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

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#187758 Apr 8, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice. Don't understand why you cannot include Hawaii in your 4 corners, call it a Ferry Jaunt?
:-D
Bet that 30 Degrees felt like heaven, huh? Get rid of the hair-dryer blast...
We were coming down the west side of the Rockies fairly early in the morning. We'd gone through Powder River Pass (elev. 9666). It was mid July and there was snow on the ground when we got off the bikes to stretch at the elevation sign. This was fairly early in the morning so the ride down the west side was in the shade of the mountains. My fingers went numb after a bit (summer gloves), but I didn't care, just put one hand on the cylinder head for a bit and then repeat for the other.

No time for a ferry to Hawaii! Gotta get from Key West to Madawaska, Maine via San Diego and Blaine, WA in three weeks to get the biscuit. That reminds me, I've got to join the So Cal MC Association (or something like that) to make the ride official. Good thing I don't care much about sight seeing from Key West to west Texas as I've been all over the place in that section of the country. That and west Texas is best gone through as fast as possible to get through the feedlot stench. Nothing like the smell of urine from cattle living in crowded feedlots. They're shoulder to shoulder on dung mountains.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#187759 Apr 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How about one's OWN mother and father if at all possible? Why not one dad and two moms? What about a dad and grand dad? There are numerous possibilities.
<quoted text>
Sheesh, I missed that exchange too.
Care to repeat it?
If you dumb down marriage to two people in a relationship, it is simply a friendship with a discriminatory limit on the number of people.
Waiting.
Smile.
You missed it, eh? Posting while you're sleeping?

Since: May 09

New York, NY

#187760 Apr 8, 2013
While driving thru the Carolinas I needed to stop for smokes: Think Mayberry RFD run by the Gestapo.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#187761 Apr 8, 2013
yea sure wrote:
did anybody notice that the mainstream press has not said a single WORD about this case ?
----they dont want us to know about it ----
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...
A local CBS station covered it. There is also a Huffington Post article about it.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187762 Apr 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out legal interracial (black white) are nothing new, and existed prior to some of the bans. SSM is a modern invention.
How many races/ethnicities are there? Same number as there are sexes?
Same-gender marriage is nothing new either. Couples have been trying to have their marriages legalized for over 40 years.

And I'm sure that when interracial marriage started here in the U.S. it was considered unthinkable to the vast majority of citizens--just like you think same-gender marriage is unthinkable.

Now we don't even give interracial marriages a second thought.

Marriage laws have evolved in this country. There is no denying that.

At one time it in the U.S. was legal for people to marry as young as 12 years old. And in some parts of the developing world, that's still possible.

You guys seem to think that marriage has been static and unchanging for thousands of years. But you know that isn't the case.

Whether it's been between one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, one man (or woman) and deceased people (look up "ghost marriages"), arranged marriages--the fact of the matter is that marriage has looked very different over time and throughout the different cultures on this planet.

That we are evolving marriage to include same-gender couples is just another example of the changes in the definition of marriage.
CA chamber of Commece

Covina, CA

#187763 Apr 8, 2013
California chamber of commerce is nothing more than a right-wing lobbying organization, red neck and all, RNC, GOP, Republican and tea party snot holes.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187765 Apr 8, 2013
A Most Interesting Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? What? Who? How about you stop spamming and for once say something of substance you nut job! LOL
Who? You! Old SniffsButt Bill! That's who.

Can we get a "Shut your pie hole!"? Or a big LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187766 Apr 8, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
<quoted text> I hope everything goes well for you and your daughter. BTW I love your avatar.
Thank you.

Since: Apr 13

Bellevue, WA

#187767 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
she was talking to me... hello

“"Do Unto Others" ”

Since: Mar 13

Austin Texas

#187768 Apr 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who? You! Old SniffsButt Bill! That's who.
Can we get a "Shut your pie hole!"? Or a big LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Like I said,Who? Or how about a good Yuk,yuk,yuk? You are a frigging whack job! Yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187770 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that the Supreme Court "expanded" or "redefined" marriage in America to include interracial marriage; which had not been recognized universally in the U.S. prior to 1967.
No, the Court maintained the nature of the marital relationship as a union of husband and wife. It also recognized the ban on BLACK & WHITE interracial marriage was a means of continuing a policy of white supremacy which the court found abhorant. The ban was not universally applied for it only banned certain racial combinations. For instance, depending on the state, a black person or "colored" could not marry a white person but could marry an 'oriental".
And you, yourself, admitted earlier that same-gender marriages have existed in the past. So, it's not like it's a brand new idea.
True, however, "gay marriage" is a recent modern invention. Same gendered marriage never developed, parallel to opposite sex marriage, either polygamous or monogamous. If it had, it would already exist.
Besides, same-sex couples have been around for eons, even if they haven't been formally recognized through marriage.
Perhaps.
You guys act as though us gay people just started falling out of the closet a few years ago.
SSSB is not new, the concept of a political sexual identity, "gay", is relatively new.
We won't let your ignorance stand in the way of what we believe we are entitled to.
We won't let your ignorance stand in the way of what we believe is a relationship, conjugal marriage, worthy of respect, privileged status, and not subject to redefinition in order to pacify modern sexual political identity movements. Different situations call for different solutions.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187771 Apr 9, 2013
GreaterGreece wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure that there have always been a percentage of monogamous gay couples,
Perhaps, but one must be careful not to inject modern cultural aspects in to historical situations, times, and places. "Gay" is a relatively modern identify concept. SSSB is not.
just as there have always been gay people: Monotheism drove gay people underground, just like it drove prostitution underground.
Both SSSB, and prostitution has always existed, although I think the latter is far more prevelant, and has greater historical depth and practiced in far more times and places. Monotheism may have been but one factor in both behaviors being marginalized.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187772 Apr 9, 2013
A Most Interesting Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? What? Who? How about you stop spamming and for once say something of substance you nut job! LOL
He has, on numerous occasions, but its ether ignored or accurately addressed by the other side.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187773 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-gender marriage is nothing new either. Couples have been trying to have their marriages legalized for over 40 years.
A relative short time since the birth of the republic, and a mere drop in the bucket of time of marriage across time and place.
And I'm sure that when interracial marriage started here in the U.S. it was considered unthinkable to the vast majority of citizens--just like you think same-gender marriage is unthinkable.
As would be interethnic marriage, inter religious marriage, etc. People, perhaps less so today than 40 plus years ago, tend to marry within one's own socioeconomic religious ethnic group. There was a time when Catholic Jewish marriages, for example were uncommon, perhaps rare.
Now we don't even give interracial marriages a second thought.


As with interethnic, inter religious, etc.
Marriage laws have evolved in this country. There is no denying that.
At one time it in the U.S. was legal for people to marry as young as 12 years old. And in some parts of the developing world, that's still possible.
You guys seem to think that marriage has been static and unchanging for thousands of years. But you know that isn't the case.
All the evolution didn't change the male female composition of the marital relationship. At its essence, a sexual union of husband and wife.
Whether it's been between one man and one woman, one man and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, one man (or woman) and deceased people (look up "ghost marriages"), arranged marriages--the fact of the matter is that marriage has looked very different over time and throughout the different cultures on this planet.
The one universal characteristic is the union of male and female.
That we are evolving marriage to include same-gender couples is just another example of the changes in the definition of marriage.
How does an institution evolve by removing one half of its essential compositional components, and replacing it with a duplication of the remaining half? That's bizarre.

An analogy would be arguing for the legal definition of a hamburger, assuming there is one, be "expanded" to include veggie patties. Vegetarians want the "burger" name but not the beef. SSM advocates want the name "marriage" but not the beefcake AND cheesecake.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187774 Apr 9, 2013
Judged:111
Could someone, a SSMer, please explain where do we, as a society, draw the line, in defining marriage? At what point, does it become pointless?

Monogamous conjugal marriage proponents advocate maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

SSM proponents advocate defining marriage as a union of (two) spouses for life, regardless of gender composition.

Plural conjugal marriage practitioners advocate for the inclusion of plural marriage in the legal definition.

Polyamorists, incest.....

Where is the line drawn?
Obskeptic

Sterling Heights, MI

#187775 Apr 9, 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.
The last part of my post was an attempt to show that there are a significant number of same-gender couples who have children. Shouldn't these be afforded the same protections and benefits under the law as opposite-gender couples who are married?
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.
Don't try to throw in the ringer of plural marriage and incestuous marriages. They have already been found to be unlawful.
Same-gender marriage HAS NOTHING TO DO with incest or bigamy.
We are ONLY talking about same-gender, unrelated, consenting, adult couples.
Your right. Polygamy and incest are unlawful because they are construed to be immoral and a detriment to society. Society has made that determination. You even wish to remove these concepts from your argument because they are considered taboo by society. Thats why you, and the rest of the liberals are using your time tested strategy to simply re-define what's moral. Like deciding for yourselves that the rest of us have no right to determine or define your sexual perversion as moral and mainstream. Call an apple an orange all you want, it will still and always will be an apple.
Obskeptic

Sterling Heights, MI

#187776 Apr 9, 2013
CA chamber of Commece wrote:
California chamber of commerce is nothing more than a right-wing lobbying organization, red neck and all, RNC, GOP, Republican and tea party snot holes.
Don't you ever get tired of being perpetually outraged? Are you just predisposed to be an angry person that enjoys demonizing everything that you disagree with? Your stereotyping with an awful broad brush full of lies hypocrite.
Why

Chico, CA

#187777 Apr 9, 2013
Why do we need gay marriage now when we never needed it before, and nobody on earth complained about that for seven-thousand-plus years? Why now?
Obskeptic

Farmington, MI

#187778 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Judged:111
Could someone, a SSMer, please explain where do we, as a society, draw the line, in defining marriage? At what point, does it become pointless?
Monogamous conjugal marriage proponents advocate maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
SSM proponents advocate defining marriage as a union of (two) spouses for life, regardless of gender composition.
Plural conjugal marriage practitioners advocate for the inclusion of plural marriage in the legal definition.
Polyamorists, incest.....
Where is the line drawn?
The line has already been drawn by the gay rights lobby, and its right at their feet, with traditional marriage on their side of the line, and the rest of the perverted concepts of marriage on the other. Don't question them or challenge them because they are the ones that have the self appointed authority to dictate to the rest of us what we can and cannot believe. You must accept their argument, because it's their argument, and they are always right. Just ask them.
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#187779 Apr 9, 2013
Legalizing same sex marriage is not only the right thing to do, but it will make it safe (safer) for gays to come out of the closet

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
Debate: Marijuana - Winchester, CA (Sep '10) 4 hr Pink 11
corruption with Riverside county CPS Fri 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

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 1:17 am PST