Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201820 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185507 Mar 29, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not asking to have more than 2 persons in a marriage
You may not be, but others, polygamists, would like to.
or to marry my cousin or an animal
You can in some states, your cousin, not an animal.
. You are avoiding the issue and expanding it to things that do not apply.
Ahhhhh...but they do. You wish to redefine the legal definition of marriage for your particular desires/needs/situation. I wish it not be redefined.
Interracial marriage was protested against 40 years ago look how dumb those people look now.
First, the protest was an effort to keep certain races apart, prevent micengenation of the race, and maintain white supremacy.

Second there are more than two races, and a person can be a product of multiple races.

Third, interracial marriages were legal in different parts of the country at different times. The bans only banned certain racial combinations, not all.

Last. There are only two sexes, both are needed to make more.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185508 Mar 29, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I do not think that all of you hate me, and I do not hate you. I am adamant that some things be left as they have always been, and I am not referring to slavery or the subjugation of women. I believe that marriage is too old, and traditional, an institution to have it be changed now. And that does not sound childish, I have said the same thing, as well, that neither side is above it. I am truly sorry to hear that story of your parents, and if i had any gay kids, i would love them just the same, although i would still be adamant about marriage being a singular institution, reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. I have had many gay friends over the years, and many religious friends, as well, and have never had any problems with any of them when involved in debates about the merits and demerits of our respective sides (which has been enhanced with the Christians, as I am a witch,(and a believer in balance) not "Wiccan", the new, trendy word for it). By all means, live your lives, I am not against that, I am against changing the meaning of marriage to include any pairing off of a couple, to obtain rights which can be had through a properly drawn up legal document. It's no more hate, than it is hate to tell a child that it cannot have a cookie. You might not believe this, but I DO see things from your perspective, but, as with so many haters in here, on both sides, hate and insults are the coin of the realm. And your side applauds the insults of the one I call Chongo, they never chide the haters for hurting the cause, but I have done so against my side and yours, as idiots are fair game.
I hear you, Randy... I don't hate you either. I don't even know you.

I'm happy that you have gay friends. And I'm also glad to hear that you would love a gay child. That sounds wonderful.

But I do want you to know that it isn't possible to have all of the rights and protections of marriage by simply drawing up the right paperwork.

If I had a partner right now (I'm single) and he were to come down with cancer; even though I have family medical leave built up, I can't use it to take care of him. A married person can, but I can't.

If I were older and I had a partner and he had a stroke and had to go into a nursing home, all of his property would have to be sold to take care of him before state assistance would kick in to help out.

Now you might think this is rare, but it isn't. The vast majority of people who are married and have to go into a nursing home end up on Medicaid. According to Medicaid, a married couple can keep their house, its contents, a car, burial policies, and up to $72,000 in their account and still be eligible for help. In fact, if a husband goes into long-term care at a nursing home, the spouse can continue to draw part or all of his social security while he's in the nursing home so that the spouse isn't left penniless or homeless.

Gay couples cannot do this--no matter what kind of paperwork they draw up. These are federal and state laws and regulations.

And there are over 1,000 such laws.

If I've been with my partner for 30 years and he suddenly dies, any of his assets that he leaves me in a will would be taxed as an inheritance. This doesn't happen to married couples.

And while there may be some things that a couple can do to protect themselves, you have to understand that not all gay people have the knowledge or resources to hire an attorney to do these things.

With a married couple, these things are take care of with the marriage license.

I know these things because I've worked as a hospital/nursing home social worker for over 25 years. I know the state and fedral regulations. And I've seen same-sex partners get into a real bind.

I am approaching you with all due respect here. I just want you to know that same-sex couples cannot get all things married couples get.
Tommy cochrane

Anderson, CA

#185509 Mar 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Girl...
Let me introduce myself. I am a bona fide homosexual. I've known that I was attracted to guys for as far back as I can remember. When I was young, I only had crushes on guys. No offense, but I never had a crush on a girl in my life.
Now that's not to say that I don't know what a good looking woman looks like. I think I see women the same way you do. You're not attracted to them, but you know when someone is good looking.
I don't know if you know any gay people or not, but I want to tell you about my day today.
I woke up a little late--around 8am or 9am. I was off, so I could sleep in.
Like most other guys in the world, I took a pee. Then I got dressed and took my 13 year old, half-blind, crippled-up Chihuahua outside for a walk. I brought him back in and fed him his breakfast.
I came back in and fed him. Then I lit up a cigarette. I keep meaning to stop. Maybe I will, maybe I won't.
I turned on the TV and watched HGTV.
I looked at some newspapers on the computer. I checked out facebook. I checked out TOPIX.
It is raining here today--kind of cool; so I got back in bed and napped for a few hours.
I got up around 2pm. I called a friend and asked him if he wanted to try out a new Mexican restaurant here in town.
We went to late lunch. The food was so-so. I ended up stopping at the grocery store and buying some Pop-Tarts, toilet paper, some ginger ale, and a piece of chocolate cake from the bakery.
I stopped by the liquor store on the way home to buy a bottle of cheap wine for a birthday party I'm going to tomorrow.
I came back home, put away the groceries (except for the cake). I took my dog out again. I gave him some food.
I watched the CBS evening news, then Judge Judy, then "Ridiculousness" on MTV.
I just finished my piece of cake.
I plan on renting "Lincoln" later this evening on Comcast.
I'll probably fall asleep around 1am or 2am.
Welcome to the head-over-heels life of a typical gay man.
I guarantee that if I had a partner, my day wouldn't have been too much different. We wouldn't have thrown on women's make-up or dresses or gone to a night club wearing tight clothes.
We are no different than you are, girl.
There's only one very small aspect of our lives that is different than yours.
We just want to be left alone, is all. Just let us live our lives in peace.
Just wanted to let you in on the "gay agenda" and the "homosexual lifestyle".
the haters prove our point, of them being hate full. when they mark a post like that "mean"

that was about as "mean' as your 13 year old blind dog.

Ill bet who ever marked that "mean', didnt even read it through, like I did.

very heart felt,...and from the cuff.

too bad they took all three places.....otherwise id mark it "touching'...really!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185510 Mar 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it a "right" for you to define as you choose, but not for the others?
Succinct and right on point. Where does it stop? At what point does it become pointless?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185511 Mar 29, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>I find it interesting to see this from a pro homo point of view. Because yeah nobody where I am from is for this, so I don't see this national dispute from the other side of the fence.
Oh, but if you listen to all the propaganda, you and I and a few others are all that is left of the haters, because (apparently, according to the propaganda being spewed at us) the whole country is behind the gays and their desire to muddle the differences between men and women, and to use interchangeable spouses to fiddle the already-hurting government out of even more $$, for the benefit of a few. This same few, who have decided unanimously and unilaterally, that the government has no right in deciding against their particular type of marriage, but who also decided that the government was correct in deciding against the polygamists. Duplicitous, no? I drive around the country in an 18-wheeler and ask a lot of people, both over the CB radio, and in person, if they have an opinion about the issue, and most do not. Of those that DO have an opinion, most are against it. This, in spite of the gays swearing up, down, sideways and by "Jesus tap dancing Christ" himself that almost everyone supports them. I know that the propaganda machine is running at the red line to try to convince us of this, and I also know that most don't care at all. More are against it than for it, but the machine will not rest. I ask "Where are all of these "supporters" and all I get is jeered by this crowd in here. "Why" they say "Up a tree, down a well, in a cave, behind you"... Every conceivable lie is being told, and plenty of inconceivable ones, too. The protests get minimal coverage, and every support rally, given maximum press coverage, is supposed to contain hundreds of thousands of supporters that cannot be found out in the world. The sad truth is that America is being subverted from within, by a select few that wish to keep us from noticing the REAL evils being perpetrated against us. Such as the erosion of the protections provided for us by the Constitution, including, but not limited to, the President assuming the ability to singlehandedly invoke Martial Law, in the name of the Patriot Act, against a little known provision, known as Posse Comitatus, which prevents him from assuming this most terrible of authorities to turn America into an occupied zone. Whilst we argue about racial tensions, or gay marriage rights, no-one is watching these true evils slowly encroaching upon our sovereignty.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185513 Mar 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo! Well put Rock.
Grazie, Pietro, grazie, signor.
:D
Tommy cochrane

Anderson, CA

#185514 Mar 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it a "right" for you to define as you choose, but not for the others?
jared doesnt not know yet, but you WANT to be veiwed like those people 50 years ago who were bigoted about interracial marriage.

ill bet many of them(if they are still with us) still are bigoted about interacial marraige!!

those people do look silly now, indeed....

like YOU already do.....(we dont have to wait to witness that)

you guys WILL never come up with ANY compelling arguement that gays shouldnt have marraige equality.....the arguement is OVER..

they heard them this week....and YOU GUYS LOST!!

neither prop hate or DOMA has a chance of surviving.....

get over gays having marraige equality.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185515 Mar 29, 2013
Tommy cochrane wrote:
<quoted text>
what does a corrupt 19th century organization on the other side of the country have to do with prop hate??
oh yeah, i forgot, your mind is stUCK in a bygone era..!!
far bygone!
Prop8 as in marriage is the means to propagate not denigrate the male and female mate.
Tommy cochrane

Anderson, CA

#185516 Mar 29, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, but if you listen to all the propaganda, you and I and a few others are all that is left of the haters, because (apparently, according to the propaganda being spewed at us) the whole country is behind the gays and their desire to muddle the differences between men and women, and to use interchangeable spouses to fiddle the already-hurting government out of even more $$, for the benefit of a few. This same few, who have decided unanimously and unilaterally, that the government has no right in deciding against their particular type of marriage, but who also decided that the government was correct in deciding against the polygamists. Duplicitous, no? I drive around the country in an 18-wheeler and ask a lot of people, both over the CB radio, and in person, if they have an opinion about the issue, and most do not. Of those that DO have an opinion, most are against it. This, in spite of the gays swearing up, down, sideways and by "Jesus tap dancing Christ" himself that almost everyone supports them. I know that the propaganda machine is running at the red line to try to convince us of this, and I also know that most don't care at all. More are against it than for it, but the machine will not rest. I ask "Where are all of these "supporters" and all I get is jeered by this crowd in here. "Why" they say "Up a tree, down a well, in a cave, behind you"... Every conceivable lie is being told, and plenty of inconceivable ones, too. The protests get minimal coverage, and every support rally, given maximum press coverage, is supposed to contain hundreds of thousands of supporters that cannot be found out in the world. The sad truth is that America is being subverted from within, by a select few that wish to keep us from noticing the REAL evils being perpetrated against us. Such as the erosion of the protections provided for us by the Constitution, including, but not limited to, the President assuming the ability to singlehandedly invoke Martial Law, in the name of the Patriot Act, against a little known provision, known as Posse Comitatus, which prevents him from assuming this most terrible of authorities to turn America into an occupied zone. Whilst we argue about racial tensions, or gay marriage rights, no-one is watching these true evils slowly encroaching upon our sovereignty.
HOW is your sovereignty endangers by gay couples having weddings??

I know i know, you dont expect anyone but the OTHER haters to actually read the drivel you come up with...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185517 Mar 29, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not asking to have more than 2 persons in a marriage or to marry my cousin or an animal. You are avoiding the issue and expanding it to things that do not apply. Interracial marriage was protested against 40 years ago look how dumb those people look now.
But, "Chortle", these issues DO apply. The governments entire justification for even interfering in marriage law at all is to provide for the natural family, and the continuation of same. If the government has no business banning SSM, it also has no business banning polygamy. Didn't you read the story, published by Patheos, posted by Pietro yesterday, listing the "friend to the court" brief, submitted by no less than 18 lawyers, detailing the same concerns? Really, you should read more.
Pietro Armando

Philadelphia, PA

#185518 Mar 29, 2013
Tommy cochrane wrote:
<quoted text>
jared doesnt not know yet, but you WANT to be veiwed like those people 50 years ago who were bigoted about interracial marriage.
ill bet many of them(if they are still with us) still are bigoted about interacial marraige!!
those people do look silly now, indeed....
like YOU already do.....(we dont have to wait to witness that)
you guys WILL never come up with ANY compelling arguement that gays shouldnt have marraige equality.....the arguement is OVER..
they heard them this week....and YOU GUYS LOST!!
neither prop hate or DOMA has a chance of surviving.....
get over gays having marraige equality.
"Marriage equality"? What in the name of George Orwell does that really mean? Is the state suppose to declare that men and women are only separated by "wo"? How do you remove one half of the marital relationship, the wife or husband, replace it with a sane sex duplicate, and declare it "equal"? Equal to what? Any other two person same sex pairing?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185519 Mar 29, 2013
Tommy cochrane wrote:
<quoted text>
jared doesnt not know yet, but you WANT to be veiwed like those people 50 years ago who were bigoted about interracial marriage.
ill bet many of them(if they are still with us) still are bigoted about interacial marraige!!
those people do look silly now, indeed....
like YOU already do.....(we dont have to wait to witness that)
you guys WILL never come up with ANY compelling arguement that gays shouldnt have marraige equality.....the arguement is OVER..
they heard them this week....and YOU GUYS LOST!!
neither prop hate or DOMA has a chance of surviving.....
get over gays having marraige equality.
I am sorry that you think you are fooling people by changing your name.

Like I said before, when you can present your argument in complete, coherent, and a grammatically correct manner I will entertain your nonsense.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185520 Mar 29, 2013
Tommy cochrane wrote:
<quoted text>
HOW is your sovereignty endangers by gay couples having weddings??
I know i know, you dont expect anyone but the OTHER haters to actually read the drivel you come up with...
It's quite clear that you did not. Unless, you tried, but true comprehension eluded you, not surprisingly.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185521 Mar 29, 2013
Tommy cochrane wrote:
<quoted text>
HOW is your sovereignty endangers by gay couples having weddings??
It's not, it is the Federal Mandate that does you moron.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185522 Mar 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear you, Randy... I don't hate you either. I don't even know you.
I'm happy that you have gay friends. And I'm also glad to hear that you would love a gay child. That sounds wonderful.
But I do want you to know that it isn't possible to have all of the rights and protections of marriage by simply drawing up the right paperwork.
If I had a partner right now (I'm single) and he were to come down with cancer; even though I have family medical leave built up, I can't use it to take care of him. A married person can, but I can't.
If I were older and I had a partner and he had a stroke and had to go into a nursing home, all of his property would have to be sold to take care of him before state assistance would kick in to help out.
Now you might think this is rare, but it isn't. The vast majority of people who are married and have to go into a nursing home end up on Medicaid. According to Medicaid, a married couple can keep their house, its contents, a car, burial policies, and up to $72,000 in their account and still be eligible for help. In fact, if a husband goes into long-term care at a nursing home, the spouse can continue to draw part or all of his social security while he's in the nursing home so that the spouse isn't left penniless or homeless.
Gay couples cannot do this--no matter what kind of paperwork they draw up. These are federal and state laws and regulations.
And there are over 1,000 such laws.
If I've been with my partner for 30 years and he suddenly dies, any of his assets that he leaves me in a will would be taxed as an inheritance. This doesn't happen to married couples.
And while there may be some things that a couple can do to protect themselves, you have to understand that not all gay people have the knowledge or resources to hire an attorney to do these things.
With a married couple, these things are take care of with the marriage license.
I know these things because I've worked as a hospital/nursing home social worker for over 25 years. I know the state and fedral regulations. And I've seen same-sex partners get into a real bind.
I am approaching you with all due respect here. I just want you to know that same-sex couples cannot get all things married couples get.
And I post this will all the respect I can deliver. Damn, if I was going to change sides, that would have been the post that did it. But I believe that there must be some sort of middle ground to be reached that satisfies both your needs and my desire to reserve a title for a specific pairing. That is the best case I have heard presented for your side, in spite of all the kudos that your side has heaped upon Chongo/ross-no-hope, for its lunatic, non-stop hatefest insults that even Don Rickles would have cringed at, in embarrassment. To be honest, if Chongo wasn't the foremost champion of your side, I might have loosened up a long time ago. Salute, sir, and BTW, what is yer dogs name, if I may ask? I'm a bit of a softie for critters...
:D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185523 Mar 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it a "right" for you to define as you choose, but not for the others?
Arrogance.......Elitism, perhaps? Illusions of Nobility? Indifference to the suffering of others? Moral Confusion? I don't know, I'm just throwing out ideas, off the cuff, as it were...
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185524 Mar 29, 2013
Tommy cochrane wrote:
<quoted text>
HOW is your sovereignty endangers by gay couples having weddings??
I know i know, you dont expect anyone but the OTHER haters to actually read the drivel you come up with...
AK_Pilot has supplied you with a first-rate answer.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185525 Mar 29, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
AK_Pilot has supplied you with a first-rate answer.
So, if you still have to ask: "HOW is your sovereignty endanger[ed] by gay couples having weddings?? I know,[I] know, you dont expect anyone[,] but the OTHER haters[,] to actually read the drivel you come up with... ",
then re-read his answer, until the meaning of it dawns on you, and if that DOES occur, in about, say, 3 or 4 months, get back to us, okay?

No charge, for the editing job, to make it read properly.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185526 Mar 29, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
And I post this will all the respect I can deliver. Damn, if I was going to change sides, that would have been the post that did it. But I believe that there must be some sort of middle ground to be reached that satisfies both your needs and my desire to reserve a title for a specific pairing. That is the best case I have heard presented for your side, in spite of all the kudos that your side has heaped upon Chongo/ross-no-hope, for its lunatic, non-stop hatefest insults that even Don Rickles would have cringed at, in embarrassment. To be honest, if Chongo wasn't the foremost champion of your side, I might have loosened up a long time ago. Salute, sir, and BTW, what is yer dogs name, if I may ask? I'm a bit of a softie for critters...
:D
His name is "Taz". It's the name he came with from the shelter.

I tried to change it to "Rusty" (he's kind of the color of dark rust), but he was too old when I got him--about 7 at the time.

He's the strangest dog I've ever had. He has no affection for anybody--not even me. He's always been a loner. I keep him fed and warm. I give him pain meds for the arthritis in his hind legs.

But he's got a good life. He has two beds to choose from. He doesn't want for anything. I'd probably donate a kidney to him if he needed one.

Recently, I thought he was dying. He was losing control of his bowels and seemed very listless. Of course it happened on a Friday evening after the vet had closed. I took him to the vet the next Monday and she listened to his heart and lungs and told me, "Hon, I don't think he's dying... His heart sounds good and is breathing is normal. I just think he's in pain."

That's when she gave me the pain meds. It made a WORLD of difference. He's back up and moving around.

Re: the marriage issue... If same-gender couples were give the same rights and protections as married couples, that would be a huge step.

The only problem would be what to call it. And then everybody would ask, "If same-sex couples are given a license to have all of the same rights and protections of opposite sex couples, then why does it have to be called something else?"

Is it really a matter of the word "marriage"?

If so, why is it so important for the word "marriage" to be associated only with opposite gender couples?

I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just curious is all...

I realize that when a man and woman get married, and they live so many years together, it's a very important and deep relationship. Do you think if two guys get hitched it would make heterosexual couples feel that their relationship is less important?

I've got to tell you, I have GREAT respect for married couples. I was in a three year relationship once (I realize that a very short time to many) and after the honey-moon period was over, I recognized that it wasn't always easy to be with him. There were a few times when I said to myself, "The only reason I'm staying is because I made a promise to him that I would be with him for better or worse."

Unfortunately, he didn't take those vows quite as seriously as I did.

When he told me that it was over, I was devastated. I didn't date anyone for over a decade.

But I do know guys who have been together for 20 or 30 years. I'm sure they've had their moments--ups and downs. But for the most part, they're in a permanent relationship. They've made a commitment to one another and won't leave unless somebody dies.

I'll tell you something in my next post...
Tommy cochrane

Anderson, CA

#185527 Mar 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not, it is the Federal Mandate that does you moron.
the only federal mandate regarding gay marraige, is the defense of marraige act......which is likely to be ruled unconstitutional soon.

you dont really think the court is going to mandate gay marrige on the federal level?? like with abortion??

just because they are considering the constitutionality of dOMA??

they are a conservative court by nature.....not reallly an activist court.....like in 1973

the least they can do is strike it down and send the issue back to the states to decide!!

which is what is likely to happen...wouldnt you agree??

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
Mexico Walmart in San Jacinto (Apr '11) 16 hr ana 70
Randy freeman Sat Lee 1
stetson townhomes (Aug '13) Jul 3 Kristen_C 7
Same Sex Marriage: Yes or No? Jul 1 Lady Morgana 3
Diabetes: I believe it's due to obesity Jun 29 Lady Morgana 27
News Felon Arraigned on Assault, Robbery, Attempted ... Jun 29 Larry Miller 1
News Theater Complex, Bowling Alley Coming to Menife... (May '14) Jun 28 Lady Morgana 17
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages