Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,976

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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#179040 Feb 9, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. Tell me was the judge correct?
Yes he was correct, such an unconstitutional measure should never have been allowed on the ballot

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179041 Feb 9, 2013
DorN wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a gay man could always legally marry a straight woman, and a lesbian woman couod always marry a straight man. Usually the homosexual person did not tell the straight person that they were gay. They had to "stay in the closet".
True.....and it came as a shock to many a spouse. There are openly mixed orientation marriages today. For those either it began that way, or endured after the "coming out".
Now wouldn't it be nice if homosexual people could come out of the closet and marry the same sex person they really wanted to marry?
A couple of points. First, same sex couples can marry, it simply won't be legally recognized. No different than polygamous marriages. Second, as "nice" as it maybe, I don't believe marriage should be legally changed for it. Some other form of legal structure could just as easily be, and has been, created in some states.

Is it about protection, or "legitimacy"?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179042 Feb 9, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly would be accepted better if it was done by popular vote. I think much of the opposition to same sex marriage isn't against it per se, but it is a backlash against making it legal by judicial fiat.
I think if a popular vote were held today, it would probably pass. And avoid much backlash against it.
In what scenario is a popular vote of the majority regarding the minority ever appropriate? Should we have voted to repress women? Should we have voted to requires non-whites?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179043 Feb 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it about protection, or "legitimacy"?
No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179045 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
In what scenario is a popular vote of the majority regarding the minority ever appropriate? Should we have voted to repress women? Should we have voted to requires non-whites?
Of course not. Pure democracy is a lamb and two wolves voting on what's for dinner. We need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Like 99% of us voting for the candidate that would raise taxes on 1% of us! Stuff like that.

I am just trying to make the point that new laws are always more acceptable to doubters when the majority favors them. And that much of the opposition to gay marriage is not opposition per se, but opposition to it being imposed by judicial fiat.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179046 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.
Does that go for the haters against poly and incest marriage too?
ReadySetGo

Monrovia, CA

#179048 Feb 9, 2013
What do ya say we jack this up to a couple hundred thousand postings?

Are ya game for it?

Ready Set Go.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179049 Feb 9, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. Pure democracy is a lamb and two wolves voting on what's for dinner. We need protection from the tyranny of the majority. Like 99% of us voting for the candidate that would raise taxes on 1% of us! Stuff like that.
I am just trying to make the point that new laws are always more acceptable to doubters when the majority favors them. And that much of the opposition to gay marriage is not opposition per se, but opposition to it being imposed by judicial fiat.
This isn't judicial, it's constitutional. Why is it that everytime a judge proves something is constitutional everyone starts screaming about activist judges?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

#179050 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't judicial, it's constitutional. Why is it that everytime a judge proves something is constitutional everyone starts screaming about activist judges?
That's the way it is. That was my point in case you missed it.

People don't like law by judicial fiat. It's unfortunate it has to happen that way. Much of the opposition stems from that, and not gay marriage per se.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#179051 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like abortion or women combat troops in the front lines. Same sex marriage is like gender apartheid marriage where before marriage had perfect gender diversity, integration and union.
Judges should rule by law, not wright law. Sympathy isn't the function of justice, maybe they should go to church, where they encourage charity and mercy. Law is for consistent results along tradition and precedent, not radical new standards of marriage.
Oh boy, more bumper sticker slogans with no substance offered in explanation.
Gender apartheid is separation of the sexes keeping them apart. Same sex marriage doesn't accomplish this. It only permits roughly 2%(or whatever your favorite stat) of the population the ability to marry their partner. It has no bearing on my marriage. These are just more of your unsupportable claims, like the whole forced marriages in prison (thanks, BTW, for the link showing Canada's experiences over the last 6 or 7 years regarding the "epidemic" of forced marriages in their prison system).

Judges do rule based upon laws. They often have to interpret laws. They also rule upon the constitutionality of laws. They don't "wright" laws.

I am intetested in seeing whether or not you can expand upon your first sentence in the post I've quoted. Tell us just how same sex marriage is like abortion or putting women in combat. Try some clear and cogent arguments rather than just making the claim that they're alike.
ReadySetGo

Monrovia, CA

#179052 Feb 9, 2013
Your getting better at this, but maybe you could pick up the pace a little your still dragging your feet.
anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#179053 Feb 9, 2013
putting aside the issue of the vote, a vote should be upheld both sides rallied and the losers of the vote should not have voted if they were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.

regarding this issue, america should relabel marriages as domestic partnership. this would render all couples equal and "marriage" would remain a religious ceremony for those whom choose to do it.. like baptism

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179055 Feb 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
putting aside the issue of the vote, a vote should be upheld both sides rallied and the losers of the vote should not have voted if they were unwilling to accept the outcome of the vote.
regarding this issue, america should relabel marriages as domestic partnership. this would render all couples equal and "marriage" would remain a religious ceremony for those whom choose to do it.. like baptism
Civil ceremonies are marriages, church weddings are already called Holy Matrimony.
anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#179056 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil ceremonies are marriages, church weddings are already called Holy Matrimony.
okay i didn't know this thank you, i think this should be more publically addressed. I would like to see equal rights for all, and some atheists choose not to get married, i would like to see equal rights for all and putting fanaic haters aside, it seems most religous people want to save "their" word/rite "marriage" which is actually already sepertately catagorized as Holy Matrimony
Knots landing

Monrovia, CA

#179057 Feb 9, 2013
Since when hasn't a knot hole worked for you in the past?

Get off the subject and go play in knots landing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#179058 Feb 9, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's about repression. When I can legally marry another dusty mangina, there's no affect on your marriage. You are still as married as you ever were. Nothing changes, the world continues to rotate daily, and haters will still be haters.
Why bother regulating marriage at all? Why does it matter who marries who? You could've easily said, "....legally marry two dusty manginas, or a related dusty mangina, or dusty womangina? Why does it mmatter who marries who legally, that is?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#179059 Feb 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why bother regulating marriage at all? Why does it matter who marries who? You could've easily said, "....legally marry two dusty manginas, or a related dusty mangina, or dusty womangina? Why does it mmatter who marries who legally, that is?
Go ahead and champion the crusade for plural marriage. I'm going to focus on SSM, period. I'm done with hypothetical scenarios.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#179062 Feb 9, 2013
Frankie RIzzo wrote:
It certainly would be accepted better if it was done by popular vote. I think much of the opposition to same sex marriage isn't against it per se, but it is a backlash against making it legal by judicial fiat. I think if a popular vote were held today, it would probably pass. And avoid much backlash against it.
I disagree, a popular vote was taken in California, and a judge rewrote marriage law. Maryland is one of the very few cases of popular referendum in support of legislated same sex marriage law. Without a legislated model, I doubt the electorate would have agreed to same sex marriage.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#179063 Feb 9, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>No but I can't stand over 50% of the people who live in this country.

[QUOTE]Why millions cross the border to come here, goofball?"

USA has a net negative migration rate. More people are leaving the AmeriKKKa nation than entering.

[QUOTE]America is the best country in the world!"

Not true in terms of education, healthcare, wealth equality, birth mortality, etc.

[QUOTE]Full of Conservative Christians who risk their lives to help other overseas. Conservatives who care abs love others and send millions of dollars to help other countries in need!"

Most Conservative Christians are the ones pushing for killing and wars overseas.

[QUOTE]Why do you think Texas has no "kids gun down" problem?"

They do. Texas is one of the worst states in the union with the highest teen pregnancy, poverty, stupidity, illiteracy, etc.

[QUOTE]Did you know that cities that allow guns are less violent and have less crime?"

Not true. You are lying.

[QUOTE]Do you really think that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce crime?
"

Yes Amerifat. Statistically it's been proven that less guns = less killing. Look at UK with only 35 deaths caused by guns last year.
Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#179064 Feb 9, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>No but I can't stand over 50% of the people who live in this country.

[QUOTE]Why millions cross the border to come here, goofball?"

USA has a net negative migration rate. More people are leaving the AmeriKKKa nation than entering.

[QUOTE]America is the best country in the world!"

Not true in terms of education, healthcare, wealth equality, birth mortality, etc.

[QUOTE]Full of Conservative Christians who risk their lives to help other overseas. Conservatives who care abs love others and send millions of dollars to help other countries in need!"

Most Conservative Christians are the ones pushing for killing and wars overseas.

[QUOTE]Why do you think Texas has no "kids gun down" problem?"

They do. Texas is one of the worst states in the union with the highest teen pregnancy, poverty, stupidity, illiteracy, etc.

[QUOTE]Did you know that cities that allow guns are less violent and have less crime?"

Not true. You are lying.

[QUOTE]Do you really think that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce crime?
"

Yes Amerifat. Statistically it's been proven that less guns = less killing. Look at UK with only 35 deaths caused by guns last year.
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"910 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,'[a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 1 hr theos 2,276
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr Frijoles 69,414
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 20 hr free for all 5,081
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sat surfs up 7,955
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sat bubba 69 2
Dennis W (Veeser) from Krakow Wi. Fri Mia 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sep 18 Pizza 16,000
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••