Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,439

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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187809 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you are a man in a conjugal,(husband and wife), marriage. There are mixed orientation conjugal marriages out there, lets not forget those.
again you donít get to define my marriage, or anyone elseís

the tide is turning, you are in the minority

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187810 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who are fighting for same-gender marriage recognition have drawn the line at just that. To my knowledge, no major group in the LGBT community is promoting plural marriage. And I'm 100% certain that no one is promoting incest.
That is where we in the LGBT community are drawing the line.
That simply confirms what I wrote, but doesn't answer the questions. The BGLT (alphabetical order, never understood why the lesbians go first, ladies first perhaps?) wants to redefine marriage for them alone, most do anyway, the ploys want marriage to include them, the polyamory people, ditto.....so where does it end? Is the ultimate goal, unintended perhaps, of the SSM movement to fundamental devalue marriage as a distinct monogamous relationship of husband and wife, to the point it becomes pointless? Why bother sanctioning it at all? Who cares who marries who?

As to the issue of incest, a few questions.

Is same sex incest equally taboo as opposite sex incest is?

Is it the nature of the sex acts that are taboo, or simply the fact it occurring between blood relatives?

If homosexuality is at least legally acceptable, if not morally, and SSM is legal in a state in which first cousins can marry, why is same sex first cousin marriage acceptable but not same sex sibling marriage. Both unions are by composition sterile so there is no risk of sexual reproduction. So why the distinction?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187811 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
again you donít get to define my marriage, or anyone elseís
the tide is turning, you are in the minority
And you don't get to define mine.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187812 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did we stop burning people at the stake, it worked for thousands of years... why did we stop?
Why did we end slavery, we had slavery for tens of thousands of years across many civilizations and we never needed to end it before?
Why did we stop murdering Christians for entertainment in the arena we never needed to stop before that?
The answer of course is... because it is the right thing to do
You are a trip! You compared all those situations to redefining marriage. Lame dodge, but ya didn't answer the question. Why is there a sudden need now to call a personal intimate same sex, male or female, sexual relationship, "marriage"? How the heck did our republic survive into the 21st century with the quaint notion that marriage is an exclusive monogamous relationship of husband and wife? Did men suddenly become pregnant? Women impregnating other women with sperm their own bodies produced?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187813 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't get to define mine.
I have no desire to

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187814 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
again you donít get to define my marriage, or anyone elseís
the tide is turning, you are in the minority
Are saying you're not a man who is married to a woman who is legally your wife?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187816 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That simply confirms what I wrote, but doesn't answer the questions. The BGLT (alphabetical order, never understood why the lesbians go first, ladies first perhaps?) wants to redefine marriage for them alone, most do anyway, the ploys want marriage to include them, the polyamory people, ditto.....so where does it end? Is the ultimate goal, unintended perhaps, of the SSM movement to fundamental devalue marriage as a distinct monogamous relationship of husband and wife, to the point it becomes pointless? Why bother sanctioning it at all? Who cares who marries who?
As to the issue of incest, a few questions.
Is same sex incest equally taboo as opposite sex incest is?
Is it the nature of the sex acts that are taboo, or simply the fact it occurring between blood relatives?
If homosexuality is at least legally acceptable, if not morally, and SSM is legal in a state in which first cousins can marry, why is same sex first cousin marriage acceptable but not same sex sibling marriage. Both unions are by composition sterile so there is no risk of sexual reproduction. So why the distinction?
Being a Christian was once a taboo, letting women walk beside you was ( and still is in some cultures ) a taboo

we have no idea what will and will not be a "taboo" in the future, and it is not for us to decide
.

You donít get to be a tyrant and tell all future generations what is taboo and what is not. People in the past certainly did not have that power as it is no longer taboo to be a Christian for example.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#187817 Apr 9, 2013
Why wrote:
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?
The same reason we need iPhones, tablets, etc. we as a civilization advance and things change.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187818 Apr 9, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>You're not married. A blow up sheep does not count.
Thank you for taking the time to stop by and share your thoughts, dopey and retarded as they may be.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187819 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no desire to
Isn't that your whole argument? The reason for this thread? People defining marriage to suit them?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187820 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a Christian was once a taboo, letting women walk beside you was ( and still is in some cultures ) a taboo
we have no idea what will and will not be a "taboo" in the future, and it is not for us to decide
.
You donít get to be a tyrant and tell all future generations what is taboo and what is not. People in the past certainly did not have that power as it is no longer taboo to be a Christian for example.
Only the Mighty D gets to be a tyrant?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187821 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are saying you're not a man who is married to a woman who is legally your wife?
I am saying I donít care what words you use to define my marriage.

I donít worry about your "acceptance" or "permission", you donít get to define my marriage, you are not that important.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187825 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the Mighty D gets to be a tyrant?
Nope I have no desire to tell others what they cannot do while it causes no harm to anyone, it is my opponents that desire to do that.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187826 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that your whole argument? The reason for this thread? People defining marriage to suit them?
It is the reason for you opponents of same sex marriage, you are the ones worried about a limiting a definition.

Not I
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187827 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Except the polls have already shown that a majority of heterosexual people support same sex marriage.
You need to internalize first that you are in the minority
I am a straight person, in a heterosexual marriage, as are my children, all of us support same sex marriage, the tide has turned, your opinion is now a minority opinion
?? not sure why you're posting this to me, big d.

i've read the polls and know that now the majority of americans do support homosexual marriage. i'm glad the tides have turned.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187828 Apr 9, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
?? not sure why you're posting this to me, big d.
i've read the polls and know that now the majority of americans do support homosexual marriage. i'm glad the tides have turned.
LOL I probably replied to the wrong post

I do know you stand on the side of justice :)

And you know you dont stand alone

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187829 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
To their point however it isnít the LGBT community they are worried about. They are asking why they personally cannot determine for all future generations what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do regardless of what those future generations may believe
You and I really donít know what they may find acceptable.
The answer is of course, that we donít, we are not tyrants that can make all decisions for all future generations today
They would like to do that... they arenít going to be able to
For all we know future generations may be fine with poly ( that could happen in this generation ), or with incest Ö but that is up to them, not up to us.
The problem with their argument it that only frightens their own constituency, it does not frighten anyone else.
I fully understand their point. However, the LGBT community is fighting for one thing--equal marriage rights.

What people may or may not do in the future is no reason to prohibit same-gender couples from marrying.

I would be willing to bet that in the 1960s, when desegregation was happening and when interracial marriages began to take place, there were people just as worried that horrible things would happen as a result.

Granted, the transition for the African American community has not been smooth, but that is no reason to go back to the way things were before they were given freedoms.

Social change takes place over time.

The agriculture community in the South was hit hard when slavery was abolished. But, it was the right thing to do. To my knowledge, the south never really recovered from it.

I doubt the transition to same-gender marriage will result in such upheaval. Since it does not impact people who are not gay, then most people won't eve notice a difference.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187830 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's opposite sex couples, let's not ignore bisexuals who marry someone of the opposite sex, and other mixed orientation OSMs.
<quoted text>
See, more than one way to view the issue.
<quoted text>
Wow! A compliment form H&M. Grazie. Think about it, if sex, the coital kind didn't make babies, would marriage even exist? Would it matter who married who? Married people do have better sex, btw, and more often.
over the yrs, marriage has evolved - from the pr-arranged and forced type back in the dark ages, or the type where one man married several wives, to what we have now - something entirely voluntary (on the average - i'm sure there's some folks that are forced, somewhere in this world). married is a desirable state for many reasons, i think we can all agree on that - otherwise there'd be no debate about who could or couldn't get married.

in modern times (lets say the last 100 yrs or so), it isn't so much of a sexual necessity. particularly in the 40-45 yrs. its no longer a primary reason to marry someone (although i do know of one couple back in the late 80s who refrained from sex before marriage - and she was having such a difficult time getting the arrangements done, i suggested she just delay the wedding a couple months to get all the details just right. she responded with "we just can't wait" i literally fell off the sofa laughing so hard, particularly at the look on her face. sadly, they divorced within 4 yrs.) since folks regularly have premarital or extramarital sex. for a number of reasons.

humans are humans. we all have the same set of emotions and feelings. we all pretty much have the same needs.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187831 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some LGBT promoting gay polygamy. There was an article in The Advocate about them.
Why is it OK for you to "draw the line"? Isn't that exactly what those opposed to same sex marriage are doing?
What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult men cause you?
Poly MARRIAGE deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex MARRIAGE.
Frank, I think I've said this to you before. The legal recognition of plural marriages is not a part of the current fight in the US.

Some people--both gay and straight--may wish to bring this to court at some point in the future.

It isn't something that I am personally interested in and would not fight to legalize plural marriages.

That isn't to say that I would go out and rally against people who wish to pursue the legalization of such unions; I'm just not going to support it.

I think the LGBT community has enough to deal with in getting a couple legally married to worry about getting multiple-member relationships recognized.

It's just not my fight...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187832 Apr 9, 2013
Cat Purrs wrote:
<quoted text> Well if it isn't Spankie Frankie. What's the matter, did you get kicked out of the Cafe again?
No. You did jackass, remember?

What a dope!

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
Menifee- will it take a turn for the worst? (Aug '09) Wed tellinitlikeitis 79
Man assaults kids at McDonalds-east florida on ... (Jul '13) Wed tellinitlikeitis 134
Get a Free Haircut from La Mode Salon Tue Kathy karch 1
Is San Jacinto Dangerous? (Jun '10) Mar 1 the investigator 25
The under ground tunnel , Florida ave. downtown... (Oct '11) Mar 1 Jen 79
Scammed by Richardson RV; DO NOT do business w... Feb 26 hemet sucks 2
Husband, Wife Die In Apparent Murder-Suicide (Jan '07) Feb 26 tellinitlikeitis 18

Hemet News Video

Hemet Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:36 pm PST