Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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.

Full Story
NAZI TAKEING OVER EVERY T

San Francisco, CA

#184254 Mar 23, 2013
IF THE WORLD IS ENDING AND NAZIS ARE GOING THROUGH EVERY TOWN WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH STOPPING NAZIS FROM TAKEING OVER

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184255 Mar 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
All marriage will ever be, from a legal perspective, is a contract.
Our government isnít in the God business, not in the religion business, not in the culture business.
Why does the government need to license marriage via contract? If it's nothing more than a contract as you say, why deny certain consenting adult relationships from entering into such a contract? Why does it matter who marries who, if its only a contract?
Our government is in the law business, and their view ( and recognition of ) marriage is only from a legal perspective.
it will always be officially - a piece of paper - form a legal perspective
If that is the case, why does a "piece of paper" matter to you or anyone else?
Now you have a club that wants to make it harder to divorce, go for it, make rules for you club, but donít expect others not of your club to be bound to your clubs rules.
A "club"? Like the Sons of Italy? What the heck are ya talking about Big D?
In all your ranting you have yet to explain why divorce is worse than murder.
Che? E' pazzo? What the heck in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, are you talking about? "Divorce worse than murder"?
Remember I donít care from a religious perspective, I donít care from a historical perspective, but from the legal perspective of government.
Legal perspective of what? Why adultery is still a crime on the books? Apparently it still matters to some state governments to maintain such a law.
For myself, my wife and I wanted to marry, and we have wanted to stay married as a symbol to one another of our continued commitment to one another. I know it is just a piece of paper to the government, but it means more to us, and I could care less what it means to some church down the street.
The Church down the street might feel the same way. Jesus loves you anyway.
Mr Anderson

Anderson, CA

#184256 Mar 23, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>and next let's battle for 3 people that love each other! Go andy.
do you have anything positive to add??

those sort of bigoted comments have no place here.
Mr Anderson

Anderson, CA

#184257 Mar 23, 2013
Earl wrote:
Let gays suffer the same misery as straight people! They think marriage is some wonderful experience that they will cherish forever! Wait till they find out it ain't what they think! You can live with someone for years, but that doesn't mean you would be better off married to them! I know people who have lived together for over 5 years, got married then divorced in less than a year! Gays will be cursing everyone for allowing same sex marriage!
im sure you took the time to look up the divorce rates among gay couples...they are well below the national average.

sort of like you....
Mr Anderson

Anderson, CA

#184258 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The state requires posterity and married couples produce children with better outcomes than children born out of wedlock. Better still, graduate high school, find a job and marry before having children. Tough love; marriage isn't a remedial course designed to make homosexuals feel normal.
I understand your support for oppressed minorities; it makes you feel like a good person to push for rewriting marriage law to be inclusive and egalitarian. We understand that and want you to be happy, not to violate the taboos of society. How you live is your business and our law is everyone's business.
However, all people are not equal, men and women differ. When we're dead we are all equal. In that ersatz equality manner, same sex marriage is like a culture of death.
Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......

mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.

same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death"....

i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184259 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Well VV, at least you shifted from your ad homoan attacks back to silly stupid logic.
You attempt to equate a direct, absolute desolate sterility to those rare heterosexual genetic or accidental exceptions.
Or even sillier, the consequence of age! I suppose you expect married couples to get divorced when they can no longer procreate too?
But the stupidest 'reasoning' is a couple who is fully capable of mutual procreation, choosing not to (for the time being, an option that usually changes) with a ss couple who is absolutely mutually desolate.
By your reasoning, any relationship qualifies for marriage. Moreover, marriage is so dumbed down, we might as well eliminate the term as meaningless.
The bottom line is that my analogy already exposed the silliness of your claim.
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Using your logic, an incestuous marriage should be legal because it can produce offspring. So can plural marriages. So can a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 13 year old girl.
The cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior is not my logic, it is simple fact. The 'cultural constraint' have already addressed the situations you list and more.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>But, hey, you're the one who keeps claiming that any couples who do not reproduce "are a direct defect of mating behavior. Hence, they do not 'equate' to marriage at the fundamental level."
Your words, not mine...
I claimed no such thing, you lie. Again.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>And I will not respond to your apple tree/walnut tree crap until you can make your point clear. Is the non-producing apple tree supposed to represent something? Is the non-producing walnut tree supposed to represent something? Is the walnut tree that ridiculously walks about gathering apples to hang on its branches supposed to represent something?
You're going to have to have to step outside of your asinine analogy and explain it to the rest of us.
You realize that if no on understands your analogy, it doesn't make you a genius don't you? It just means you suck at analogies.
Do you understand how stupid you look pretending to be stupid about something so simple. Most people would be embarrassed to be that silly.

The hilarious thing is, you opened the door with your very own analogy, so here, lets use that to 'help' your confusion;

A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.

And sillier still?

VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.

I was beginning to wonder if you enjoyed getting your ass kicked, and then I realized, you do enjoy abuse there! Sick!

Smirk.
Mr Anderson

Anderson, CA

#184260 Mar 23, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text> I doubt that history will judge him as the person who was "in the wrong." That would apply for World leaders not normal citizens. I didn't vote for the great Oblama, am I on the wrong side of history? Most likely I won't care if a history book writes that I didn't vote for him. Is Obama on the wrong side of history about fast and furious or Benghazi? Or his drone attacks on American citizens?
still hung up on bengazi?? are you bummed it hasnt gone anywhere?

tragic situation, however.....

Ill bet you were jumping up and down in horror over shock and awe?

NO??

more like jumping up and down in jubilation....

Im glad to be among those who were on the RIGHT side of that history...

we opposed that huge mistake from the start!!

ps: we dont know the history that you were voting for, and luckily, we wont ever find out what Romney would have done..

two wars, crashed economy, bad rethugs, no whitehouse!!
Rockers

La Puente, CA

#184261 Mar 23, 2013
Neither rain, sleet or hail will stop all those loud moutheed RNC, GOP, Republican and Tea Party hippoCrats.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184262 Mar 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to share that with all Americans, regardless of orientation, that they too can make it what they want it to be, and to the garbage can with any that donít want them to.
Does that include the nice fundamentalist Mormon family down the street who are engaged in a plural marriage family of consenting adults? So if the government grants the license, do they get to set the requirements for it?
I personally donít take my commitments lightly,
Nor do I.
however if I became an abuser, if I changed to be someone other than who I was when she married me, if I made her life miserable because of those changes, I would expect her to divorce me, in fact, I would be proud of her for doing so.
As would she, if the situation was reversed, yes?
All of my children are married ( save one... one daughter left to go, please send donations for the wedding ) and they too actively work to keep their marriage alive and fresh, and a living thing.
Marriage today, is stronger because of the ease of divorce, making divorce more difficult will only make marriage weaker.
Marriage today is WEAKER because of easer divorce. Should people be allowed to divorce because of abuse, infidelity, failure to provide financially, etc., absolutely!!!!! Legitimate reasons yes. Trivial reasons no. It cost society more, and government as well, when people divorce, and it has a negative impact on the children. Ya seem like a smart guy, so why is that hard to understand that government does better when men and women marry, stay together, and take care of each other and their children?
I think it helps people that divorce is not all that difficult, that they need to actively engage in their marriages, to keep them healthy, and not the "ah ha... now you married me and are stuck with me so I can be abusive"
[/QUOTE}

No, quite the contrary. If both parties know the cost of divorce, emotionally, socially, legally, financially, and the negative impact it has on their kids, making it just a bit harder, forces them to reconsder divorce, and maybe their respective husand or wife, is not that bad after all. The grass ain't always greener over the septic tank.

[QUOTE]
what is it that you are so afraid of? What is it that you want to do that your wife is likely to divorce you for?
Why do u assume my opinion is based on personal fear?
I did like your question though, it is a lot like the "why donít you become a murderer if you donít think there is a hell?" And the answer is, because this is my life, and I respect my life. I have me to wake up to every morning, and that is going to be someone I am proud to be.
Which question is that, that would lead you to compare it to, "why donít you become a murderer if you donít think there is a hell?"?

The second part sounds like someone has been watching Dr. Phil.
I worry when people ask questions like that, makes me think maybe I should be happy there is religion, because some people would be horrible human beings if they didnít have that threat.
Me... I am past the threat, I am a decent person because I want to be. I donít need punishment or reward to be a decent human being.
Wonderful!
I can tell you though. my marriage vow is more than the guy that marries someone and then becomes abusive because he knows he can rely on that piece of paper to keep him married.
Or that gal who can cheat on her husband, and get divorced, claiming, "no fault" even though she is at fault. Or the husband can do the same.
My vows are stronger, because they are a living choice, that I hold dear, not an excuse to become a jerk. I disagree, Marriage today, is stronger because of the ease of divorce, making divorce more difficult will only make marriage weaker
For you perhaps, society as a whole, no. "No fault" has been a disaster, especially for the kids.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184263 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any ...quire' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
<quoted text>
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.
Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!
Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;
First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.
Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.
See how simple that is?
The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married". You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".
Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to produce offspring.
And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.
I can see why you want to change the subject. Character would admit you failed on the points being discussed. If people used you as an example of gay behavior, they would think that homosexuality has negative character side effects...

Please go back to your 'farmer' analogy;

A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.

And sillier still?

VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.

Here are the the simple facts;

Our government and all other cultures have never bothered to distinguish between the small number of childless married people and those that do have children. Never been a problem. Still isn't.

That is a far cry from adding a duplicated half of marriage couple who are mutually desolate of procreation.

Additionally, your first sentence is a lie. Homosexuals clearly want to be equated with marriage and parenting in a futile effort to look normal.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184264 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Im sorry brian, but the state doesnt actually require marriages to produce anything......
mabey you should leave your religious beliefes in the closet, where they belong.
same sex marraige is far from a "culture of death"....
i think you truly need to remove your head from your arse to have a discussion without sounding like a mideval asshole!!
Here is an analogy from Veryverbose that may help your confusion;

A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.

And sillier still?

VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184265 Mar 23, 2013
Mr Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
im sure you took the time to look up the divorce rates among gay couples...they are well below the national average.
sort of like you....
Not true.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184267 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed, he/she is one confused freak. I wonder if itís mother wishes she would have aborted it?
Viciously hateful, don't you think?

Smile.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184268 Mar 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Youíre such a dummy. You really do have reading for comprehension issues donít you? I do not believe it is discriminatory to exclude non-natural born citizens from running for POTUS. Which is what I said, and you somehow comprehended the opposite. Furthermore, I do believe this parallel to be a red herring argument. Youíll get no further responses from me on the subject. And yes you are a bigot.
Comprehension problem? You're the one who said "yes"

Perhaps you didn't comprehend the question?

But since you now want to contradict your prevoous post with this one. You are now claiming it IS okay to treat one citizen different than another?

I guess you lied before when you said we couldn't have it both ways?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#184269 Mar 23, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also mind boggling. I think I need to find a 300mm-infinity zoom lens for my old Nikon 35mm SLR.
It certainly is.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184270 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Well VV, at least you shifted from your ad homoan attacks back to silly stupid logic.
You attempt to equate a direct, absolute desolate sterility to those rare heterosexual genetic or accidental exceptions.
Or even sillier, the consequence of age! I suppose you expect married couples to get divorced when they can no longer procreate too?
But the stupidest 'reasoning' is a couple who is fully capable of mutual procreation, choosing not to (for the time being, an option that usually changes) with a ss couple who is absolutely mutually desolate.
By your reasoning, any relationship qualifies for marriage. Moreover, marriage is so dumbed down, we might as well eliminate the term as meaningless.
The bottom line is that my analogy already exposed the silliness of your claim.
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
<quoted text>
The cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior is not my logic, it is simple fact. The 'cultural constraint' have already addressed the situations you list and more.
<quoted text>
I claimed no such thing, you lie. Again.
<quoted text>
Do you understand how stupid you look pretending to be stupid about something so simple. Most people would be embarrassed to be that silly.
The hilarious thing is, you opened the door with your very own analogy, so here, lets use that to 'help' your confusion;
A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.
And sillier still?
VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.
I was beginning to wonder if you enjoyed getting your ass kicked, and then I realized, you do enjoy abuse there! Sick!
Smirk.
My GOD you make absolutely no sense...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184271 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any ...quire' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
<quoted text>
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.
Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!
Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;
First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.
Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.
See how simple that is?
The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I can see why you want to change the subject. Character would admit you failed on the points being discussed. If people used you as an example of gay behavior, they would think that homosexuality has negative character side effects...
Please go back to your 'farmer' analogy;
A farmer who produces.
A farmer who doesn't produce because of age, disability or choice.
VV who never produces claiming to be a farmer.
VV who buys farm produce and claims to be a farmer.
And sillier still?
VV demands to be called a farmer too because the government doesn't demand that farmers farm.
Here are the the simple facts;
Our government and all other cultures have never bothered to distinguish between the small number of childless married people and those that do have children. Never been a problem. Still isn't.
That is a far cry from adding a duplicated half of marriage couple who are mutually desolate of procreation.
Additionally, your first sentence is a lie. Homosexuals clearly want to be equated with marriage and parenting in a futile effort to look normal.
Smile.
Fights against Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are about "marriage", not "parenting".

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184272 Mar 23, 2013
Funny.

You are almost speechless!

Snicker.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184273 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My GOD you make absolutely no sense...
KM is making sense, its written in opposite sex-ese, that might be why you're having trouble understanding.:)

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184274 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true.
Smile.
Andy lies a lot, I'm sure it had something to do with why he was gone so long. On the pot topic he claims pot cures cancer and we should stop using chemo, but he doesn't have a link to back him up. what a surprise...lol

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
San JacintoUnlock parks, San Jacinto residents say 1 hr mary 2
Debate: Marijuana - Winchester, CA (Sep '10) 14 hr Pink 11
corruption with Riverside county CPS Fri SAD BUT TRUE 11
How come all Hemet sex offenders addresses aren... (Dec '08) Thu lARRY mILLER9626 12
Review: R G Deck Coatings Inc Thu Annonymous 1
San Jacinto Woman Accused of Stabbing Boyfriend... Dec 24 lupita garcia 1
One of Two Suspects Arrested in Jack-in-the-Box... Dec 23 Amazed 12

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:14 pm PST