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
THE LONE WORKER

Bellevue, WA

#184883 Mar 27, 2013
It Is a Conspiracy wrote:
<quoted text>
If some people, straight or gay, get married for companionship or money, which happens all the time, then should they not be allowed to get married?
Can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines that gay parenting is somehow harmful to children? I think not.
DIviation from the normal is bad for the whole nation. Perverts will eventually destroy what is sacred and true and good. It is hurtful to teach children that anything is OK sexually.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184884 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is marriage, inclusive of both in the eyes of the law, equal in the eyes of the law,
Yet not every aspect of marital jurisprudence applies to SSM, either entering it or exiting it.
embracing one does not mean hatred for the other.
Agreed
Love can be like a candle, you can light many candles from one, and none of them diminish the light from the candle they were lit from
That's a nice.
As I am having Italian tonight I may have a little wineÖ I am a cab man, I like the depth and complexity of a good Cab, I know Pinot Noir is ( or was ) in vogue, but to me, it is still the Cabernet
See.....you're not such a bad guy after all...even with all your pontificating from on high.:)

Buon Appetito. Mangia.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184885 Mar 27, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
what exactly does evolutionary design have to do with someones sexual preference??
..... our race has been expanding rapidly during the industrial age......why would a small percentage of the population being gay, matter for the over all survival of our race.
BTW: we have what is called "frozen sperm"
and frozen eggs...
so really,in throery, we wouldnt actually need marriage between a man and a women to survive as a race...
you are way out in right feild...
"Sexual preference" is no reason to covet a title which you do not rate. Being gay doesn't matter. Being gay and calling yourself "married" is a different matter. Capisce? In theory, we can legislate ourselves right out of existence, m'kay? Don't be silly...
It Is a Conspiracy

Anonymous Proxy

#184886 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
if a man and a woman, one straight one gay/bi marry for the same reasons you posted, should they be allowed to marry?
<quoted text>
Can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines children should not be raised by THEIR OWN married biological mother and father in a stable home?
Sure, why shouldn't a gay person and a straight person be able to get married? We don't asked people about their sexual orientation when they get married.

And, you didn't answer the question: can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines that gay parenting is somehow
harmful to children?

Courts take away parental rights all the time. One's sexual orientation really has nothing to do with it. It's one conduct as a parent that is dispositive.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184887 Mar 27, 2013
Honey Boo Boo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mama says you are one of them homo-sexuals that everyone talks about.
She says you are evil.
Are you an evil homo-sexual, Mister Randy??
Let me see......If you have read any of my posts, and still have to ask that question, to which the answer is "No", then you are ignorant. Hope that helped you out...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184888 Mar 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, the conclusion is all but settled. The key word scientists use is 'normally'. You can deny the inevitable fact that homosexuality is an abnormal genetic mistake. You already deny the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex. You already deny redumbant genders are distinct from diverse gendered couples, no surprise...
Perhaps, you might find a scientific article that says what you are saying? I've posted articles of what they are.
Smile.
"All but settled"?!? Are you kidding me?!? Show me one scientist who has said this. Bring me one serious, scholarly article that implies this.

Scientists have discussed these issues ON PAPER! They've not even tried to show how this works on lab rats or any other test subjects at this point. No laboratory has started a project to prove it that we know of.

This is a THEORY. It is not FACT. It is not "all but settled".

Good GOD, you REALLY missed out on the scientific method when you were in school.

Here's a refresher's course:

Scientific Method Step 1: Ask a Question (Why are their gay people?)

Scientific Method Step 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research (Not all people are gay, there must be a reason for this)

Scientific Method Step 3: Propose a Hypothesis (based on information gathered from reading other research, perhaps epigenetics or some other biological inheritance related process that would explain why people are gay)**by the way, this is as far as scientists have gotten with regards to determining if epigenetics play a role**

Scientific Method Step 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis (it's at this point a scientist would design a LABORATORY EXPERIMENT to see if epigenetics do play a role in homosexuality)

Scientific Method Step 5: Test the Hypothesis (scientists would run their experiment and record the results)

Scientific Method Step 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis (based on the results of the experiment, the scientists would either accept their hypothesis that epigenetics play a role in homosexuality or they would not)

Sorry to have to publicly school you on basic, grade school science, but your blatant lack of scientific knowledge makes it necessary.
It Is a Conspiracy

Anonymous Proxy

#184889 Mar 27, 2013
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>DIviation from the normal is bad for the whole nation. Perverts will eventually destroy what is sacred and true and good. It is hurtful to teach children that anything is OK sexually.
Think about what you just wrote" "it is hurtful to teach children that anything is OK sexually." Well, how did you get here? Was it not OK for your parents to have sex? Do you think that every time a married couple has sex that couple is trying to procreate?

The internet is full of idiots. Wow.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184890 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually homosexuals can marry in every state in the union, and have their marriage valid in all fifty states. What is being asked is that marriage redefined, from a legally recognized exclusive union of husband AND wife, to one of "spouses for life, regardless of gender composition".
since the judges used the terminology of "redefine" i'll grant you that. HOWEVER, they also conceded that homosexuals are barred (walled off) from enjoying the same fundamental right of marriage as heterosexuals.

so, no, homosexuals cannot marry a member of the same sex and have that legal union recognized in all 50 states as the laws are currently written. however, from the looks of things, if you read the transcripts, that's going to change. DOMA looks pretty much an over and done deal - the case brought before SCOTUS today dealt with a widow's claim of being forced by the irs to pay inheretance taxes on property she and her legally married female spouse shared.

however you may feel about same sex marriage will not stop the judges from changing the laws regarding same sex marriage. you may dislike their ruling. you may disagree with their ruling. but the laws will be what they will be.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184891 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Alcoholism, unlike homosexuality, impacts a person's ability to function in society.
Homosexuals hold jobs, have families, go on vacations, go to church, and live happy and productive lives.
By its very definition, an alcoholic is someone who experiences consequences as a result of overindulgence. These may be medical, legal, social (family problems, job loss, etc.), psychological. An alcoholic cannot function due to their use.
You can find "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol dependence" in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (DSM), which lists psychiatric disorders. You can also find it in the "International Classification of Diseases" (ICD), which lists medical conditions.
You will not find homosexuality listed in either of these internationally recognized listings of disorders and diseases.
Aren't you splitting hairs, now? Any alcoholic will tell you that it is their right to be an alcoholic, and many also live happy, productive lives. This doesn't make the rest of us any more likely to applaud their choices.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184892 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
..... Did say it wasn't a proper relationship upon which which to bestow the title of "Marriage". Thank you for clouding the issue, but it was unnecessary, and set straight.
well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. won't try to change it, either.

but, it appears the judges don't agree with you in either Prop 8 or DOMA.

and that's what the issues surround. the legalities, the public secular laws surrounding marriage.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184893 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Many, many scientists--people who are much smarter than you or I--I have determined after years of study and thorough observation that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of sexual orientation.
Who, exactly, are YOU to refute their findings?
Do you have an advanced degree in medicine, psychology, pediatrics, sociology, biology, or any other physical/mental health sciences?
You, like Kimare, are just some guy with an OPINION.
Why is it that you will accept all other aspects of medicine (I assume you go to a doctor on occassion), but are unwilling to accept their conclusions that homosexuality is normal?
How many times have you heard about a homosexual falling ill simply because he/she is homosexual?
I'm not talking about AIDS or any other STD that impacts BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals.
I'm talking about a person who cannot function in society due to their being attracted to a member of the same gender?
Granted, there are countries and communities where being homosexual is difficult because the community has MORAL, not scientific, objections homosexuality.
You need to get it through your head that homosexuality has been here since the beginning of mankind and will be here long after you or I are gone. To pretend that it is something that can be cured or that it will go away simply because YOU disagree with it is childish. It's a form of magical thinking.
The sooner you come to peace with this FACT, the happier you will be.
And, as I am sure that you have noticed, I am not saying that homosexuality should be outlawed or abolished. It's your choice to make, not mine. I am against lowering the bar to allow any old pairing off of a duo to lay claim to an old and well-respected title. I am also against "Operation Amnesty", which allows any illegal alien to lay claim to the title of "American". It's the same principle at work, as far as I am concerned.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184894 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do haters of monogamous opposie sex marriage, ignore the fact that marriage is a sexual union of husband and wife?
<quoted text>
Why do they feel compelled to blur the distinctions between different types of sexual behavior?
<quoted text>
Yes they do, and that is understandable. However that doesn't all thing are equal, or serve the same function. Distinctions can be, and are made.
Marriage, at its core, in the larger sense, is a sexual union of a male and female. Granted there will always be some individual marriages that are not sexual, either by choice or physical obstacles, but that doesn't change the nature of marriage itself. Societies throughout human history have recognized this. That's why KiMare points to it a a constraint on evolutionary mating. Human reproduction is sexual. That's probably why SSM, despite some scattered historical examples, and the presence of same sex sexual behavior in various cultures, never truly took root,certainy not in western civilization. If it had, there'd be no need for this debate. SSM would have already developed, and would exist, alongside of both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage.
Oh my GOSH! Enough with the evolution and reproduction already! We get it! You guys make babies! Big deal! Is that how you see your wife--a baby factory? Do you not love her? Do you not see her as a friend?

Is she just supposed to spit out child after child for as long as her body is fertile?

I forget which comic said this, but it makes a good point... "It's a womb, not a clown car!"

There are over 7 BILLION people on this planet. As Judge Judy likes to point out to 19 year old girls who have 3 children and another on the way, "That's enough!"

Being married is not singularly about popping out children. Why is it that you guys do not understand this?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184895 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) First off you try to equate the terms "sexual intercourse" and "coitus". They are not the same words.
"Sexual intercourse" takes place between two people of any gender. Do you deny that same-gender couples have sexual intercourse? I don't think you do.
Same sex couples are sexually intimate with each other, but due to lack of corresponding genetilia, do not engage in coitus.

Definitions and stimulation factors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...
Sexual intercourse is also known as copulation, coitus or coition; coitus is derived from the Latin word coitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together" and is usually defined as penile-vaginal penetration.[3][29][30][31] Penetration by the hardened, erect penis is additionally known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis (Latin for "insertion of the penis").[32] Copulation, although usually used to describe the mating process of non-human animals, is defined as "the transfer of the sperm from male to female" or "the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman".[33][34] As such, common vernacular and research often limit sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration, with virginity loss being predicated on the activity,[9][10][19][20] while the term sex and the phrase "having sex" commonly mean any sexual activity Ė penetrative and non-penetrative.[9][14][35] The World Health Organization states that non-English languages and cultures use different terms for sexual activity, with slightly different meanings.[14]
"Coitus" very specifically refers to the "sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (from the on line dictionary "Farflex" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coitus ).
Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. What did he mean by "sex"?
You may think I'm splitting hairs. But it's important for you to understand that there is a very distinct difference.
2.) Marriage licenses in states that recognize same-gender marriage have removed gender and replaced it with "person" or "applicant".
[QUOTE]

In other words the have redefined it.

[QUOTE]
3.) You don't have to explain all of the various sexual acts. We're all adults.
Whew...that's a relief...I was worried there for a moment.:)
4.) I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful.
No I. Thanks...grazie.
I just wanted to paint the picture of the police busting down a couple's door and forcing them into divorce court, because word had gotten out that they had never consummated their marriage.
No one is advocating that VV, nor am I. However, as it is legally permissible in certain states, a person can have their marriage annulled for failure to consummate. It simply illustrates that not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence in gender neutral.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184896 Mar 27, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
'perfectly intergrated"
really??
last time i checked, the divorce rate among straights was WAY higher than that for same sex couples.
and somehow I doubt you are for
"diversity" in marraige.
You may have missed this very important detail. Chongo misses it all the time. There are more straights, making for larger percentages, in EVERY arena. D-ohhh....
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184897 Mar 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Judge Walker excluded evidence and witnesses; that's why he misruled. The US Supreme Court has reviewed a state's right to redefine marriage as one man and one woman in Baker v Nelson; that stands as precedent.
Yes, this upsets their applecart: "In the case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent."
So, it didn't really happen, as far as they're concerned... Just give them their yum-yums...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184898 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you splitting hairs, now? Any alcoholic will tell you that it is their right to be an alcoholic, and many also live happy, productive lives. This doesn't make the rest of us any more likely to applaud their choices.
Well, it is entirely legal to be an alcoholic. There's no law against it.

And by its very definition in medicine and psychiatry, you CANNOT be an alcoholic and live a happy and productive life.

A person who drinks is not an alcoholic. A person whose drinking interfers with his/her family, work, or community life; or a person who has repeated legal or medical issues related to uncontrolable alcohol use is an alcoholic.

There is not such thing as a "functioning alcoholic". It's an oxymoron, like the term "peace missile". It just doesn't make sense.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184899 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you splitting hairs, now? Any alcoholic will tell you that it is their right to be an alcoholic, and many also live happy, productive lives. This doesn't make the rest of us any more likely to applaud their choices.
I donít think any same sex couples are worried about not getting your applause.

Your applause isnít the issue here, but a point of law.

Your approval or applause is not needed for anyone to marry.

Reading the judgesí comments on DOMA sure shed some light

with DMOA it is more clear

There are some 120,000 legally married same sex couples in the US today. The Judges asked the lawyers for a list of reasons those legally married people should not receive the same federal benefits and protections that any other legally married couple has.

No list appeared, the lawyers didnít seem to know what to do with that request.

I donít think DOMA can survive the events today
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184900 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have missed this very important detail. Chongo misses it all the time. There are more straights, making for larger percentages, in EVERY arena. D-ohhh....
and a majority of those straight people support same sex marriage, I am one of them

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184901 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
since the judges used the terminology of "redefine" i'll grant you that.
Whoa H&M....was that an admission from the Team Rainbow, that SSM redefines marriage? Hallelujah...praise The Lord.......just teasing, but thanks none the less.
HOWEVER, they also conceded that homosexuals are barred (walled off) from enjoying the same fundamental right of marriage as heterosexuals.
Hmmmmmm.....the problem with that is the reality of mixed orientation marriages, including those who truly choose to marry, or stay together by choice.
so, no, homosexuals cannot marry a member of the same sex and have that legal union recognized in all 50 states as the laws are currently written. however, from the looks of things,
That requires first redefining the legal definition of marriage.
if you read the transcripts, that's going to change. DOMA looks pretty much an over and done deal - the case brought before SCOTUS today dealt with a widow's claim of being forced by the irs to pay inheretance taxes on property she and her legally married female spouse shared.
It may, or may not, or it may be a mixed ruling.
however you may feel about same sex marriage will not stop the judges from changing the laws regarding same sex marriage. you may dislike their ruling. you may disagree with their ruling. but the laws will be what they will be.
That may happen, or they may allow the states to choose to regulate marriage as they see fit, even creating civil unions for SSCs, which a number of states have done. Would a CU suffice, if the Feds treated it as marriage with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, they extend to marriage? What is your opinion on that?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184902 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex couples are sexually intimate with each other, but due to lack of corresponding genetilia, do not engage in coitus.
Definitions and stimulation factors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...
Sexual intercourse is also known as copulation, coitus or coition; coitus is derived from the Latin word coitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together" and is usually defined as penile-vaginal penetration.[3][29][30][31] Penetration by the hardened, erect penis is additionally known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis (Latin for "insertion of the penis").[32] Copulation, although usually used to describe the mating process of non-human animals, is defined as "the transfer of the sperm from male to female" or "the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman".[33][34] As such, common vernacular and research often limit sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration, with virginity loss being predicated on the activity,[9][10][19][20] while the term sex and the phrase "having sex" commonly mean any sexual activity Ė penetrative and non-penetrative.[9][14][35] The World Health Organization states that non-English languages and cultures use different terms for sexual activity, with slightly different meanings.[14]
<quoted text>
Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. What did he mean by "sex"?
<quoted text>
Whew...that's a relief...I was worried there for a moment.:)
<quoted text>
No I. Thanks...grazie.
<quoted text>
No one is advocating that VV, nor am I. However, as it is legally permissible in certain states, a person can have their marriage annulled for failure to consummate. It simply illustrates that not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence in gender neutral.
Only men and women can engage in coitus. I FULLY understand that.

But "consummation of marriage" DOES NOT REQUIRE "Coitus". It requires "sexual intercourse". And sexual intercourse can be any variety of sexual acts between two people--opposite sex or same sex.

That's the only point I'm try to make.

It seems like you're trying to say that gay people can never be legally married because they cannot engage in coitus. And I just haven't seen any laws where "coitus" is required. A guy who has had his penis shot off in war would not be able to engage in coitus. A transgender male who has had "the big operation" and now has a penis COULD engage in coitus.

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
corruption with Riverside county CPS 7 hr 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
San JacintoUnlock parks, San Jacinto residents say Dec 22 SJskin 1
Water main Break Shadow Mountain Way Dec 22 hemetone 2

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 6:53 am PST