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: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190095 Apr 25, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be an excercise in futility to debate the Constitutionality of something woth someone who self admittedly is ignorant of the subject matter.
What do you base your opinion on?
I base my opinion on logic.

Heterosexual couples are legally allowed to marry. They make whatever promises to one another in front of groups of people or only to one another. This is a "ceremony"; an act that in the eyes of the law means nothing.

Homosexual couples can do the same thing. We have "commitment ceremonies" or other public/private exchanges of promises. They also, legally, mean nothing.

Heterosexual couples have the extra benefits and protections of legal marriage. These benefits and protections allow them to do any number of things--take FMLA, receive spousal Medicare or Social Security benefits, obtain base housing in the military, inheritance protection; the list goes on.

Gay couples pay into the same systems that straight couples pay into. They get the benefits, we do not.

Even straight couples who enter into "sham marriages" are able to get these benefits.

Every accepted scientific, medical, and legal collective,(ABA, AMA, APA, NASW, etc.) is in support of same-sex marriage. They all recognize that same-sex partnerships, at their foundation, are equal to opposite-sex partnerships.

There is NO REASON why same-sex couples should be denied the exact same benefits and protections that legally married heterosexual couples have.
Frankie Rizzo

Los Angeles, CA

#190096 Apr 25, 2013
armand wrote:
Hi I'm 20 years old I'm cool masculin hmm searching for mature or dad hmmm can contact me 25cf6822 or 02197988154 come on meet me or if u can married me
Look me up in the Union City rough-trade/twink site. Its on-line and discreet.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190097 Apr 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, time for breakfast. I think this morning I'll have the VV meltdown special.
Dear, if you think of this as a meltdown, then you have truly led a sheltered life.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190098 Apr 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is up to the Supreme Court and has been since 1803 :)
The funny part is it is the opponents of Same Sex marriage the pushed the issue to the supreme courts, as all courts that have reviewed the case below them have already ruled that Prop 8 should fall.
The unequal treatment of same sex couples will end
Only 2 ways to do that
Nullify the 18,000 legally married same sex couples that now already exist and are recognized in California ( not going to happen, can you imagine the lawsuits if they did that )
Or uphold the overturn of Prop 8 as the lower courts have already done, making all same sex couples equal in the state of California
Your opponents are expecting the latter... and they should, it is the obvious solution to the issue.
Excellent post!
Chaz Bono

Los Angeles, CA

#190099 Apr 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not it.
Because it's ugly.
No, it isn't. You are a stupid troll, FR.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190100 Apr 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear, if you think of this as a meltdown, then you have truly led a sheltered life.
Yes. It was a meltdown. And no, my life was not sheltered like yours.
Seymour Duck

United States

#190101 Apr 25, 2013
Anyone gonna SK8 DA POOL DIS WEEKEND? FIRST SESSION FRIDAY NIGHT.(Pool party Beer band lights)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190102 Apr 25, 2013
Big D must have a big cleanup on aisle 5 or something, he's not pontificating down to us this morning as he usually does.

Maybe a special Super D job! Mopping up a spill for truth, justice and the Walmart way!
AZPX

United States

#190103 Apr 25, 2013
Oh yea ill bring some BIRD & DOOF.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190104 Apr 25, 2013
Chaz Bono wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. You are a stupid troll, FR.
The real Chaz Bono is a decent person. You are not.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190105 Apr 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent post!
Thanks, it always surprises me that folks don’t understand the actual equal rights issue, It isnt the recognitiion of same sex marrage, California already does, It recognizes same sex marrages preformed in other states and it recognizes 18,000 same sex marrages that have already occurred in the state of Califronia.

A large part of the equal rights issue has to do with why some same sex couples are being treated differently than other same sex couples, depending on when they got married.

Recognition of same sex marrage is not even on the agenda… that is already a fact both before and after Prop 8. There are 18,000 in California, there are over 120,000 nationwide.

After DOMA section 3 falls ( just about everyone agrees that will fall ) you can add federal recognition of same sex marrage.

Recognition of same sex marrage isnt the issue, it already is recognized, the issue is equal treatment, now both sides are trying to streach the issue, those supporting prop 8 want to extend the issue to recognition issues, and those opposed to prop 8 want to extend the issue to states other than california.

But the actual issue ( which is the only thing I expect them to actualy rule on ) is simpler. It is the issue that same sex marrage alrady exists in California, but new same sex couples don’t have the same rights.

We already know which way that will rule

They may chicken out… just toss the issue back to the state, but that is the same as overturning it, which the state judicial systme has alrady done and upheld by the highest corut in the state.
Officer Baker Supporter

Santa Cruz, CA

#190106 Apr 25, 2013
Gay Marriage is our modern day Civil Rights movement.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190107 Apr 25, 2013
Let's take a refreshing break from Big D's angry ranting and raving!

Here's a little anecdote I wrote on a thread about British English-

Xavier Breath learns English. by Frankie Rizzo

This is a story of an Englishman going to an American service station to get some new windshield wiper blades.

He fills his tank with petrol and asks the dopey looking attendant with a patch on his shirt that says "Xavier B" for some windscreen wipers.

Xavier replies "Golly! What the hell is that for?" The Englishman answers "To wipe the rain off the windscreen." Xavier says "Windscreen? It's a windshield you dumbass Limey,'Mercans invented the car so it's called whatever we say it's called".

The Englishman replied, look jackass, we invented the language! Not only that but we invented windscreen wipers and patented them in 1911 so they are called whatever we say they are called!"

Xavier replied. "Sorry sir! Shall I wash your windshield now?" The Englishman said. "What a dipsh!t."

Xavier filed hate crime charges and won a civil suit for a million dollar settlement and that is why he now sits on his dopey ass and posts nonsense all day and night instead of pumping gas. The Englishman lost his million dollar fortune to Xavier and now he pumps gas at Xavier's old job.

The End.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190109 Apr 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I base my opinion on logic.
Heterosexual couples are legally allowed to marry. They make whatever promises to one another in front of groups of people or only to one another. This is a "ceremony"; an act that in the eyes of the law means nothing.
Homosexual couples can do the same thing. We have "commitment ceremonies" or other public/private exchanges of promises. They also, legally, mean nothing.
Logic dictates a couple is either opposite sex or same sex.
Heterosexual couples have the extra benefits and protections of legal marriage. These benefits and protections allow them to do any number of things--take FMLA, receive spousal Medicare or Social Security benefits, obtain base housing in the military, inheritance protection; the list goes on.
Opposite sex couples have the "extra benefits and protections of legal marriage", because, at least in 32 plus U.S. state marriage is a legally defined union of husband and wife.
Gay couples pay into the same systems that straight couples pay into. They get the benefits, we do not.
If you want the benefits of the system, enter into it the same way.
Even straight couples who enter into "sham marriages" are able to get these benefits.
Again it's opposite sex couples. An opposite sex gay couple can also enter into a "sham marriage".
Every accepted scientific, medical, and legal collective,(ABA, AMA, APA, NASW, etc.) is in support of same-sex marriage. They all recognize that same-sex partnerships, at their foundation, are equal to opposite-sex partnerships.
Equal does not mean the same. Men and women are different.

[
There is NO REASON why same-sex couples should be denied the exact same benefits and protections that legally married heterosexual couples have.
If you want the EXACT SAME benefits and protections that legally married OPPOSITE SEX couples have, logic dictates you should enter into marriage the same way, by accepting a person of the OPPOSITE SEX as your respective legally recognized wife, or husband .

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190110 Apr 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
<quoted text>
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
So you are saying,
-Ss couples are not duplicates of one gender?
-Ss couples are mutually capable of procreation?
Oh, and you have medical proof of my condition?
You are the sad one, and you are not void of hate.
Smile.
I don't hate you. In fact I feel quite sorry for you. I can only come up with the names of three people that I know well enough to hate them based upon their actions and vile nature. Two were the parents of a high school girlfriend and the other was the stepfather of a college girlfriend. I'll leave the details for you to ponder. Fortunately for the rest of us all three have shuffled off this mortal coil. None too soon for they left their mark on at least two people, probably more like 6 or 7 in reality.

No, I don't have proof of your "medical condition." You've made outlandish claims and subsequently stated that your identity was a known quantity or some such rot. It isn't, you're just and anonymous buffoon with a computer. Like I said before, you've posted a great deal of opinion and you've confused it with fact. If you want to stick with your two facts, go right ahead. It'd be refreshing to see you drop the rest of your schtick.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190111 Apr 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic dictates a couple is either opposite sex or same sex.
<quoted text>
Opposite sex couples have the "extra benefits and protections of legal marriage", because, at least in 32 plus U.S. state marriage is a legally defined union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
If you want the benefits of the system, enter into it the same way.
<quoted text>
Again it's opposite sex couples. An opposite sex gay couple can also enter into a "sham marriage".
<quoted text>
Equal does not mean the same. Men and women are different.
[<quoted text>
If you want the EXACT SAME benefits and protections that legally married OPPOSITE SEX couples have, logic dictates you should enter into marriage the same way, by accepting a person of the OPPOSITE SEX as your respective legally recognized wife, or husband .
LOL Logic and the law have little in common, the law in California recognizes both opposite and same sex marriage now, there are 18,000 same sex married legally recognized in California.

That point is moot, it is already a fact that same sex marriages exist and are recognized legally. No more a sham marriage than your marriage is ... maybe that is a bad analogy as your marriage is so fragile that you feel it is in danger... so no more a sham that my marriage, and you will not find a stronger one than mine.

Equal under the law, which wears a blindfold, blind to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin is exactly what they seek, and in fact some already have.

The question of equality is why some same sex married couples are recognized, and others are denied.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190112 Apr 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Logic and the law have little in common, the law in California recognizes both opposite and same sex marriage now, there are 18,000 same sex married legally recognized in California.
That point is moot, it is already a fact that same sex marriages exist and are recognized legally. No more a sham marriage than your marriage is ... maybe that is a bad analogy as your marriage is so fragile that you feel it is in danger... so no more a sham that my marriage, and you will not find a stronger one than mine.
Equal under the law, which wears a blindfold, blind to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin is exactly what they seek, and in fact some already have.
The question of equality is why some same sex married couples are recognized, and others are denied.
"... maybe that is a bad analogy as your marriage is so fragile that you feel it is in danger... so no more a sham that my marriage, and you will not find a stronger one than mine."

Oh, spare us. You are truly a jackass.
Stimied

Covina, CA

#190113 Apr 25, 2013
Medical and recreational marijuana may be legal in Colorado, but employers in the state can lawfully fire workers who test positive for the drug, even if it was used off duty, according to a court ruling Thursday.

The Colorado Court of Appeals found there is no employment protection for medical marijuana users in the state since the drug remains barred by the federal government.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190114 Apr 25, 2013
4/17/2013
As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy.
When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous marriage.
For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting adults,(2) of opposite sex,(3) who are not close blood relatives. Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be touched.
Slate believes,“Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”
They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional.
Slate elaborates on their reasoning:
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.
If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage doesn’t extend to polygamists.
This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam.
One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices.
Slate concludes:“All marriages deserve access to the support and resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States.
Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190115 Apr 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Of course they do, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, grandparents.
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
That reasoning could be applied to a number of consenting adult relationships.
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Suppose the two men were brothers.....does it change the situation?
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
And the brothers?
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
Would the brother?
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
Legally married opposite sex couple. They could be of "mixed orientation".
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
Nor with siblings?
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
It's not available to other adults in similar situations either.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Why stop at couples? If marriage is simply a protection program, it's unfair to limit it to "couples". Plural marriages, adult siblings living together long term, etc., could also benefit from marriage protection.

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) 11 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 8:52 am PST