Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 4, 2010, www.cnn.com story 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.

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!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187833 Apr 9, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
Wow! You're coming along Jizzy! Catching up with the rest of us finally.

Yes. That is the topic. Now please try to keep your petty grudges and silly off topic banter out of it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187834 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the reason for you opponents of same sex marriage, you are the ones worried about a limiting a definition.
Not I
Lying again Big D? Why?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187835 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
True, the upheaval you are causing ( chuckle ) is minor, and shrinking every year.

There was more "upheaval" allowing women to vote.

I know what your community in general is trying to do, and I fully support that.

The ace you have up your sleeve is exactly what you mentioned, it harms no one, affects no one in a detrimental way. You would think businesses would be opposed having to give equal rights, but hundreds of businesses are now requesting not only Prop 8 overturned, but same sex marriage recognized nationally as they are having difficulty hiring and moving the right people to different locations while these different locations have different laws regarding same sex marriage.

You have already won, regardless of the Supreme courtís decision in June, I expect them to do the right thing ( although I only expect a narrow ruling regarding California only ) but the tide has turned.

Public support is with you, business support is with you, and now even your opponents primary political party is cracking on the issue. More are crossing over on the issue every week.

Now it is only a matter of time, I know it is hard to wait, and you should not need to, but you have already won, regardless of what the supreme court does... now it is only a matter of time.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187836 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.
Big D gets angry then he gets carried away and lashes out at everyome including proponents of SSM like you and I. He's silly like that. Silly! Blinded by passion!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187837 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Sorry. It is some o=polyamorists' fight. You don't get to dismiss it just like people against SSM don't get to dismiss your fight.

When I think of people who support SSM but not poly marriage, the first thing that comes to mind is "hypocrite". But perhaps you have a valid reason to deny marriage equality that I haven't heard yet?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187838 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sure. So it's just hot air that you constantly blast from the mountaintop down to us? We should ignore it?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187839 Apr 9, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Frankie, you are not married
Don't try and get cute with me!

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
Hemet eye care center on Morton place FRAUD (Mar '11) 21 hr miss debbie12 47
Albertsons in Hemet (Sep '07) Sat amanda castro 18
News HEMET: Information, not cash, for panhandlers (Feb '12) Apr 24 Chris 18
Abandoned Insane Asylum In Hemet.... (Jun '09) Apr 23 Flora 69
Lou Pittam's Store (Apr '10) Apr 21 Iremember 6
HemetHEMET: Water future murky Apr 21 Badskpr 1
Netflix Apr 20 Cassierae 1
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]