Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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

#190718 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Will they? Opinion polls and voting polls don't always mesh.
<quoted text>
Don't forget truth and the American way Super D.
It's Super D!!

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190719 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
...I know how I sound when I talk like that… it is funny to me too…
It's funny to us too! So everybody is having fun! Whoopee!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190720 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I was stating a fact, hate does not sell like it used to.
You are free to verbally attack anyone you want to, but no one is not out to deny religious people marriage, the way you are wanting to deny marriage to same sex folks.
You are the one attacking... not me, and not them.
I have yet to see you post facts. Moreover, you take every opportunity to bash anyone who disagrees with equating duplicate sterile halves with marriage using a bigoted judgment of religion.

No one is denying anyone marriage or legitimate rights. We are simply saying get your own, you have never qualified for marriage in any culture at anytime anywhere. Why? Because it is clear they are distinct relationships.

You are attacking and demanding everyone accept your fallacy. Has never happened before, and won't happen this time.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190721 May 1, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't use the word Monster, why monster? are we living in an anime. Mutation?, may be, but really I think diversity, genetic rarity. Monster has obvious negative implications and mutation, well were you born with regular DNA then something happened to change it. You've said chimera, I'm thinking this is what I call mosaic: a variable mix of XX and XY in any given sample. If that's the case then why use the term monster mutation, other than for dramatic effect. Well, you have the right to call yourself what you like, I was questioning the mental health of it, but then if you're happy I suppose it doesn't matter. Personally I call myself Intersexed with a genetic mosaic.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this^^^ is exactly why I think KiMare is overladen with bovine excretia. He is either uninformed and a chimera or he's uninformed. My thoughts are that if he were actually a chimera he'd know enough about the term to not make such mistakes. Therefore, it appears to me that he's a bit of an ill informed liar.
The fact that you agree with this part of Stocking's post only affirms that you are as ignorant of a genetic chimera as he is.

There is no 'mosaic' of DNA. There are two complete sets of DNA in me. To top that off, I have a functioning penis and a non-functioning vagina. And don't forget the third nipple.

If anyone deserves the term 'monster mutation', it is me. However, like GLBT's, that is about our physical mistakes. It is not who we are, unless we deny it. Then that distortion becomes something personal, and affects our personal life and those around us.

My challenge to people is walk with fearless honesty as far as you can in every aspect of your life. It is only there you will make the best and healthiest choices in life.

I came on here to understand the issue. What I found was some of the deepest denial in existence. About something as clear and simple as relationship types and sex. I simply put my verbal finger on the denial with reality and watch the mercury squirm.

Smile.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190722 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see you post facts. Moreover, you take every opportunity to bash anyone who disagrees with equating duplicate sterile halves with marriage using a bigoted judgment of religion.
No one is denying anyone marriage or legitimate rights. We are simply saying get your own, you have never qualified for marriage in any culture at anytime anywhere. Why? Because it is clear they are distinct relationships.
You are attacking and demanding everyone accept your fallacy. Has never happened before, and won't happen this time.
Smile.
Firstly, you bash people all the time.

Secondly, history is filled with examples of same-sex marriage; so you lied.

Finally, there are multiple, distinct relationships that result in marriage. Some are for love, some are for family, some are for money, some are prearranged, some are to improve status, etc... See, many reasons for marriage.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190723 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't use the word Monster, why monster? are we living in an anime. Mutation?, may be, but really I think diversity, genetic rarity. Monster has obvious negative implications and mutation, well were you born with regular DNA then something happened to change it. You've said chimera, I'm thinking this is what I call mosaic: a variable mix of XX and XY in any given sample. If that's the case then why use the term monster mutation, other than for dramatic effect. Well, you have the right to call yourself what you like, I was questioning the mental health of it, but then if you're happy I suppose it doesn't matter. Personally I call myself Intersexed with a genetic mosaic.
<quoted text>
The fact that you agree with this part of Stocking's post only affirms that you are as ignorant of a genetic chimera as he is.
There is no 'mosaic' of DNA. There are two complete sets of DNA in me. To top that off, I have a functioning penis and a non-functioning vagina. And don't forget the third nipple.
If anyone deserves the term 'monster mutation', it is me. However, like GLBT's, that is about our physical mistakes. It is not who we are, unless we deny it. Then that distortion becomes something personal, and affects our personal life and those around us.
My challenge to people is walk with fearless honesty as far as you can in every aspect of your life. It is only there you will make the best and healthiest choices in life.
I came on here to understand the issue. What I found was some of the deepest denial in existence. About something as clear and simple as relationship types and sex. I simply put my verbal finger on the denial with reality and watch the mercury squirm.
Smile.
Unless your "mutation" interferes with yourself or society, then it is hardly "monstrous".

Cancer is a "monstrous mutation".

Alzheimer's Disease is a "monstrous mutation".

Being intersexed is not a "monstrous mutation". It may be atypical, but it's not a monstrosity.
WetReport

Covina, CA

#190724 May 1, 2013
Stormy and Calm all at the same time.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190725 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see you post facts. Moreover, you take every opportunity to bash anyone who disagrees with equating duplicate sterile halves with marriage using a bigoted judgment of religion.
No one is denying anyone marriage or legitimate rights. We are simply saying get your own, you have never qualified for marriage in any culture at anytime anywhere. Why? Because it is clear they are distinct relationships.
You are attacking and demanding everyone accept your fallacy. Has never happened before, and won't happen this time.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, you bash people all the time.
Secondly, history is filled with examples of same-sex marriage; so you lied.
Finally, there are multiple, distinct relationships that result in marriage. Some are for love, some are for family, some are for money, some are prearranged, some are to improve status, etc... See, many reasons for marriage.
1. No, I bash stupidity and denial like yours.

2. I can list all the history of claimed ss 'marriages' on one hand.

3. There are distinct REASONS for marriage. Only one relationship is termed marriage. Calling ss couples marriage would dumb it down to a meaningless term.

SMile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190726 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Secondly, history is filled with examples of same-sex marriage; so you lied.
"Filled"? Exactly how do you define "filled" in this regard?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190727 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless your "mutation" interferes with yourself or society, then it is hardly "monstrous".
Cancer is a "monstrous mutation".
Alzheimer's Disease is a "monstrous mutation".
Being intersexed is not a "monstrous mutation". It may be atypical, but it's not a monstrosity.
Monstrous;

-shockingly wrong or ridiculous

-deviating greatly from the natural form or character

I qualify. You do when you dress like a queen.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190728 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Filled"? Exactly how do you define "filled" in this regard?
Typical silly gay twirl...

But hey, they think a sterile duplicate half is the same as marriage. After that, why does truth and reality matter?

Snicker.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190729 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I do take my patriotism like some folks take religion.
For some patriotism is their religion. How about singing a chorus of "God Bless America" for us? Or would that be "Imaginary friend Bless America?:)
It is ok to make fun, it makes me smile actually, I even agree that I am funny about that. I actually do believe in this nations values, not always its actions, but the values behind it all is what I am a patriot of.
Hmmmmmm....patriot...a fan of the New England ones?
Not a flag, or a set of borders, or a name, but the values. Freedom, justice, equality, a place where one is judged by their actions, not their beliefs, or their race or what have you. I know how I sound when I talk like that… it is funny to me too… but ( shrug ) it is what is important to me.
Reminds me of a Sinatra song....'The House I live in"

What is America to me?
A name, a map, or a flag I see?
A certain word, "democracy"?
What is America to me?

The house I live in, a plot of earth, a street
The grocer and the butcher, and the people that I meet
The children in the playground, the faces that I see
All races and religions, that's America to me

The place I work in, the worker by my side
The little town or city where my people lived and died
The "howdy" and the handshake, the air of feeling free
And the right to speak my mind out, that's America to me

The things I see about me, the big things and the small
The little corner newsstand and the house a mile tall
The wedding in the churchyard, the laughter and the tears
The dream that's been a-growin' for a hundred and fifty years

The town I live in, the street, the house, the room
The pavement of the city, or a garden all in bloom
The church, the school, the clubhouse, the millions lights I see
But especially the people
That's America to me
I don’t know if you ever saw the film "Gettysburg" but the conversations between Chamberlin and Kilrain were some of my favorite scenes. As I am sure you can imagine.
Many a times Big D. I too was stirred by the exchanges between Chamberlin and Kilrain. There are times Big D when you sound like a mere mortal. Don't let the rest of the Justice League find out though.:)

Pickets charge still amazes me every time I see that part. Especially the narrative of CSA Gen Longstreet just before the charge, as he describes to Lt. Colonel Arthur J. L. Fremantle, a British military observer with Lee's Army, what Picketts men would be exposed to long before they would even be close enough to get off a volley. Imagine what those men must have felt stepping out like they did, knowing what lay ahead. Incredible.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190730 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) You keep saying that the Constitution isn't changed by way of social input. Rather, there is a specific process through which change must occur. However, where do you think the specific process begins? I'll tell you... It's through grassroots efforts, election processes, and political wins that put lawmakers in power to amend the Constitution.
You should read the Constitution again, it seems you haven't retained much from the last time you read it in picture format in the 3rd grade.

The Constitution only changes- count them with me- ONE WAY!!! Read Article V.

It doesn't not change because of social whims. The founders made the Amendment process VERY difficult and time consuming to prevent social trends from becoming the LAW. They wanted to ensure things were well thought out and studied.

What we have today are activist judges who circumvent that Constitutional protection and rewrite the Constitution into their own image to fit with social trends and their personal bias. Just look at Obama Care- we have the SCOTUS ruling it Constitutional- how you ask? By calling it a "TAX" a term that was NOWHERE to be found in the bill, a term that Obama spend MONTH'S claiming it WASN'T.

And then we have idiots like you who pat them on the back, nodding your heads like little sheep then walking off to slaughter. Fact is, liberal progressives don't give a damn about the Constitution, they see it as a road block to their Utopia.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
2.) You say that marriage is a states issue. But when the Supreme Court heard the Loving case, they found that the state of Virginia's laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Their decision didn't change state laws, but it in essence made them unenforceable.
3.) The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution. And any activity that occurs in the U.S. is open for interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Court would be within its power to look at the law in CA that denies same-sex couples the right to marry and determine that it is Unconstitutional--just like in the Loving case.
No you idiot, it is a STATE issue because that is what the lower court ruled when they tossed DOMA as unconstitutional. A ruling I happen to agree with and hope the SCOTUS upholds.

The Loving case has nothing to do with the current issue. In Loving you have race determining qualification, something strictly forbidden by the essence of the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS was VERY clear on this reasoning, they practically put it in crayon. You would know this if you actually read the decision, but I assume like everything else you haven't. You simply heard someone else say- Look Loving supports SSM, and you repeat it like the good little sheep that you are with not even the slightest idea why.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
4.) If states then want to try to muster the power to create an Amendment against same-sex marriage, then good luck with that. It failed before 7 years ago and failed under what was probably one of the most conservative points in recent history. I just don't think the political atmosphere is such that an amendment would pass now.
Again, you are injecting personal opinion and bias into a discussion where I was simply stating the facts.

BTW, there was a LOT of opposition to the Declaration of Independence and our subsequent Secession. Also something you would know if you spent a little more time at the library and a little less on the internet.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190731 May 1, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
To be honest I don't think many on here have a true understanding of AK's position. Yeah, I know, he throws out insults at most here who don't agree with his ideas, but that isn't unique to him or to either side of the debate. I do not really think he's opposed to same sex couples gaining access to marriage. Not at all. What he's not in favor of are end runs and legal gymnastics getting around democratic approaches. I believe he sees it as a state's rights issue more than a federal one.
He makes a few good points on matters but it appears, to me anyway, that the intent behind them isn't received. If I tell you that by stepping off the curb in heavy traffic that there is a good chance you'll get hit, it is not the same as stating I want you to get hit. Ergo the warning about mandates handed down through the judiciary while many aren't ready to accept them may lead to quite the backlash. There are some fairly conservative areas in many states that have good resources and are quite capable of influencing outcomes both in legislative actions and elections.
What is better? Acceptance through force or through enlightenment?
Very well said..

Isn't it funny though, that you say pretty much everything I have been saying yet our judge-it's are the complete opposite? Kind of tells ya something about the 8 people who troll this forum and rate comments doesn't it?

It kind of proves by point when I say, "People judge the ruling of the judiciary against their personal bias rather than it's validity when audited against the Constitution," don't ya think?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190732 May 1, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
George Carlin is one of my favorites. Funny as hell and on the mark about reality. RIP
Still like this one:

"Think about how stupid the average person is; then realize that half of them are stupider than that!" - George Carlin

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190733 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes 32 and dropping,
And dropping? Where?
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
we know, California is about to reverse,
We do?

Oh, never mind, that's just you replacing fact with personal opinion again.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190734 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see you post facts. Moreover, you take every opportunity to bash anyone who disagrees with equating duplicate sterile halves with marriage using a bigoted judgment of religion.
No one is denying anyone marriage or legitimate rights. We are simply saying get your own, you have never qualified for marriage in any culture at anytime anywhere. Why? Because it is clear they are distinct relationships.
You are attacking and demanding everyone accept your fallacy. Has never happened before, and won't happen this time.
Smile.
<quoted text>
1. No, I bash stupidity and denial like yours.
2. I can list all the history of claimed ss 'marriages' on one hand.
3. There are distinct REASONS for marriage. Only one relationship is termed marriage. Calling ss couples marriage would dumb it down to a meaningless term.
SMile.
Calling yourself a "pastor" dumbed down the profession, and yet there are still pastors.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190735 May 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>

But it doesn’t matter anyway, republicans are switching sides on the issue now, in droves, if held today, a vote would kill Prop 8 in California, in Nevada as well
I must be suffering from deja vu? Seems I have heard this line before EVERY vote regarding same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190736 May 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I must be suffering from deja vu? Seems I have heard this line before EVERY vote regarding same sex marriage.
People tell a pollster they are very progressive and fully support SSM and then when they are alone in private in the voting booth and no one will know...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190737 May 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You should read the Constitution again, it seems you haven't retained much from the last time you read it in picture format in the 3rd grade.
The Constitution only changes- count them with me- ONE WAY!!! Read Article V.
It doesn't not change because of social whims. The founders made the Amendment process VERY difficult and time consuming to prevent social trends from becoming the LAW. They wanted to ensure things were well thought out and studied.
What we have today are activist judges who circumvent that Constitutional protection and rewrite the Constitution into their own image to fit with social trends and their personal bias. Just look at Obama Care- we have the SCOTUS ruling it Constitutional- how you ask? By calling it a "TAX" a term that was NOWHERE to be found in the bill, a term that Obama spend MONTH'S claiming it WASN'T.
And then we have idiots like you who pat them on the back, nodding your heads like little sheep then walking off to slaughter. Fact is, liberal progressives don't give a damn about the Constitution, they see it as a road block to their Utopia.
<quoted text>
No you idiot, it is a STATE issue because that is what the lower court ruled when they tossed DOMA as unconstitutional. A ruling I happen to agree with and hope the SCOTUS upholds.
The Loving case has nothing to do with the current issue. In Loving you have race determining qualification, something strictly forbidden by the essence of the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS was VERY clear on this reasoning, they practically put it in crayon. You would know this if you actually read the decision, but I assume like everything else you haven't. You simply heard someone else say- Look Loving supports SSM, and you repeat it like the good little sheep that you are with not even the slightest idea why.
<quoted text>
Again, you are injecting personal opinion and bias into a discussion where I was simply stating the facts.
BTW, there was a LOT of opposition to the Declaration of Independence and our subsequent Secession. Also something you would know if you spent a little more time at the library and a little less on the internet.
The world our ancestors lived in when the Constitution as drafted is much different than the world we live in today.

I happen to believe that the Constitution is a living document that is dynamic. It is open to interpretation depending on the time and culture of our country.

I'm hardly alone in my beliefs.

You try to look at the Constitution through the eyes of the founding fathers. You can't do that with a 21st century mindset.

The fact of the matter is that much of this country's recent focus has been on equality. For decades we have focused on racial equality, gender equality, and equality for the disabled.

We now recognize inequality when we see it.

It's ridiculous to go through a long and arduous process in order to provide equal rights to other minorities. Why should minorities wait until the majority decides their fate?

You may think that activist judges are out of control. But as I've pointed out, who cares what you THINK.

You are one of a bit over 300,000,000 people living in this country. It's not your playpen.

If you don't like the way the country is being managed, by all means get out!

In the meantime the rest of us will work the system to get the rights that we believe we deserve NOW. We aren't going to wait decades for the rest of you to play catch-up.

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.

Westwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Audio hangs over '7th Heaven' actor's divorce case Nov 8 siliconepolice 1
Tinder taps an age-old truth Nov 4 whocares 1
Gwyneth Paltrow hosts star-studded fundraiser... Nov 3 star writer 3
Obama helps raise campaign cash for Democrats a... Oct '14 the Light 8
In Santa Monica, Obama chastises GOP on immigra... Oct '14 barefoot2626 38
Archer School for Girls Expansion Plans Oct '14 Atticus 1
Actress Gwyneth Paltrow hosted a slew of celebr... Oct '14 ThenObamaLandGrab... 1

Freeze Warning for Los Angeles County was issued at November 24 at 2:55PM PST

Westwood News Video

Los Angeles Dating
Find my Match

Westwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Westwood News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Westwood

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:45 pm PST