Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,188

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191251 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?
No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.
And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.
Right! We'll keep voting on it till it comes out right dammit!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191253 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey monster, doesn't science consider chimerism a defect?
Should you have been aborted?
LOL!
Why would a "marriage" you got involved in be considered real?
:)
Where's "Marram"?

Who insists Rose_NoHo's post are "intelligent and insightful".

I'd hate for him to miss this gem of intelligence and insight.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191254 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
Astrology is silly nonsense. I am a scientist.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191255 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
You surely are wordy. You lose your audience that way, don't make us work so hard. But aside from that, I kinda like your passion. You are not so angry and nasty as so many of the people of tolerance and diversity.

I hope you get what you want. It makes me happy when people find each other and create a family, I'm silly like that. Good luck.

Marriage. There is no one right way!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191256 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.
2. We've been down this road before. I've posted the earliest records of berdaches and read them. Aside from roles you listed that have no roots in history, the others are one time notes or rumors that history records. However, the most often role of Indian transvestites is as the term denotes, male prostitutes. They were most often passed around, abused and mocked. You only confirm what I noted. Societal rejection of homosexuality is cross cultural.
3. The assertion you made was that gay marriage was prevalent. You simply noted the presence of homosexuality. Again, the actual record of gay 'marriages' can be counted on one hand.
Smile.
We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".

If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?

As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."

You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.

Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191257 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not real marriages.
Yes they are, they are legal marriages as legal as anyone else’s

Your opinion of their marriage is no more important than my low opinion of your marriage, the only opinion that has any weight, any weight at all, is the legal opinion, and they ARE married.... period
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191258 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are, they are legal marriages as legal as anyone else’s
Your opinion of their marriage is no more important than my low opinion of your marriage, the only opinion that has any weight, any weight at all, is the legal opinion, and they ARE married.... period
"...my low opinion of your marriage."

Nice!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#191260 May 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you one of those dopes who believes a poly marriage asks for too much protection? That there's only enough protection for two in a marriage? So therefore poly should not be allowed?
Oh! That's right, you're the one who says that "polygamy is not an equal rights issue, it just isn't".
Yes indeed. We are talking about the Constitutional right to equal protection. You would limit it.
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?
Tax needs to Drop

Covina, CA

#191261 May 7, 2013
Taxes on Californians were just raised by billions of dollars.

We're paying higher federal, state and local taxes this year.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191262 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?
No. This is a perfectly good marriage equality forum. Why don't you start a thread on "are you a monster?" and "do you think you should have been aborted" type nonsense?

By your logic same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue because no one can marry someone of the same sex in many states there.

It's crazy that you truly believe equal rights applies only to gender.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191263 May 7, 2013
Tax needs to Drop wrote:
Taxes on Californians were just raised by billions of dollars.
We're paying higher federal, state and local taxes this year.
OY! Tell me about it. I mailed CA a HUGE check last month. I pay taxes in CA and NY, two of the highest tax rates in the country. I am taxed well over half my income.

Yes we can! But didn't. And won't.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191264 May 8, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".
If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?
As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."
You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.
Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".
Gay twirl.

WE were discussing both the history of marriage AND homosexuality. The article related to the later. I've never asserted that GLBT wasn't present at a defect rate of about 4%.

Epi-markers are 'normally' erased. They weren't fully erased in the case of homosexuals. Unbiased persons would term that a 'mistake'.

Scientists have NOT determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation. That is the whole point of the article. Some psychologists have made an assertion unvalidated by scientists.

Keep trying...

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191265 May 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And again if the majority of brown eyed people voted to deny rights to blue eyed people that too would be tossed out for being unconstitutional, and if the vote happens again, you don’t have the votes to keep it in place anymore anyway
Soooo......the mighty Big D is comparing the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the color of a person's eyes? Hmmmm.....number of sexes-two.....so there must be only two colors for eyes-blue and brown. Uhhhh huh. So men are the blue eyed people, and women the brown?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191266 May 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?
No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.
And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191267 May 8, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right! We'll keep voting on it till it comes out right dammit!
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191268 May 8, 2013
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191270 May 8, 2013
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. This is a perfectly good marriage equality forum. Why don't you start a thread on "are you a monster?" and "do you think you should have been aborted" type nonsense?
By your logic same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue because no one can marry someone of the same sex in many states there.
It's crazy that you truly believe equal rights applies only to gender.
Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191271 May 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
<quoted text>
Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.
Did you want to make a wager on whether polygamy will be legal when prop 8 is overturned?

What you are saying is like saying that Murder was banned when assault weapons were banned.

Those darn gun control hippies banned Murder!
Praise Jesus

Harrisonburg, VA

#191272 May 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters:“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
<quoted text>
Considering the way prop 8 was worded, it also banned polygamy, or any future consideration there of. You're right.
I agree and these morons don't comprehend that but the homosexuals are suing everyone now for special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals to have the fear factor over our society.
Praise Jesus

Harrisonburg, VA

#191273 May 8, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're pretty stupid.
I haven't stated a position on whether poly marriage should be allowed.
And I won't.
I'm just saying it's not an equal rights issue because nobody can marry more than one person.
If a woman could marry more than one man, but a man couldn't marry more than one woman, then we'd have an equal rights issue.
Should a person be able to marry more than one person?
Well, why not start a forum on that subject?
I personally think, from what I have read, the reason you refuse to give a position on poly marriage is because you want this with your homosexual marriages adding to the enormous list of special rights and privileges that supersede heterosexuals. You were married to a man at one time and father children with you so why not be married to both.

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.

Inglewood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Voto Latino: African Americans and Latinos Unit... (Mar '12) 1 hr lmer 942
Teaching men to shop for groceries 4 hr koni b 2
Photos: Miley Cyrus Posts a Makeup-Free Selfie 8 hr Big mike 4
Downtown Manhattan Beach 11 hr Bently 4
LA Earthquake Prediction November 2014 12 hr nono no 2
Mel Gibson apologizes for drunk driving (Jul '06) 16 hr Swedenforever 22
Nora Aunor is "All Time Greatest Artist/Actress... (Oct '06) 17 hr teddy rojo 1,340

Inglewood News Video

Inglewood Dating
Find my Match

Inglewood Jobs

Inglewood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Inglewood News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Inglewood

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]