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
160,961 - 160,980 of 200,590 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184370 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
State sponsored segregation was legal throughout most of the country; particularly in the south, until the judicial branch of the federal government (i.e. The Supreme Court) found these laws unconstitutional.
As well they should.
If left up to the individual states and their legislators, who knows how long, if ever, these laws would have remained in place.
This is why the Fourteenth Amendment is so important in determining the rights of U.S. citizens. States and their residents CANNOT determine the rights of U.S. citizens.
Yesssss...however other matters such as licensing of marriage, drivers, gun owners, etc. are left to the states to decide. Simply because states have generally honored marriages performed in other states in the past, doesn't mean they are constitutionally bound to do so.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184371 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The "Gold Standard" is a stable, supportive, loving home. Whether it's parented by biological parents or not.
Kids can hope for a good biological parents, but it's just not always available.
What a crock of BS.

The gold standard is stable, supportive, loving biological parents. They will trump any other default situation every time.

When that gold standard is not available, the results are always severely diminished.

Over the years, my wife and I fostered over 10 children. In every case, our goal was to restore them to their mother and father. That was the desire of the children and their parents.

How many children have you fostered VV?

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184372 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the compelling reason...
1.) Scientists and the Supreme Court have determined that homosexuality is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality. It is no worse than heterosexual behavior and no better than heterosexual behavior. It is equal. Like it or not, those are the facts based on scientific findings and legal findings in this country.
The fact that homosexuality, along with bisexuality, "...is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality.", doesn't mean it equal to, or performs the same function as, heterosexuality. Therein lies the difference.
2.) Heterosexual relationships are granted the right, protection, and privileges of marriage. Homosexual relationships are not granted these things.
Opposite sex relationships are granted te rights, protections, and privileges of marriage. Same sex, except in a few states, relationships, are not.
3.) The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Marriage is a province of the state.
4.) So, if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are both supposed to be equal under the law; and heterosexual relationships are given more rights and protections via marriage than homosexual relationships; and the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law; then THERE IS A COMPELLING reason to give homosexual relationships THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual relationships.
As long as both relationships are of the opposite sex, the same rights will be granted.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184373 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock of BS.
The gold standard is stable, supportive, loving biological parents. They will trump any other default situation every time.
When that gold standard is not available, the results are always severely diminished.
Over the years, my wife and I fostered over 10 children. In every case, our goal was to restore them to their mother and father. That was the desire of the children and their parents.
How many children have you fostered VV?
Smile.
I like the way you put that KM, "our goal was to restore them to their mother and father". Puts things in perspective.Thanks
Some Never Came Home

Beacon, NY

#184374 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that homosexuality, along with bisexuality, "...is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality.", doesn't mean it equal to, or performs the same function as, heterosexuality. Therein lies the difference.
<quoted text>
Opposite sex relationships are granted te rights, protections, and privileges of marriage. Same sex, except in a few states, relationships, are not.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a province of the state.
<quoted text>
As long as both relationships are of the opposite sex, the same rights will be granted.
Marriage is a Provence of the state? Well then perhaps you should inform the Supreme court of that fact! LOL,Write them a letter or better yet call and let them know! I'm sure they will stop their deliberations on the subject as soon as you let them know!
Fritz

Oklahoma City, OK

#184375 Mar 24, 2013
Peer reviewed studies have concluded the average life expectancy of a male queer is a mere 42 years, just one more reason to say NO to homosex!!!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184376 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
if you choose to ignore mainstream polls from the likes of "ABC news and the washington post??
mabey you could produce other information that backs up your claim that america is actually WAY more bigoted about gay marraige than ALL these recent mainstream polls suggest.
you dont have to accept anything......
but the rest of the society around you is on its way accepting gay marraige.
ps: let me guess?? you were railing against all those polls that complealt NAILED the results(state by state) of the 2012 presidential election.
you and mitt and rove were dead wrong...
Railing? Good lord, no. I already knew who was going to win. As I know who will be our next president, after we are done with Obammy. We will get another 8 years of Bush. Jeb Bush. the same one that foisted his faulty brother on us, in the election that signaled the end of America, as we had known it. The election that showed us that our election process was controlled and owned. The Bushes have been running this country for almost a century, now. If you wish to learn about our true masters, Google "Bush Crime Family" and read about the war criminal Prescott Bush, who actually financed the Third Reich. Read about who it was that actually shot President Reagan(Old family friend of the Bushes, none other than the Hinckley family, of Lubbock, Texas). Who stood to benefit from his death? Old Papa Bush...Too bad for him that it failed...Never mind, he got what he wanted later on.
I have tested the theory that the majority of Americans are behind SSM by utilizing real world testing methods, namely, using my CB radio in my semi, and by actually asking people on the street. Field testing has shown me the truth of the matter, and the truth is that most Americans do not care, one way or the other. Of those that DO care, most are against it. And I have been scoffed at, by your crowd for actually testing these claims of yours. Silly me, for putting it to the test, I have been asked about: Documentation, Peer Reviews, Error Ratios, Etc... Silly things that we all know aren't in existence from my field study. All in the attempt to poo-poo my results. ABC News and The Washington Post are all part of the media propaganda circuit that is used to feed us with the drivel that they want to shove down our throats. I believe what I see, and hear, out in the world.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184377 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
there is no "RIGHT" to deny others their rights.....
that is why we dont vote on minorty rights...
why dont you look it up??
or are you like riccardo??
who wont venture out of the right wing media drome to use adult search engines to do adult like research...
Neither is there a requirement to extend rights to an invalid group.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184378 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
I just feel sorry for them, because the ENTIRE world is going the other way in SO many ways.
most of them dont realize just how much they owe to this capitalist society and all the socialist type infrastructure paid for, by progressive taxation on the rich(up to 90%)
most of them dont know what socialist, they actaully are!!
in truth?? AS SOON as anyone leaves their property, they are using socialism..
I've already taught Chongo that we are a Socialist country.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184379 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That decision was based on sexual privacy. It made no assertion of " a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality."
Nor has science. In fact, the opposite is true. Obviously.
The basis of your assertions crumbles without #1.
Smile.
Can you name one professional scientific organization, one medical organization, or one legal organization that has determined that homosexuality is a medical disorder or that is in any way unequal to a heterosexual relationship?

Waiting...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184380 Mar 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's it..... all the polling businesses are frauds. Mass mailings are the only valid form of gathering statistics. Yeah, you went to college..... sure you did.
I'm glad that you have finally seen things my way.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184381 Mar 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the compelling reason...
1.) Scientists and the Supreme Court have determined that homosexuality is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality. It is no worse than heterosexual behavior and no better than heterosexual behavior. It is equal. Like it or not, those are the facts based on scientific findings and legal findings in this country.
2.) Heterosexual relationships are granted the right, protection, and privileges of marriage. Homosexual relationships are not granted these things.
3.) The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
4.) So, if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are both supposed to be equal under the law; and heterosexual relationships are given more rights and protections via marriage than homosexual relationships; and the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law; then THERE IS A COMPELLING reason to give homosexual relationships THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual relationships.
Word games. It may very well be that homosexuality is considered "normal and legal", but it is not equal to heterosexuality.
"...the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law;..." protection of rights that guarantee that the government shall not interfere with our abilities to function as free citizens. It does not have any authority to decree that we view homosexuality as normal and acceptable. You are attempting to use the 14th Amendment to legislate morality.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184382 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. There will always be situations where the bio parents cannot, or choose not, to care for their children. So what's your point?
<quoted text>
True, but children will do better in any other stable home environment .
<quoted text>
The biological connection should not be severed unless there is legitimate reason for doing so. Even gay people have a mom and dad.
<quoted text>
True
His point is to use a heavily biased comparison to show how gays can viewed as superior. However, if both groups of parents are shown to be equal in their care and affection, then the natural, biological parents will raise a happier, more stable child.
Charles

Oklahoma City, OK

#184383 Mar 24, 2013
Fritz wrote:
Peer reviewed studies have concluded the average life expectancy of a male queer is a mere 42 years, just one more reason to say NO to homosex!!!
My cousin, who is a doctor and used to be gay, told me the same thing...that's why he decided to stop being gay.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184384 Mar 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That decision was based on sexual privacy. It made no assertion of " a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality."
Nor has science. In fact, the opposite is true. Obviously.
The basis of your assertions crumbles without #1.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name one professional scientific organization, one medical organization, or one legal organization that has determined that homosexuality is a medical disorder or that is in any way unequal to a heterosexual relationship?
Waiting...
So you are admitting you lied about science and the law validating
'a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality'?

You made the claim 'honey'.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184385 Mar 24, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have any problem with polygamy.
Very good. Consistent.
I only suggested utah, bcause you might feel more at home amomgst others who are practicing the same sort of thing...
Thanks for the travel tip, but I prefer to stay among those who practice monogamous conjugal marriage.
sort of like(and equal to) when the castro or greewich village became hot spots...
Hmmmmm.....plural marriage goes back father than that.
mabey the law proibiting polygamy is wrong??
yet, Im not the one to make that call....(a voter)
the other obstacle to having full civil rights for polygamists is public opinion.
Still consistent, and practical .....very good.
but then again, public opinion was squarely against same sex marraige just a generation ago.
in the early 60's,
Ahhhhhhhh....but if one goes back to NYC in the '60's....the 1860's one finds interracial marriages legally recorded. Not sure ifvtge same could be said of same sex marriage at that time and place.
it was the same deal with interacial marraige....and now look at how humdrum that has become.
mabey it is time to make your case to the high court!!
Smarter people than I are already doing that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184386 Mar 24, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a Provence of the state? Well then perhaps you should inform the Supreme courtfedert fact! LOL,Write them a letter or better yet call and let them know! I'm sure they will stop their deliberations on the subject as soon as you let them know!
For the most part it is. The feds don't issue licenses, they recognize them, but not issue them. The have dealt with marriage issues on federal constitutional grounds, but beyond that, its up to the states.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184387 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
For the most part it is. The feds don't issue licenses, they recognize them, but not issue them. The have dealt with marriage issues on federal constitutional grounds, but beyond that, its up to the states.
for now... if DOMA falls, any challenge to the states that ban them will be easily overturned on constitutional grounds

You are on the wrong side of right and wrong, and certainly on the wrong side of history
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184389 Mar 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good. Consistent.
<quoted text>
Thanks for the travel tip, but I prefer to stay among those who practice monogamous conjugal marriage.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm.....plural marriage goes back father than that.
<quoted text>
Still consistent, and practical .....very good.
<quoted text>
Ahhhhhhhh....but if one goes back to NYC in the '60's....the 1860's one finds interracial marriages legally recorded. Not sure ifvtge same could be said of same sex marriage at that time and place.
<quoted text>
Smarter people than I are already doing that.
of course plural marriage goes back a long ways.

the mormons have been around for well over a century..
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

#184391 Mar 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
for now... if DOMA falls, any challenge to the states that ban them will be easily overturned on constitutional grounds
You are on the wrong side of right and wrong, and certainly on the wrong side of history
except that the rights of the minorities cannot be decided by the majority.......

that is what this case is all ABOUT!!!

look at the bigoted steps NC has taken with that 'well screw ya with 'states rights" arguement.........

rights like marraige, should be universal through out our nation.

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) 1 hr Go aways 5,004
Riverside County:Tap Water Taste and Smell Unpl... 2 hr james marple 50
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 hr lazy posts 15,963
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) 16 hr 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) Thu Chris 20
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at August 30 at 2:18PM PDT

•••

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 ]
•••