelent to humans partaking in homosexuality. They do not have the same ability to reason as humans do. Many species eat their young. Does that mean it's natural to eat our kids?
YOU claimed homosexuality isn't natural.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184120
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dear, it just showed that people can vote against the constitution - and have it recinded and declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch of the government. that's their job, by the way.
Well said, what is shows is that we are not a straight democracy ( rule of the mob ) as it was in old Athens.

We are also a republic.

Mob rule has been tried in history, and it was terrible, politics was EVERYTHING, nothing had to be true, it only had to sound true, because if you could convince the masses of uneducated people, your idea became law. A jury might have 1000 people, and by simple vote, anyone in the society could be exiled, and was on a regular basis.

Straight Republic was also tried ( old Rome ) and that too had its terrible downside, corruption overshadowed everything.

We are not perfect as a democratic republic, but it is better than either of those two alone.

( it always makes me laugh that people that claim to be a republican, have no clue what it means to be a republic, and scream “democracy” but only when it suits them )

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184121
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

More than any other country,” writes Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon,“the United States has accepted the idea of no-fault divorce. From a Deseret News Editorial of July, 2012.

“More than any other country,” writes Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon,“the United States has accepted the idea of no-fault, no-responsibility divorce.”

“The United States appears unique among Western countries,” says Glendon,“in its relative carelessness about assuring either public or private responsibility for the economic casualties of divorce.”

Glendon’s acclaimed 1987 book,“Abortion and Divorce in Western Law,” explored how permissive standards for divorce undermined the ideal of marriage as a durable, commitment-laden, life-long institution and how discretionary and inconsistently enforced child support laws damaged children.

Twenty-five years later, the casualties of America’s permissive divorce laws continue to mount. In today’s Deseret News, Sara Israelsen-Hartley explores the high social costs associated with divorce and documents bold efforts underway to make divorce less permissive.

Undoubtedly, family dissolution is emotionally costly to the individuals involved. But University of Minnesota professor Bill Doherty notes,“There’s hardly any social problem that the government is involved in and spending a lot of money on that isn’t heavily affected by marriages not forming and marriages breaking up.”

Rethinking divorce law: recognizing personal, social costs associated with easy divorce

www.deseretnews.com/article/765589834/Rethink...

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184122
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.
Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.”
If things had worked out that way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
If a different sperm had fertilized each of the eggs that became you and I, we would not be here to post these messages. If our parents had had sex a moment earlier or later...you get the idea. And there is no reason to see divine intervention there.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184123
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Ooops, if things had not worked out that way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 160,721 - 160,740 of200,213
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 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 ]
•••