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
163,941 - 163,960 of 200,590 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187675 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
To them, marriage is all about sex
It sure isn’t to me... she means a lot more to me than that.
The more I think about it their marriages are a lot more fragile if sex is all it is about for them.
sad
Why do you always try to make arguments that just aren't there? No one said marriage is all about sex. You are dishonest.
Competition

Covina, CA

#187676 Apr 8, 2013
It also comes weeks after Governor Rick Perry reportedly sent letters to gun companies, encouraging them to move to Texas.

Perry sent a message on Twitter to Colorado company Magpul as recently as March 21, 2013 saying “Come on Down to Texas.”

The Governor’s office did not confirm Friday if it had sent a recruitment letter to Colt Competition.
yea sure

AOL

#187677 Apr 8, 2013
The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial.

Married couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth of Glastonbury were supposed to be sentenced Friday in Hartford Superior Court under a plea deal, but instead withdrew from their agreement with prosecutors. The men had already pleaded no contest in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor — a reduction from even more serious charges related to sexual assault.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-con...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187679 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless I'm mistaken, the argument most often thrown around here is that heterosexual couples should have access to the benefits and protections of marriage PRIMARILY because they may have children.
That is correct. What other reason would there be to privelege marriage, or have it at all?

Its opposite sex couples, not heterosexual. An OSC could be of mixed orientation.
The last part of my post was an attempt to show that there are a significant number of same-gender couples who have children.
Who are most likely the products if one or both partners previous OS marriage or relationship. If it was the former they had the protections of marriage.
Shouldn't these be afforded the same protections and benefits under the law as opposite-gender couples who are married?
By what reasoning?
If you don't want to include children in the equation, then the fact that two, consenting, unrelated, adults who wish to partner their lives under the eyes of the government by way of marriage, should be a sufficient argument for same-gender marriage.
Hmmmmmm.....unrelated? First cousins can marry in several states. Why should it be limited to two consenting adults who "wish to partner thier lives under the eyes of government...."?
Don't try to throw in the ringer of plural marriage and incestuous marriages. They have already been found to be unlawful.
Opposite sex incest not same sex....is illegal. The SSM version has never been court tested.

[QUOTE[
Same-gender marriage HAS NOTHING TO DO with incest or bigamy.
We are ONLY talking about same-gender, unrelated, consenting, adult couples.[/QUOTE]

It's all part of the "how is marriage defined" discussion.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187680 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's it? Too bad for them but polygamy "has been found to be unlawful."?
Not so fast slick! That was the same thing that was said about same sex marriage just a few short years ago. It wasn't a valid reason to deny SSM, it's not a valid reason to deny poly marriage.
Polygamy deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex marriage.
That's not my fight...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187681 Apr 8, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>True that, how are the twins?
Saggy.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187682 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll just point out that the Supreme Court Justices between 1888 and 1966 meant that marriages were between members of the same race. In 1967, they agreed that legally married couples had to be of the same race.
Now, according to you logic, the "Loving" decision in 1967 (i.e. those who said marriage could only involve same race couples) should have continued to hold that marriages can only be between members of the same race. But the Justices "redefined" marriage at that time. They expanded it to include "different race couples".
We believe that the Justices will expand its definition of marriage again by adding same-gender couples.
This definition expansion has already happened in at least three recent federal court cases and the definition has been expanded in 9 states by legislative means.
"Expand"???

You remove children from marriage,
You duplicate half of normal, natural sex,
You delete a gender,
And you call that an 'expanded' definition?

More of your gay twirl VV...

Snicker.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187683 Apr 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not my fight...
Same sex marriage is not Mr Hudson's fight.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187684 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Dot feel picked on, I feel the same about Islam, no better or worse. Or scientology, or Volcano worship
I treat all of them equally
Really? That's pretty idiotic.

No wonder you can't tell the difference between redumbant couples and marriage.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187685 Apr 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We know for a fact that ability or intent to procreate is not a requirement for a marriage license
We know for a fact that the ability or intent to have sex of any specific kind or any at all for that matter is not a requirement for a marriage license
We know for a fact that religion is not any kind of requirement for a marriage license.
I am standing by to educate.
I also happen to know I am dealing with people that believe in the “golden rule” that you treat others the way you want to be treated. So I will happily oblige them and treat them exactly how they treat others.
We know for a fact that at it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. There never was a need to make children a 'requirement'. That would be idiotic.

We know for a fact that anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Demanding sex in marriage is as stupid as equating perverted sex with normal, natural sex.

We know for certain that in 8000 years of human history encompassing thousands of cultures and hundreds of religions, marriage has always been present from the start to finish of every one of them. Calling ss couples 'married' has never been a part from start to finish of a single culture.

I'm standing by to stick the knife of reality to the hilt into the belly of denial and twist it with a smirk. To kick at the darkness until it bleeds light.

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187686 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
To insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriage—like a court case over divorce and child custody. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches. The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.
One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity. Let's say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way.
If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage. The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration. The first question is about identity and difference.......
I say this with respect and appreciation, thanks. Often your posts, clarify my personal thoughts on this issue, puts it in a pespective that requires a tad more articulation. Thanks again.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187687 Apr 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't be. It is impossible.
It is visibly obvious they are only ever a senselessly duplicated half of marriage. A desecration of sacred design. A barren imposter relationship that is always a devastating deprivation of family imposed on a child for the sake of an illusion. A violent imitation of sexual intimacy.
There is nothing, at any level that equates a ss couple to marriage.
Smile.
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
that's merely your opinion. the courts, however, seem to be disagreeing with you. and of course, the county clerks in the states that allow for same sex marriage.
that would imply that your opinion doesn't really amount to "a hill of beans" as my father would've put it.
good luck.
grin.
No honey, those are facts.

That is why it pierces you so deeply.

It simply exposes the denial that permeates our culture.

Another fact is that reality has a mean bitch slap for denial.

Get ready.

Snicker.
Lilith

Seattle, WA

#187688 Apr 8, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>True that, how are the twins?
awesome sweetie.... At a freinds house sewing up a new stage outfit.... its hot!!!!!!!!!!
Lilith

Seattle, WA

#187689 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Saggy.
oh how wrong you would be... ask just facts he's seen them
Anonymous

Richmond, VA

#187690 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Saggy.
Saggy and bloated!LOL
Lilith

Seattle, WA

#187691 Apr 8, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>what do you know about wisdom. You are the least intelligent person, performing the least intelligent job, you are a silly sk double A nk b!atch!
Hey we heard the were doing a study on the effects of line breeding on the human species and your village got picked.... no shocker there
Anonymous

Richmond, VA

#187692 Apr 8, 2013
Lilith wrote:
<quoted text>
awesome sweetie.... At a freinds house sewing up a new stage outfit.... its hot!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't matter how hot the outfit is you're not going to look hot in it.=/

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187693 Apr 8, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
the only sources icite are those from easily identifible institutions that are scientifically based.
you know, organizations like the apa, ama and so forth.
i'm sorry if you don't recognize those organizations - but they are national professional organizations.
i've never had to resort to religiously based websites that use no peer reviewed studies.
some folks may refer to more liberal groups - but i still prefer to check out and use Pew Research Center's findings as well as other university studies as well.
keep tryin' lil' buddy. you'll get there eventually. we're all cheering for you.
Please, post one of those peer reviewed studies with the methodology defined.

And please, explain to me how adopted, foster, step and single parents ALL show a significant decline in child social health from biological parents, but these 'professional' organizations say that lesbian couples are just as good or BETTER than biological parents? Wanna give it a try?

You'd be the first on here for both.

Snicker.
lilith

Seattle, WA

#187694 Apr 8, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Saggy and bloated!LOL
biatch if your breast are as nice as mine when your almost 46... then we can talk... my bet is you'll have deflated mush pillows wrinkled from decades of smoke

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187695 Apr 8, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
congratulations on mutual home ownership.
my partner of 23+ yrs and i own 2 homes, a few vehicles, a boat and a trailer for vacations.....yet, when one of us dies, the other will have to pay inheretance taxes, despite both of us being on the titles, deeds and mortgages as well as the insurance policies for them all. we've both worked full time our whole time together in order to pay for all those things.
unlike you and your legal husband - when one of passes away, the other will not have to pay those inheretance taxes.
so how does that make sense? if we've both paid for the asset, then why should we have to pay inheretance tax when the other passes?
Because you produced no children.

That is the whole basis of the word 'inheritance'.

Accept gay unions and leave marriage alone.

Smile.

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
Riverside County:Tap Water Taste and Smell Unpl... 7 min james marple 50
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 min Suggestion Box 5,003
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 4 hr lazy posts 15,963
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) 14 hr Kandy 476
Debate: Ferguson - Hemet, CA 22 hr 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 2:10AM 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 ]
•••