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
164,061 - 164,080 of 200,331 Comments Last updated 38 min ago

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187796
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?
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.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187797
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?
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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187798
Apr 9, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said he evolved, he has the same stupid opinion he did before stating that... he didnít evolve, he is throwing in the towel on the issue even though he hates it.
read it again
Do you have to have everything explained to you repeatedly, If you want to be in a conversation you need to have just a little comprehensionÖ just a tiny bit would be nice.
Like I said, liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel".

Obama has "evolved", Eastwood has "thrown in the towel"!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187799
Apr 9, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect.. I am more happy that justice is being done for all Americans regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin
No I am correct. You are more interested in feeling superior than you are in advancing civil rights.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187800
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.
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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187801
Apr 9, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The line is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.
I did not mention religion in my questions, but that for adding you hatred of religion.
For example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.
Okaaaaaaaaay
That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.
Why do you keep interjecting religion, when I did not.
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 will of the people was ignored, and the law is open to interpretation, and can be changed in one way or another.
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.
Perhaps it would be.
Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.
There is a difference between voicing support, and voting to support it.
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.
As in those states at constitutionally defined marriage as a union of a man and woman, in essence banning SSM and plural marriage?
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.
Will of the people and rule of law? So you agree with the people voting according to the rule of law to either maintain the conjugal definition of marriage, or redefine it?
I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.
PolyÖ probably at some point
IncestÖ doubtful in the foreseeable future
But it isnít up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.
So it's possible that SSM will be the historical turning point in the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relation of husband and wife, and reduce it to nothing more than a life style choice, regardless of its effect on society. Yes? Marriage can me anything or nothing. Is that the ultimate goal of the SSM movement? If so, why bother having state sanctioned marriage at all? Who cares who marries who?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187802
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.
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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187803
Apr 9, 2013
 
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
so you admit then that it is a very public statement of what a straight couple prefers - in effect, throwing it in everyone's face whereever they go & wear their wedding rings.
It's opposite sex couples, let's not ignore bisexuals who marry someone of the opposite sex, and other mixed orientation OSMs.
hey, that's just one way to look at it. i don't, but, at it's worst, it could be taken that way.
See, more than one way to view the issue.
interesting question you pose. marriage began as a method by which to join clans or to increase the wealth of one tribe (clan), hence the dowery. marriage pre-dates christianity. now, in modern times, it seems that everyone has sex outside of marriage. so it's not a reason to get marriage any longer. very interesting question indeed. probably the best one i've seen you pose.
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.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187804
Apr 9, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not mention religion in my questions, but that for adding you hatred of religion.
<quoted text>
Okaaaaaaaaay
<quoted text>
Why do you keep interjecting religion, when I did not.
<quoted text>
The will of the people was ignored, and the law is open to interpretation, and can be changed in one way or another.
<quoted text>
Perhaps it would be.
<quoted text>
There is a difference between voicing support, and voting to support it.
<quoted text>
As in those states at constitutionally defined marriage as a union of a man and woman, in essence banning SSM and plural marriage?
<quoted text>
Will of the people and rule of law? So you agree with the people voting according to the rule of law to either maintain the conjugal definition of marriage, or redefine it?
<quoted text>
So it's possible that SSM will be the historical turning point in the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relation of husband and wife, and reduce it to nothing more than a life style choice, regardless of its effect on society. Yes? Marriage can me anything or nothing. Is that the ultimate goal of the SSM movement? If so, why bother having state sanctioned marriage at all? Who cares who marries who?
No it will be the turning point in the strengthen of it, as it will make it inclusive under the rule of law.

To your last point, that was the road I supported some years ago, strike the word marriage from all law, ONLY have civil unions, then any church can call any civil union a marriage they wanted it be it heterosexual or homosexual and it would have absolutely no significance under actual law.

But neither side agreed with me, Same Sex marriage supporters didnít like that any more than the opponents did.

My goal is to make it all equal, either give marriage to same sex couples legally, or take it away from everyone else and call all of them civil unions legally and the word marriage can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean as it has no legal significance

( shrug )
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187805
Apr 9, 2013
 
Frankie might have liked my solution I was for years ago, as civil unions covered a lot of ground, poly, even non-romantic couples ( I know elderly ladies that are not gay but depend totally on one another that would benefit ), even business partners, it was a wide net.

The reason that isnít supported is again the real issue here is not rights, it is not recognition, it is not anything but ownership of a word.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187806
Apr 9, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Actually you are a man in a conjugal,(husband and wife), marriage. There are mixed orientation conjugal marriages out there, lets not forget those.
CA chamber of Commece

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187807
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

As stated before, the California chamber of commerce is nothing more than a bunch of communists.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187808
Apr 9, 2013
 
Big D wrote:
Frankie might have liked my solution I was for years ago, as civil unions covered a lot of ground, poly, even non-romantic couples ( I know elderly ladies that are not gay but depend totally on one another that would benefit ), even business partners, it was a wide net.
The reason that isnít supported is again the real issue here is not rights, it is not recognition, it is not anything but ownership of a word.
Naah. I wouldn't have liked it. I thought it was dopey just like everyone else did.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

12 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 32 min Abrahem 7,841
Black Hair salon in hemet 3 hr run 44
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 18 hr Mis kites 15,915
Vacationing family loses thousands in bicycle t... Wed Donny B 5
topix needs to remove ads Wed ads 5
Annoying Teachers! (Aug '11) Wed underpaid 72
Illegal immigrants in Menifee Wed thot 13
•••
•••

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 ]
•••