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 8,296)

Showing posts 165,901 - 165,920 of200,196
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190029
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The supposed growth of your congregation is no indicator of denominational growth. Pick an open and affirming denomination, and let's look. Your choice.
I generalized nothing, you gay twirled.
Again.
Smile.
<quoted text>
"Slow"???
How about going BACKWARDS! Those open and affirming denominations are bleeding like a Boston terrorist meeting reality!
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get your numbers? Have a look at this article, which indicates that ALL churches are losing members; including evangelicals. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-fi...
I stated no numbers.

You need to read your article again.

Nothing you said changes the fact that calling ss couples married hurts churches that endorse it.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190030
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you have posted the facts?!? Hell, you've NEVER posted a fact that I can recall. Remember your "facts" about how gays are the result of "epi-genetic mistakes"? There's nothing factual about that.
I wouldn't believe you even if your tongue came notarized.
Or that your argument about slow change was hogwash.

smirk.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190031
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

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
You're on the wrong thread again Jizzy. And you're closer to 80 than you are to 20.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190032
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a dead argument, even the Supreme Court joked about it.
Should they deny anyone over 55 a marriage license, how about Vets that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies, should they be denied marriage licenses?
There is no law, anywhere, that will deny a couple a marriage license because they do not intend or cannot have children.
Procreation is a dead argument with respect to same sex marriage.
They hang onto that, because they donít have anything else to cling too, like rats running to the last dry spot on a sinking ship.
What then is the point? Why do men need to "marry" men, and women "marry" women?

If procreation is a "dead argument" there is no need to prohibit marriage between consenting blood relatives.
Allahu

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190033
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Mother of the two Boston bombers.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva:ďI Donít Care if My Youngest Son Is Killed.

I Donít Care If I Am Killed.

I Will Say Allahu Akbar!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190034
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Newsflash!
We live in US of A, procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Ergo the rest of your comment regarding financial benefits for women with children is a bit irrelevant in the matter of the question of validating same sex marriage in the US.
The real motive for most couples in the US, apparently, is a pronouncement of love which is recognised in marriage. The legal ramifications of the contract are icing on the cake.
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.

The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."

Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.

So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?

To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."

To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190035
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then let's take back the Fourteenth Amendment and let people own one another. Let's allow slavery to flourish in the country again. Let's allow segregation of schools. Let's allow discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Such pesky government interference...
So you have lost the argument and now you are simply going to say stupid irrational sh$$?

Wipe your mouth, you are drooling.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, our country EVOLVES. It doesn't stay stagnant.
Sure does, see Article V US Constitution.

A judge doesn't "evolve" our country. The SCOTUS doesn't "evolve" out country. Only a 3/4th's ratification of the State Legislatures "evolve" this country.

You should read the Constitution, it really doesn't take that long.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Decisions are made and processes are created in a manner that you may not agree with. But you are powerless to do anything about them.
King George and the British Parliament used to say that too.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The LGBT Community is aware of the processes necessary to get the rights and protections of marriage that we feel, as citizens, we deserve.
We will work within those systems, whether you believe they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals.
Rightly or wrongly, these are the processes that we have access to at this point in the game.
What an interesting statement- "Whether they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals."

No truer words have ever been spoken, Constitution be damned, we will get what we want.

BTW, you included that silly line-"you believe". It has nothing to do with "MY" belief, my position on the Constitution is based on the OPINION of those who drafted and ratified it.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? The Madison Journal on the Constitutional Convention? The Anti-Federalist Papers? The transcripts of the ratification debates in the States?

If you answer NO, than I hardly find you even slightly qualified to comment on what is and is not Constitution.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We like to refer to it as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If marriage is an "Unalienable Right" than is cannot be restricted- not by number, not by gender, not by race, not by ANYTHING!! Since we agree that it can be restricted as has been stated many times when mention of: incest, polygamy etc.; are mentioned it is merely a PRIVILEGE extended to the lucky few.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190036
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You silly twit, the law is a mockery when it denies reality.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my 'opinion' that ss couples will only ever be a duplicated sterile half of marriage.
<quoted text>
Funny.
-I'm one of the rare ones on here where my identity IS known. But that hardly changes the fact that a law is corrupt when it denies reality.
-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?
Smile.
Sterility isn't an issue for marriage, just like procreation isn't. That it matters for a marriage is your opinion. That notion a same sex couple who hold a marriage certificate is not married is your opinion. Apparently you cannot even keep up with yourself.

Your identity is known? Nope, no one here has a clue about who you are. You do repeat your BS claim that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body while pretending you're also a chimera and a mutation. Which is it? Are you a man? Are you a chimera? Or are you a mutation? Until you can actually prove your "identity" I believe most of us here will just have to assume you're full of shit. The ol' Im a lesbian trapped in a man's body is a joke that was around before the internet existed. Get some new material.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190037
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

An observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Goverment could not and should not regulate the love between people - it is unconstitutional, it is private mater between individuals and nobody have right to dictate that relationship. I think we are on the same page here?
The marriage as goverment protected institution is not a registry of people in love, it is goverment enforced contract to protect procreation and set of tax breaks with same intention.
The reason why general public invest in procreation, because the future of the nation depends on it. The today children will pay tax tomorrow and cover the cost of these tax brakes
By the way, check out the report from SSA - we are at the real danger that in 50 years for every working person it would be 4 not working senior and two of them with Alzheimer's. Although US so far has a good chance to avoid it all Europe certainly goes to that future.
What in the name of Sam Hill does any of that have to do with same sex marriage? The number of gay individuals in a population appears to be somewhat constant. Probably something on the order of 2%. Permitting or not permitting marriage for same sex couples will have absolutely no bearing on life spans and debilitating diseases that accompany aging. The sum total of the "tax breaks" that occur due to same sex marriage will be far lower than that 2% of the population they comprise. Your argument is based upon pocket change, relatively speaking.

The benefits of marriage cover hundreds of items in addition to the tax breaks that protect procreation. Just how what percentage of tax breaks do you think actually do anything to protect procreation?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190038
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The start of any movement is, by definition, slow. Look at the history of any major change in policy. It doesn't start out with tens of millions of people spontaneously supporting an idea.
It took less than 3 years for Germany to go from a Free people to the Third Reich.

Sorry, I was just looking at history.
Presses roll

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190039
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Residents beware more lies are coming out of Glendora city hall with each passing minute.

This insane propaganda machine buried in city hall operates more like North Korea's propaganda lies.

Glendora, California.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190040
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The fastest growing religions in America are Mormonism and Islam. Seventh Day Adventist have the largest percentage growth.
None of those are favorable to ss marriage.
Once again, I have posted the facts and nothing but the facts. You are the one distorting truth with hate.
Smile.
Mormon population growth rates have actually been slowing since they peaked in 1989. The increase has been below 3% for several years and is just a little over 2% recently. That amounts to 300,000 or so per anum.

The Muslim population in the US is currently about 1%. It will "skyrocket" to 1.7% by 2030. That is if the predictions are correct. Mormons make up less than 4.7%. No one knows what the rate of increase will be over the next decade or two, but if it continues at the tad over 2% where it has been stuck for a while, uh, BFD. Pardon me while I fall asleep.

Likewise, while other religions appear to be hemorrhaging, it would make the IDGAS about religion portion of the population appear to be growing faster than the Mormon and Moslem portion. As it is now about 1 in 5 Americans fall into that category.

YAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190041
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Mormon population growth rates have actually been slowing since they peaked in 1989. The increase has been below 3% for several years and is just a little over 2% recently. That amounts to 300,000 or so per anum.
The Muslim population in the US is currently about 1%. It will "skyrocket" to 1.7% by 2030. That is if the predictions are correct. Mormons make up less than 4.7%. No one knows what the rate of increase will be over the next decade or two, but if it continues at the tad over 2% where it has been stuck for a while, uh, BFD. Pardon me while I fall asleep.
Likewise, while other religions appear to be hemorrhaging, it would make the IDGAS about religion portion of the population appear to be growing faster than the Mormon and Moslem portion. As it is now about 1 in 5 Americans fall into that category.
YAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!
While many are falling out of favor with religion, there is still a vast majority of the population which would identify as religious.

Similar to the argument that our founders were not "christian" most were in fact religious to some degree.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190042
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.
I think I've already made it clear that I understand, and agree, with your premise regarding govt involvement in ALL marriage. I am not inclined to think it will get out of the business of marriage any time too soon. I also would like to point out that the poster appeared to be arguing that allowing same sex marriage would generate a significant financial burden due to the tax breaks a few on here keep referencing. I asked someone, Brian_G IIRC, to come up with a figure showing the significance of the allegation. Nothing yet AFAIK has been mentioned. These tax breaks are typically found when a pair gets together that have incomes of a significant difference. Most of the gay couples I know have comparable incomes. The tax benefits seem miniscule to me. That said, I'm not the one bellowing about the financial damage. Those who claim it will be a burden ought to be able to show their maths.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190043
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While many are falling out of favor with religion, there is still a vast majority of the population which would identify as religious.
Similar to the argument that our founders were not "christian" most were in fact religious to some degree.
The premise appeared to be one of a warning that the Moslem and Mormon populations were going to grow at a rate that would quell the gains that homosexuals have been appearing to make when it comes to the negative reactions to their mere existence. I think not. As more and more citizens shed their religious identity the use of religious arguments against same sex marriage may tend to follow the decline.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190044
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

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?
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Sterility isn't an issue for marriage, just like procreation isn't. That it matters for a marriage is your opinion. That notion a same sex couple who hold a marriage certificate is not married is your opinion. Apparently you cannot even keep up with yourself.
Your identity is known? Nope, no one here has a clue about who you are. You do repeat your BS claim that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body while pretending you're also a chimera and a mutation. Which is it? Are you a man? Are you a chimera? Or are you a mutation? Until you can actually prove your "identity" I believe most of us here will just have to assume you're full of shit. The ol' Im a lesbian trapped in a man's body is a joke that was around before the internet existed. Get some new material.
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.

Smirk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190046
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.
What remains is your irrelevance and dishonesty. You've posted great loads of opinion you've claimed to be fact. Leaning on these two as proof of your "facts" is quite laughable. You will also, without doubt, stick with your schtick about being a chimera, a mutation, and a man trapped in a woman's body. All sensational lies in an effort to make yourself appear to be something you are not. Pretty sad, ain't it?
An observer

Mountain View, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190047
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a dead argument, even the Supreme Court joked about it.
Should they deny anyone over 55 a marriage license, how about Vets that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies, should they be denied marriage licenses?
There is no law, anywhere, that will deny a couple a marriage license because they do not intend or cannot have children.
Procreation is a dead argument with respect to same sex marriage.
They hang onto that, because they donít have anything else to cling too, like rats running to the last dry spot on a sinking ship.
So you saying goverment should help one person collect pay for sex from other?
Or if I give my best friend a car I shell pay fees and taxes but I f* him it is free?
Why marriage to the sibling is denied?
why marriage to the multiple partners denied? Isn't possible to love two?

What is the business other people have into sexual relations of other?

If you see the only sexual aspect of the Marriage, you may say it is not goverment business and only up to churches or other public organization and would agree to you.
but most people of state care about protecting women carring child and procreation. And yes in this culture we are not going to test everybody for fertility - no need to humiliate people.

But so far that I hearing on this discussion - that goverment should regulate f* process and it is way outrages idea.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190048
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I've already made it clear that I understand, and agree, with your premise regarding govt involvement in ALL marriage. I am not inclined to think it will get out of the business of marriage any time too soon. I also would like to point out that the poster appeared to be arguing that allowing same sex marriage would generate a significant financial burden due to the tax breaks a few on here keep referencing. I asked someone, Brian_G IIRC, to come up with a figure showing the significance of the allegation. Nothing yet AFAIK has been mentioned. These tax breaks are typically found when a pair gets together that have incomes of a significant difference. Most of the gay couples I know have comparable incomes. The tax benefits seem miniscule to me. That said, I'm not the one bellowing about the financial damage. Those who claim it will be a burden ought to be able to show their maths.
I know that we are generally in agreement, and that you are one of the few who understand my position. My reply to you was simply to emphasize the point. You just happened to be the one involved in the discussion there that emphasis could be presented.

I wasn't really interested in the financial nonsense that was also in the post which is why I didn't reference them. People interested in "equality" should be screaming from the top of there lungs to end those benefits. I can't think of a more obvious example of inequality exercised through law.

You also mentioned that you don't see the government getting out of the marriage business any time soon. This is true so long as we continue to capitulate, expanding the government's role under the guise of gaining "right's." This is my biggest complaint with the same sex marriage movement, and how the movement has positioned itself and created its narrative. Interesting how an expansion in governmental regulatory control over citizens can be sold as increasing freedom.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190049
Apr 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

An observer wrote:
<quoted text>
So you saying goverment should help one person collect pay for sex from other?
Or if I give my best friend a car I shell pay fees and taxes but I f* him it is free?
Why marriage to the sibling is denied?
why marriage to the multiple partners denied? Isn't possible to love two?
What is the business other people have into sexual relations of other?
If you see the only sexual aspect of the Marriage, you may say it is not goverment business and only up to churches or other public organization and would agree to you.
but most people of state care about protecting women carring child and procreation. And yes in this culture we are not going to test everybody for fertility - no need to humiliate people.
But so far that I hearing on this discussion - that goverment should regulate f* process and it is way outrages idea.
You are free to go after those causes, go get signatures, fight for those rights that you feel need fighting.

For myself, I donít happen to be gay, but I do stand up for my fellow Americans that are being ( in fewer and fewer states ) denied equal rights.

Procreation is a dead argument, it was stupid when the lawyers brought it up and it was laughed at by the supreme court.

You are damn straight we arenít going to test anyone for fertility whether you want to or not, the ability or intent to have children has never .... ever... been a requirement for a marriage license, because form a legal perspective marriage IS NOT only about having children, and it never was in this country. It is a dead issue, and has no place in the argument over same sex marriage

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 165,901 - 165,920 of200,196
|
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.

8 Users are viewing the Hemet Forum right now

Search the Hemet Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Decide what 4,837
Retired CHP are lying cheats 2 hr Gabe R Gomez 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 5 hr 21 and over 15,909
Riverside County:Tap Water Taste and Smell Unpl... 10 hr Chris 39
Omg!! I can't believe my eyes so many blacks in... (May '13) 13 hr Yallsomescaredwhitefolks 166
Black People in Hemet (Jan '10) 13 hr Yallsomescaredwhitefolks 469
Devin F you're my secret crush! Wed eye for a eye 5
•••
•••

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 ]
•••