Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,188

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
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 – 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 don’t think any same sex couples are worried about not getting your applause.

Your applause isn’t the issue here, but a point of law.

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

Reading the judges’ 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 didn’t seem to know what to do with that request.

I don’t 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 – 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.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184903 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.
Not to mention this: "Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8—the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on “antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And that arguments against gay marriage are “nothing more than tautologies.”

And:“Proposition 8…enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”[Emphasis added.]

The “evidence” is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men’s and women’s “roles” were defined by their “gender.” Liberals would have us believe that this is more “settled science,” just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Other experts disagree with Walker’s view of marriage. But, a bunch of them that had been scheduled to testify withdrew because they feared for their personal safety. As for their chief expert witness, David Blankenhorn, Walker threw out his entire testimony as “inadmissible” and to be “given essentially no weight.”

According to liberal bloggers and commentators, Blankenhorn’s credibility disintegrated under seven hours of testimony; I wasn’t there, so perhaps that was the case. Walker ended up ruling out Blankenhorn as an “expert” witness because he, according to the judge,“lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of … factual assertions [by proponents of Proposition 8].”

According to Walker, one of the things that disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert opinion witness was his alleged failure to do original research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s puzzling for two reasons:

1. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of two important and best-selling books, including Fatherless in America. He has spent a lifetime studying marriage, fatherhood and family structure, is in demand as a speaker and—not that it matters—is thoughtful and not at all like the stereotype that many gay activists accuse their opponents of being. He, in essence, conducts his research and assembles knowledge by, for example, relying on studies from other experts. But for Walker, that’s not enough.

2. And yet, despite Walker’s perspective of Blankenhorn as something of an unqualified aggregator, the judge qualified as an expert someone from the other side whose “research” was remarkably like Blankenhorn’s. George Chauncey, the judge himself noted in his opinion, is a history professor specializing in “social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians.” While he has “authored or edited books on the subject of gay and lesbian history,” as Walker put it, he—like Blankenhorn—“relies on government records, interview, diaries, films and advertisements along with studies by other historians and scholars in conducting his research.”
I wonder how higher courts will view such discrepancies in Walker’s decision when the case is appealed.

From http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/the-fla...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184904 Mar 27, 2013
Blue Moon In Your Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
No he didn't you are a liar! Try again,I've read the transcripts meny times and he did NO such thing! Try again bumper sticker boy!
Read it, and weep...
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.
Not to mention this: "Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8—the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on “antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And that arguments against gay marriage are “nothing more than tautologies.”

And:“Proposition 8…enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”[Emphasis added.]

The “evidence” is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men’s and women’s “roles” were defined by their “gender.” Liberals would have us believe that this is more “settled science,” just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Other experts disagree with Walker’s view of marriage. But, a bunch of them that had been scheduled to testify withdrew because they feared for their personal safety. As for their chief expert witness, David Blankenhorn, Walker threw out his entire testimony as “inadmissible” and to be “given essentially no weight.”

According to liberal bloggers and commentators, Blankenhorn’s credibility disintegrated under seven hours of testimony; I wasn’t there, so perhaps that was the case. Walker ended up ruling out Blankenhorn as an “expert” witness because he, according to the judge,“lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of … factual assertions [by proponents of Proposition 8].”

According to Walker, one of the things that disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert opinion witness was his alleged failure to do original research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s puzzling for two reasons:

1. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of two important and best-selling books, including Fatherless in America. He has spent a lifetime studying marriage, fatherhood and family structure, is in demand as a speaker and—not that it matters—is thoughtful and not at all like the stereotype that many gay activists accuse their opponents of being. He, in essence, conducts his research and assembles knowledge by, for example, relying on studies from other experts. But for Walker, that’s not enough.

2. And yet, despite Walker’s perspective of Blankenhorn as something of an unqualified aggregator, the judge qualified as an expert someone from the other side whose “research” was remarkably like Blankenhorn’s. George Chauncey, the judge himself noted in his opinion, is a history professor specializing in “social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians.” While he has “authored or edited books on the subject of gay and lesbian history,” as Walker put it, he—like Blankenhorn—“relies on government records, interview, diaries, films and advertisements along with studies by other historians and scholars in conducting his research.”
I wonder how higher courts will view such discrepancies in Walker’s decision when the case is appealed.

From http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/the-fla...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184905 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Bottom line"? Pun intended? Simply because they occur does not mean they are equal. Would "homosexual intercourse" constitute "consummation" of the marital relationship?
LOL, not after they target and adulterate THAT definition next... When they are done, only SSM will be valid. We'll be the "faulty" ones...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184906 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
So am I, but many of the people here can only be happy if they make other people unhappy.
That is thier goal
No, it isn't. Don't put words into our mouths.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184907 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It has also been suggested that the far right immigrate to Afghanistan and join the Taliban
Religion is mandated, everyone has a gun, social customs are law upon pain of death, just as they like it
Yes, several times, you have suggested that we emigrate to Afghanistan. Funny. Why don't you guys move to another country, form your own country, where anything can fly, and the rest of us, who know better, can sit back and watch how long your "Libertine-istan" lasts....
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184908 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t want Atheism mandated, I want freedom for both those that believe in one of the billions of Gods man has dreamed up or not as they choose. Dissent is a good thing not a bad thing.
Nope not the place for me
but you really should check out the Taliban... you would fit right in
But, they ARE free to do as they wish. They wish to extend their rights past the acceptable point. Are you really that familiar with the Taliban that you are recruiting for them? Helping them to undermine America?

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
more section 8 housing coming soon 5 hr you are the problem 14
HemetHEMET: Food market's ex-owner convicted of... 8 hr Chris 6
2 females found dead on Girard St in Hemet (Nov '13) 8 hr Chris 57
Boy, Man Found Dead Inside Hemet Home 10 hr Sam 1
ugly women with ugly tattoos!!!!! (Oct '12) 10 hr Stupid asses 99
el toro markets busted! (Jul '13) 14 hr SMAR 44
less blks in hmt since ebola Wed Kuntakinta 3

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match

Hemet Jobs

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 ]