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 (Page 8,203)

Showing posts 164,041 - 164,060 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187765
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187766
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187767
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
she was talking to me... hello

“"Do Unto Others" ”

Since: Mar 13

Austin Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187768
Apr 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Ridgecrest, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187779
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187780
Apr 9, 2013
 
A Most Interesting Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said,Who? Or how about a good Yuk,yuk,yuk? You are a frigging whack job! Yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!
Who? You, silly! "$3 Bill"! "Old SniffsButt Bill"! War hero!

You need thorazine! A 55 gallon drum! Administered anally! The nurse is ready Alzheimer's boy!

YUK!YUK!YUK!YUK! Bill of a thousand sock puppets.

P.S. Can we get a "Shut your piehole!"?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187781
Apr 9, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He has, on numerous occasions, but its ether ignored or accurately addressed by the other side.
That's just dopey Old SniffsButt Bill. AKA $3 Bill. Never posted anything of substance ever. But that doesn't stop him or his thousand sock puppets from whining about other posters being off topic. He's very silly like that.
Anonymous

Millbrook, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187782
Apr 9, 2013
 
Sparkle wrote:
<quoted text>i'm sure lung cancer is too
Well I have lung cancer, and you have cervical cancer. Such a tragedy!
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187783
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 is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.

For example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.

That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.

That is ultimately up to the will of the people, and the rule of law. Prop 8 was passed by a small margin, but was challenged on constitutional grounds, overturned but a stay put on the results.

The situation is now reversed, put on a ballot again today Prop 8 would be overturned easily, and it is actually the courts that are the blocking point.

Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.

Not based on history, not based on tradition, not based on pseudo-science and the often misguided references here to evolution, or any ancient books, but by the rule of law, and ultimately the will of the people.

That is why even your most famous right win pundit has thrown in the towel on the issue.

All your concerns about Poly and Incest and so forth are at the same whim, the will of the people and the rule of law.

I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.

Poly… probably at some point
Incest… doubtful in the foreseeable future

But it isn’t up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187784
Apr 9, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The line is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.
For example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.
That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.
That is ultimately up to the will of the people, and the rule of law. Prop 8 was passed by a small margin, but was challenged on constitutional grounds, overturned but a stay put on the results.
The situation is now reversed, put on a ballot again today Prop 8 would be overturned easily, and it is actually the courts that are the blocking point.
Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.
Not based on history, not based on tradition, not based on pseudo-science and the often misguided references here to evolution, or any ancient books, but by the rule of law, and ultimately the will of the people.
That is why even your most famous right win pundit has thrown in the towel on the issue.
All your concerns about Poly and Incest and so forth are at the same whim, the will of the people and the rule of law.
I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.
Poly… probably at some point
Incest… doubtful in the foreseeable future
But it isn’t up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.
Liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel".

Priceless!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187785
Apr 9, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
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.
well, sunshine, that's your OPINION. nothing more, nothing less. and you're entitled to it.

however, the judges in the Prop 8 trial disagree with you - and the attornies from your side couldn't present anything to justify barring same sex marriage.

did you send them your letters containing all your opinions and offerings of help? i'm sure they could've used your words and help.(snicker)

sorry, sunshine, you're going to be sucking eggs soon enough, come sometime in June when SCOTUS hands down it's rulings. you might want to get mentally and emotionally prepared for reading wedding announcements in your local paper of your neighboring same sex couples. it's ok. you can vent here. no one will care what you say.

good luck.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 164,041 - 164,060 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

15 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 36 min Follow the dog 15,655
Single men in Hemet 5 hr End of YOUR World 5
Hemet Council Election 2014. (Jan '13) 6 hr End of YOUR World 30
LA FITNESS Membership Sales People (Feb '12) 10 hr Ribcage 37
sad sad sad:/ 10 hr Ribcage 8
HEMET: Council OK's Tres Cerritos project (Mar '12) 11 hr End of YOUR World 4
Alleged Hookers Disrupt Hemet Businesses (Feb '09) 12 hr Jesse Jackson 74
•••
•••

Hemet News Video

•••
Hemet Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Hemet Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••