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
166,701 - 166,720 of 200,357 Comments Last updated 7 hrs ago
Anchors

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190887
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Give way swabby.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190888
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
How, exactly, are men and women different, other than body parts?
<quoted text>
Appealing to tradition.
Logical fallacy.
<quoted text>
You make no sense.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190890
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, a two-fer.
So, what did your family and friends say?

Smile.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190891
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not being honest.
-The point is not about feelings, it is about distortion.
-Where have I said being a mutation makes me less valid? Nor is the mutation my fault. It happens to make me distinct. And an incredible curiosity. I find that a positive extremely often.
-You can 'say' homosexuality has any reason for existence. Only some are true. See the difference?
-Ss couples cannot 'have' children. Do you see what your denial is trying to equate?
-Yes, the law is a part of reality. But no, if the law denies reality, reality doesn't change. The reality is, the law is simple wrong.
Do you feel a 'haunting' now?
<quoted text>
I listed point by point corrections to your statements.
Words have specific meaning for a reason. You seem to think that specificity is only necessary with things and not people. I disagree.
Just a note; The issue is not whether ss couples would harm marriage. The fundamental question is do they equate to marriage. The only aspect is in number. That means marriage would then mean 'two people in a committed relationship'. Restricting marriage to only two for that reason is discriminatory. Again, it leaves your mother and father, and your family without distinction. I find that sad.
Ok, my bad for the lack of clarity on my part. Yes I do know words have specific meanings. I do think that applies when talking about people, but, again, the point was you can't just be all quasi-logical and reduce everything down to original definition when there are emotions involved. Marriage is more than just function, it is love and companionship too.
See your point about taking away the man/woman in a marriage. For my part I'd prefer it for selfish reasons as would SS couples. Back at one time part of the vows was to 'obey' which many dispense with now. Would it not suffice to keep the man/woman part in the vows in some way. The service is often tailored to the couples, so the only real difference would be the legal definition; and the gender part could still be on the license. I do also see why it can be sad. But, change is part of progress. At one time a woman was not called a woman but as a wife (and the man still man as opposed to being husband) was chattel. Do we/they really need such distinction, will still be a hetero marriage and family, documents will still no doubt specify the gender of those involved. It seems a little like an exclusive club which is set to opening itself up the a wider variety of members; except the esteemed exclusivity of the club is more in the minds of some than it is in practical effects.

Thank you for answering my query about chimeras and mosaics. Like I just said yes I know words are specific but often what one person calls one thing appears to be different because of the word they use but actually it's the same thing, especially between Countries (eg. America and England). Wrongly, I thought that was what the case was here. The twin thing I've heard about, happens quite often, but usually the lost twin is totally absorbed physically and their individual DNA lost. Not for you though, lucky you; why have either/ or when you can have both is what I say. I want to add a little smirkey smiley face to that but it may be taken as mocking.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190893
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Kimare'a wrote;

Just a note; The issue is not whether ss couples would harm marriage. The fundamental question is do they equate to marriage. The only aspect is in number. That means marriage would then mean 'two people in a committed relationship'. Restricting marriage to only two for that reason is discriminatory. Again, it leaves your mother and father, and your family without distinction. I find that sad.
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, my bad for the lack of clarity on my part. Yes I do know words have specific meanings. I do think that applies when talking about people, but, again, the point was you can't just be all quasi-logical and reduce everything down to original definition when there are emotions involved. Marriage is more than just function, it is love and companionship too.
See your point about taking away the man/woman in a marriage. For my part I'd prefer it for selfish reasons as would SS couples. Back at one time part of the vows was to 'obey' which many dispense with now. Would it not suffice to keep the man/woman part in the vows in some way. The service is often tailored to the couples, so the only real difference would be the legal definition; and the gender part could still be on the license. I do also see why it can be sad. But, change is part of progress. At one time a woman was not called a woman but as a wife (and the man still man as opposed to being husband) was chattel. Do we/they really need such distinction, will still be a hetero marriage and family, documents will still no doubt specify the gender of those involved. It seems a little like an exclusive club which is set to opening itself up the a wider variety of members; except the esteemed exclusivity of the club is more in the minds of some than it is in practical effects.
Thank you for answering my query about chimeras and mosaics. Like I just said yes I know words are specific but often what one person calls one thing appears to be different because of the word they use but actually it's the same thing, especially between Countries (eg. America and England). Wrongly, I thought that was what the case was here. The twin thing I've heard about, happens quite often, but usually the lost twin is totally absorbed physically and their individual DNA lost. Not for you though, lucky you; why have either/ or when you can have both is what I say. I want to add a little smirkey smiley face to that but it may be taken as mocking.
I didn't reduce marriage to it's 'original definition', I reduced marriage to it's fundamental purpose. That is so important, social scientists assert that if procreation were not a product of mating behavior, marriage would not occur.

I have never denied that many other aspects are a part of marriage. However, love and companionship are a part of almost every relationship. They certainly don't need marriage to exist.

Sorry for being picky, but I see it as being accurate.

I noticed you avoided addressing the issue of 'equating'.

Perhaps it is because of my condition that I embrace engaging life in the union of both genders, instead of as one. There is a vast difference that requires distinction. The degree is often described as the union of Mars and Venus.

At the most intimate level, there is clearly a design where male and female 'fit' together. In gay intimacy that union has to be manipulated to even be marginally safe.

The marriage union can even be seen as restoring us to our earliest roots, a genderless, simple life form.

Enjoyed the subtle humor at the end...

Smile.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190894
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
Kimare'a wrote;
<quoted text>
I didn't reduce marriage to it's 'original definition', I reduced marriage to it's fundamental purpose. That is so important, social scientists assert that if procreation were not a product of mating behavior, marriage would not occur.
I have never denied that many other aspects are a part of marriage. However, love and companionship are a part of almost every relationship. They certainly don't need marriage to exist.
Sorry for being picky, but I see it as being accurate.
I noticed you avoided addressing the issue of 'equating'.
Perhaps it is because of my condition that I embrace engaging life in the union of both genders, instead of as one. There is a vast difference that requires distinction. The degree is often described as the union of Mars and Venus.
At the most intimate level, there is clearly a design where male and female 'fit' together. In gay intimacy that union has to be manipulated to even be marginally safe.
The marriage union can even be seen as restoring us to our earliest roots, a genderless, simple life form.
Enjoyed the subtle humor at the end...
Smile.
Ok, I'm not disagreeing that marriage has come about because of mating behaviour. It has become more than that. Although love/companionship are part of other relationships many people feel it is the essence of their reason for marrying; to make a commitment to themselves in front of everyone. In one way I do see your point about the duality of nature, the universe. Then this applies to any hetero relationship (except perhaps any of ours). At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal formality, a piece of paper contract. It is not something unto itself. Isn't it a tad sentimental in lamenting a change in marriage? The union of two genders will still be that for those two involved. A pagan ceremony celebrating such duality calls itself a marriage without requiring a piece of paper. I know what that thought leads to, why can't SS do something similar... but like I said the other day, it was tried with 'civil partnerships' and a mistake (IMO) was made in not allowing the same legal rights and recognitions within that, so the GLB have gone all out for equal marriage rights. If it's what they want, and it isn't going to directly change any individual's marriage (wording will not change that couple, will it) then why not. Like I said it's a legality. The celebration of duality of two sexes will still apply to that couple and can be pronounced/affirmed within the ceremony/vows.
I didn't mean to avoid the issue of 'equating', but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. If it's the gender thing, then like I already said, each person has aspects of both in themselves and in the relationship. And even opposite sex couples often have aspects of the same. If I were to equate the two types of marriage, then I'd equate on the basis of the relationship and on love. Of course reproduction wise they can't be the same. They are equal in love and each person feeling that they've found their other half. You may say not because of the duality, but there is more to love than gender. Love is genderless as are soulmates. Gender is the mind and the body, not the essence of a person, their soul if you like.
The amoeba, the alpha, and the ?, the omega. Some say the world is becoming genderless, the distinctions blurring; and with hormones in the food chain. An eventual return to the start, like the universe that expanded contracts back again, or God being both the beginning and the end. Ok, I'm well into off topic drivel mode. Way too much coffee this morning.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190896
May 4, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190897
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I'm not disagreeing that marriage has come about because of mating behaviour. It has become more than that. Although love/companionship are part of other relationships many people feel it is the essence of their reason for marrying; to make a commitment to themselves in front of everyone. In one way I do see your point about the duality of nature, the universe. Then this applies to any hetero relationship (except perhaps any of ours). At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal formality, a piece of paper contract. It is not something unto itself. Isn't it a tad sentimental in lamenting a change in marriage? The union of two genders will still be that for those two involved. A pagan ceremony celebrating such duality calls itself a marriage without requiring a piece of paper. I know what that thought leads to, why can't SS do something similar... but like I said the other day, it was tried with 'civil partnerships' and a mistake (IMO) was made in not allowing the same legal rights and recognitions within that, so the GLB have gone all out for equal marriage rights. If it's what they want, and it isn't going to directly change any individual's marriage (wording will not change that couple, will it) then why not. Like I said it's a legality. The celebration of duality of two sexes will still apply to that couple and can be pronounced/affirmed within the ceremony/vows.
I didn't mean to avoid the issue of 'equating', but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. If it's the gender thing, then like I already said, each person has aspects of both in themselves and in the relationship. And even opposite sex couples often have aspects of the same. If I were to equate the two types of marriage, then I'd equate on the basis of the relationship and on love. Of course reproduction wise they can't be the same. They are equal in love and each person feeling that they've found their other half. You may say not because of the duality, but there is more to love than gender. Love is genderless as are soulmates. Gender is the mind and the body, not the essence of a person, their soul if you like.
The amoeba, the alpha, and the ?, the omega. Some say the world is becoming genderless, the distinctions blurring; and with hormones in the food chain. An eventual return to the start, like the universe that expanded contracts back again, or God being both the beginning and the end. Ok, I'm well into off topic drivel mode. Way too much coffee this morning.
Too wordy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190898
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people would say that being a pathological liar in order to obtain a sanity certificate doesn't make you smart, it just makes you a liar.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.
Spill Over

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190899
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rissio, your back order of "DEPENDS" have arrived.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190900
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what did your family and friends say?
Smile.
I asked, they all agree that you are nucking futz.

You're welcome.
Elastic

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190901
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rissios

Do your back ordered "DEPENDS" have elastic hip hugging band?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190902
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

Elastic wrote:
Frankie Rissios
Do your back ordered "DEPENDS" have elastic hip hugging band?
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190903
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Spill Over wrote:
Frankie Rissio, your back order of "DEPENDS" have arrived.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190904
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked, they all agree that you are nucking futz.
You're welcome.
Even if that were true, it would be a non-issue.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190907
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
During the oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to children being raised by same-sex couples. Since I was one of those children—from ages 2-19, I was raised by a lesbian mother with the help of her partner—I was curious to see what he would say.
I also eagerly anticipated what he would say because I had taken great professional and social risk to file an amicus brief with Doug Mainwaring (who is gay and opposes gay marriage), in which we explained that children deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents or how much they love us. Children feel the loss keenly because they are powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother, and the absence of a male or female parent will likely be irreversible for them.
Over the last year I’ve been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships. They are terrified of speaking publicly about their feelings, so several have asked me (since I am already out of the closet, so to speak) to give voice to their concerns.
I cannot speak for all children of same-sex couples, but I speak for quite a few of them, especially those who have been brushed aside in the so-called “social science research” on same-sex parenting.
Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.
Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.
I have heard of the supposed “consensus” on the soundness of same-sex parenting from pediatricians and psychologists, but that consensus is frankly bogus.
Pediatricians are supposed to make sure kids don’t get ringworm or skip out on vaccinations—nobody I know doubts that same-sex couples are able to tend to such basic childcare needs.
Psychologists come from the same field that used to have a “consensus” that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Neither field is equipped to answer the deeper existential dilemmas of legally removing fatherhood or motherhood as a human principle, which is what total “marriage equality” would entail.
I support same-sex civil unions and foster care, but I have always resisted the idea that government should encourage same-sex couples to imagine that their partnerships are indistinguishable from actual marriages. Such a self-definition for gays would be based on a lie, and anything based on a lie will backfire.
The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad. Having spent forty years immersed in the gay community, I have seen how that reality triggers anger and vicious recrimination from same-sex couples, who are often tempted to bad-mouth so-called “dysfunctional” or “trashy” straight couples in order to say,“We deserve to have kids more than they do!”
If people like the author of this piece want to voice an opposition to gay adoptions and gay parents, then they should feel free to do so.

However, let's not confuse the issue of marriage with child rearing.

The truth is that if society stopped "shaming" gays in general, then kids of same-sex parents would not experience it either. Also, kids of divorce are often left without male/female role models, and yet we continue to allow divorce to take place.

Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190908
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you mentioned that, Same sex marriage would not be advancing without the support of heterosexuals.
I think there are more heterosexual supporters of same sex marriage, then there are homosexual... think about that.
More voters in the US today support same sex marrage than oppose it
You are not alone
Sure it would. Your side has infiltrated the corridors of power, and a chosen few have steered the agenda. How many times can you ignore the facts? I've been having fun with a new toy, my magnetic bumper sticker. It reads, simply "Say 'no' to gay marriage". Results? Not surprising, 19 thumbs up, from passing motorists. And 1 idiot, who flipped me off as he/she/it passed me by, then got stuck in the lane as i passed them, flipping them off, and then they passed me again, this time, flipping me off, AND trying to cut me off. Laughable. They thought I'd veer out of the way, but when I laid on the air horn, they almost ran into a ditch. So, let's count that up, shall we? 19 against SSM, 1 for it, and , oh......about 900 or 2300, or something like that...that didn't care, 1 way or the other. You keep spewing out the same old horseshit about how many people support SM, but it isn't true, and we all know it. It's all propaganda.
Rug top

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190909
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Suggesting that Donald (hairless) Trump -- who infamously questioned President Obama's birthplace.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190910
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Marram, you realize that Kimare's term, "epi-marker mistake" is not a real term, don't you?
He believes that he can fool people into thinking that homosexuality is a mistake.
He loves making up scientific-sounding words. But, he's pretty lousy at it; even for a washed-up pastor.
I've done it once, now I shall do it again.....(sigh)
Science, not opinion, as shown by these links...

http://now.msn.com/epigenetics-study-may-expl...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_227315.asp

Sigh......again.
If you wish to dispute the validity of science, perhaps you should first know of what you speak...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190911
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And the name is what they fear... they are frightened half to death.. by a word.
The name does not belong to them, many religions and non-religious use the same word, that word is not their personal property, and from a recognition perspective, it is a legal term.
Our laws are applied equally ( or are supposed to be ) regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.
You need to learn the definition of words, before you try to use them.

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.

Other Recent Hemet Discussions

Search the Hemet Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Devin F you're my secret crush! 6 hr weird 7
Man assaults kids at McDonalds-east florida on ... (Jul '13) 6 hr Riverside Dave 129
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 7 hr Fly right 4,893
what keeps hemet from going bankrupt? (Sep '12) 13 hr Ace 25
Now what? Mon apt crime 8
hemet police not doing their job Mon hpd great 25
is there a hobby shop in town? (Aug '11) Mon comic store somewhere 6
•••

Excessive Heat Warning for Riverside County was issued at July 30 at 2:18AM PDT

•••
•••

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 ]
•••