Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,471

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
The downer twins

Kent, WA

#183539 Mar 16, 2013
Roudy wrote:
There it is. It will now go to the next level in the Federal Court System. Eventually it will be decided in the US Supreme Court.So sit back,relax, have a cold beer and watch the war of words continue.This issue will not be decided at the ballot box or on these forums. The judges will decide it and we will abide.
The supreme court will decide that Gays have the same rights as the rest of us.I would bet everything I own on that and I don't even have a dog in the fight.If you don't agree then you don't know anything about constitutional law
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183540 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I noticed you didn't address my comments.
<quoted text>
Yayyyyyy....marriage equality for all....no more bigotry and ignorance. Jody thanks you. Don't forget the marmalade skies. Those too will appear.
<quoted text>
Exactly who would've thought we'd have two reality shows featuring plural marriage families. I heard the Brown family even supports marriage equality for same sex couples.
<quoted text>
And everyone will live happily ever after. No more hate, war, crime, all because of legal gay marriage.
So you have without a doubt lost the procreation argument and so are into Frankie's even more lame I want to marry my sister argument.

Good luck with that line in court :)
JustTheFacts

Covina, CA

#183541 Mar 16, 2013

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#183542 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
.
And everyone will live happily ever after. No more hate, war, crime, all because of legal gay marriage.
No one is making that claim. But no one is making the claim that allowing same sex couples to marry will increase any of those things, either.

Well, other than the "happily ever after" thing. At least to the same extent that human couples can capture that ideal.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183543 Mar 16, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose, why do you have a woman's name when everyone knows you a gay man?
Robert
Why do you post on other sites that you are gay?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183544 Mar 16, 2013
bad wrote:
<quoted text>vive the confused fuckups a few yrs and cut of the kid supply and let them die out
Can you have your mommy proofread, I really have no idea what you are trying to spit out, I'm sure it's vile and vulgar. If you want to rid the population of gay people, then first you would have to wipe out all straight people that produce them. What other great idea's do you have, I enjoy the laughs.
MackRoMay

Covina, CA

#183545 Mar 16, 2013
I have to agree with you. I moved to Glendora, California 34 years ago and Glendora was a different town then.

I feel things are and will get worse since our city council is allowing more apartments and town houses to be build.

This will bring more overcrowding and crime.

Joseph Santoro

Judy Nelson

Karen Davis

Gene Murabito

Douglas Tessitor

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183547 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights. If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
So skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage--except, of course, throughout most of American history. I mean over 400 years of anti-miscegenation laws certainly say something about how marriage was defined in the U.S.

That you find no problem with it now is simply a matter of you being born during a period when minority races were fighting for equality.

Future generations will see same-gender marriage much the same way that you see interracial marriages now.

Your argument about "dumbing down" marriage by allowing same-gender marriage is not all that different than those who believed mixed-race marriage would "dumb down" purity found in same-race marriages of the past.

I guess what I'm saying is that the world has heard your arguments in the past and it eventually decided it was a crock of shit. Mixed-race marriages were made legal and nothing happened. People didn't suddenly want to marry their dogs. Bigamists didn't suddenly get laws passed to make their relationships legal. No incestuous marriages were performed.

Your scare tactics are stupid and have been overruled in the past.
Tire Co Brake Don

Sonoma, CA

#183548 Mar 16, 2013
Hi,
The stuff about that pope in the cruise business sounds serious strange and a sure long ways towards nuts. But, if he was member of the TEAPARTY I could get it because I know from personal experience that everybody hates us TEAPARTYers for our belief that all of this here crap pought to stop and so we can begin again with no free lunch or rides for nobody. The family I work for dont pay no benfits and so I save everything I also take on side work and that is okay as long as I dont get caughtand my savings dont go for bail. I also dont like the idea of forcing gays marrying lesbians as that will piss em all off and then what have you got there? Forget them pope and join us in the TEAPARTY as we set the whole damn place right.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183549 Mar 16, 2013
Geoff Myhron wrote:
<quoted text>
`
You could be NUTZ or you could be right. That is a 50/50 chance that scares me plenty. WHAT CAN WE DO? The TEAPARTY knows and is the only party that does know and will stop all such from happening. This is because of all the regulations and taxation of the upper classes. They are upper classes and we are lower classes; the support level is the lower floor in buildings as in life. We must support the upper classes and it is only right that we pay a bit more to keep them. I dont know about the cruise ship stuff but it sounds strange but also maybe true?
Are you serious? You need your head examined if you think rich people need your help.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183550 Mar 16, 2013
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/...
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have without a doubt lost the procreation argument and so are into Frankie's even more lame I want to marry my sister argument.
Good luck with that line in court :)
I said nothing about a goat, keep your sexual fantasy to yourself please. Thank you.

Whaddya know, procreation and marriage linked in a court ruling.
Here's an excerpt from a Federal judge's ruling.

But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#183551 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ culture/family/item/12416-fede ral-judge-upholds-traditional- marriage-in-hawaii
<quoted text>
I said nothing about a goat, keep your sexual fantasy to yourself please. Thank you.
Whaddya know, procreation and marriage linked in a court ruling.
Here's an excerpt from a Federal judge's ruling.
But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;
Dude. Do you think gay marriage is going to go away? You can either adapt to reality, or you can go extinct.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#183552 Mar 16, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is he couldn't out do your average of blowing and tossing salad for 60 homeless men in dire need of a bath per day for free.
STFU you HOMO... you suck

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183553 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ culture/family/item/12416-fede ral-judge-upholds-traditional- marriage-in-hawaii
<quoted text>
I said nothing about a goat, keep your sexual fantasy to yourself please. Thank you.
Whaddya know, procreation and marriage linked in a court ruling.
Here's an excerpt from a Federal judge's ruling.
But in his August 8 ruling Judge Alan C. Kay, a Reagan appointee, found that Hawaii’s legislature had a legitimate interest in legislating on behalf of traditional marriage.“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing,” wrote Kay in his decision, which ran to 117 pages.“… It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.” He added that “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii.... Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”&#8232;
Did you read the findings carefully? "It follows that it is not beyond rational SPECULATION to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions MIGHT result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."

Vaughn Walker, in his decision to overturn Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-gender marriage) found (among other things):

--"A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as LIKELY as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.

--Gay and lesbian adoption is widespread and is supported and encouraged in California law, providing evidence concerning same sex couples and parenting, with around 18% of same sex couples in California raising children. As a corollary, this provides evidence of fact that Proposition 8 is not rationally connected to improving parenting, since it makes no attempt to amend or revoke state approval of any aspect of parenting by non-married same sex couples.

--Marriage of other groups, controversial on comparable grounds at the time, such as race or ethnicity, has not reduced the "vibrancy" or importance of marriage as a social institution, although many people raised concerns of its degradation at the time.

----------

Proposition 8 supporters appealed. But Vaughn's decision was upheld by a three judge panel in Feb. 2012.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183554 Mar 16, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude. Do you think gay marriage is going to go away? You can either adapt to reality, or you can go extinct.
XBox. Do you think (_________ is going to go away? You can either adapt to reality, or you can go extinct. What else could be put in that blank? Falling marriage rates? Rising cohabitation rates? Plural marriage?

So you see, there's more to it than that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183555 Mar 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the findings carefully? "It follows that it is not beyond rational SPECULATION to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions MIGHT result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."
Vaughn Walker, in his decision to overturn Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-gender marriage) found (among other things):
--"A parent's gender is not a factor in a child's adjustment. An individual's sexual orientation does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as LIKELY as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.
--Gay and lesbian adoption is widespread and is supported and encouraged in California law, providing evidence concerning same sex couples and parenting, with around 18% of same sex couples in California raising children. As a corollary, this provides evidence of fact that Proposition 8 is not rationally connected to improving parenting, since it makes no attempt to amend or revoke state approval of any aspect of parenting by non-married same sex couples.
--Marriage of other groups, controversial on comparable grounds at the time, such as race or ethnicity, has not reduced the "vibrancy" or importance of marriage as a social institution, although many people raised concerns of its degradation at the time.
----------
Proposition 8 supporters appealed. But Vaughn's decision was upheld by a three judge panel in Feb. 2012.
The point is not all courts agree that banning SSM is unconstitutional. We both know that.

Is Judge Walker gay?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183556 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is again;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples?
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Snicker.
My houseplants (some of which came from my grandmother and are quite old) do just fine without pollination. They just grow and grow as long as I feed them and water them. Sure, in their native environments, they would likely pollinate by way of nature's own in vitro fertilization (the birds, the bees, the wind, etc...). They would create new plants and do all kinds of things. But it's not necessary for all of these plants to reproduce.

That they do not reproduce doesn't make them any less of a particular plant.

And having multiple "male plants" of a certain species in a room without "female plants" will not kill the plant.

And in case you haven't noticed, plants don't marry. There is no legal reason for them to do so.

Marriage is a man-made institution. It's based on law, not on nature. Prior to widespread marriage, heterosexual couples were still creating offspring without a piece of paper tying them together.

Your apple tree, walnut tree analogy is stupid. It's never been used in a case of law regarding same-gender marriage because even those arguing your side of the issue knows that such a premise would be laughed out of the court.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183557 Mar 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My houseplants (some of which came from my grandmother and are quite old) do just fine without pollination. They just grow and grow as long as I feed them and water them. Sure, in their native environments, they would likely pollinate by way of nature's own in vitro fertilization (the birds, the bees, the wind, etc...). They would create new plants and do all kinds of things. But it's not onecessary for all of these plants to reproduce.
That they do not reproduce doesn't make them any less of a particular plant.
And having multiple "male plants" of a certain species in a room without "female plants" will not kill the plant.
And in case you haven't noticed, plants don't marry. There is no legal reason for them to do so.
Marriage is a man-made institution. It's based on law, not on nature. Prior to widespread marriage, heterosexual couples were still creating offspring without a piece of paper tying them together.
Your apple tree, walnut tree analogy is stupid. It's never been used in a case of law regarding same-gender marriage because even those arguing your side of the issue knows that such a premise would be laughed out of the court.
Is it interesting that "man made" institution has been, and still is, virtually, an opposite sex union. Geeeeee.....I wonder why? Maybe....just maybe....sex between men and women makes more men and women. Even u, VV, were made that way.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183558 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not all courts agree that banning SSM is unconstitutional. We both know that.
Is Judge Walker gay?
Yes, Judge Walker is gay. Do you think that made him more likely to decide in favor of same-gender marriage? Judge Alan C. Kay is straight. If you're going to argue that Judge Walker's orientation impacted his decision to legalize same-gender marriage, I will argue Judge Kay's orientation impacted his decision to "protect" marriage. Oh, and Judge Kay is divorced and remarried. Would that make him less objective about hearing divorce cases or child custody cases or any cases involving marriage?

And just so you know, a three (heterosexual, male) judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the Proposition 8 case because he is gay.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183559 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights. If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage--except, of course, throughout most of American history. I mean over 400 years of anti-miscegenation laws certainly say something about how marriage was defined in the U.S.
That you find no problem with it now is simply a matter of you being born during a period when minority races were fighting for equality.
Future generations will see same-gender marriage much the same way that you see interracial marriages now.
Your argument about "dumbing down" marriage by allowing same-gender marriage is not all that different than those who believed mixed-race marriage would "dumb down" purity found in same-race marriages of the past.
I guess what I'm saying is that the world has heard your arguments in the past and it eventually decided it was a crock of shit. Mixed-race marriages were made legal and nothing happened. People didn't suddenly want to marry their dogs. Bigamists didn't suddenly get laws passed to make their relationships legal. No incestuous marriages were performed.
Your scare tactics are stupid and have been overruled in the past.
Oh knock off the gay twirl hissy fit masquerading as logic!

Inter-racial marriages conflict in no way with the basic essence of marriage. They have been present throughout history in every culture.

Duplicate gendered couples fail at every level with marriage. They have never been accepted from start of finish in a single culture in all of human history.

Nor are the arguments the same, as much as you'd like to gay twirl it.

Moreover, it is common sense and simple logic, not scare tactics, that it would be prejudicial to allow only certain types of committed relationships and limit those to just two people. Unless of course, you could come up with a legit reason???

As to the message of the past, the only one I am aware of is that when an attempt to call gay couples married, it never survived for any length of time. Anywhere.

Smile.

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 18 hr orange 71,562
Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa at his sentencing this m... (Dec '11) Thu Carlos Slim 14
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Mar 3 Joe Balls 1,530
Dual language immersion program offered for kin... (Jan '10) Mar 3 fed up 30
Beware of Monterey Audi. Feb 4 Dave 1
Multiple suspects in custody for Seaside shootings Jan '15 Anonymous 1
Peninsula high school students arrested in 'fig... (Sep '09) Jan '15 trey 108
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:18 pm PST