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
160,221 - 160,240 of 200,347 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Tire Co Brake Don

Napa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183548
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183549
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183550
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183551
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183552
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183553
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183554
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183555
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183556
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183557
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183558
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183559
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183560
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Considering the voters of California voted to define marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the previous efforts to preserve that definition of marriage, I would say his orientation influenced his decision.
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.
Did the panel identify themselves as "heterosexual"?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183561
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Gender segregation marriage is bad because men and women differ; the facts of life are reflected in our marriage laws.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183562
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're sure right there, no-one is forcing me to marry someone of the same sex. And, yes sir, gays pay taxes, although it is a minority proportion. Right again, bub. And protection is one thing, but wrongful declarations are something else. The rights that are protected are the ones guaranteeing protection from the government overstepping its bounds, not any that are imagined. Like making everyone accept SSM. Or having the government override the will of the people.
Bigfoot, fk the "will of the people" if it goes against equal protection. Why do you think we have a Constitution, three branches of government and checks and balances and don't just vote on everything?
You won't accept gay marriage, no matter what. That's a non issue.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183563
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
Gender segregation marriage is bad because men and women differ; the facts of life are reflected in our marriage laws.
Intelligent people and fundies differ. But they should still have equal rights.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183564
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Our rights should depend on our chromosomes?
Should you have the same rights a shrimp does?
KiMare wrote:
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.

A man can marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, a man should have that same right.
KiMare wrote:
If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
<quoted text>
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.
Even if true, so what?
KiMare wrote:
Duplicate gendered couples fail at every level with marriage.
You are dual gendered at the cellular level. Do you fail at every level? Should you have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
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.
Shrimp have 92 chromosomes, not humans!
:)
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183565
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent people and fundies differ. But they should still have equal rights.
Rose_NoHo.

Exactly. White "Liberals" who advocate legalizing the "marriage" of two African and non-Africans of the same sex should be entitled to no more constitutional rights than are we decent dog lovers.

Ronald
jamest

Burbank, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183566
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

look these gays have paid a lot of money trying to have their way if you are gay then be gay you don't have the sme right as a man and wmen i don't care how many people you bribe the only right you shoul have is puting your head in the sand come on folk to man having sex 2 chick having sex licking each other balls or pussy his sweaty balls saying i love you man nasty shit man plane and simple puting his penis were you shit your waste come on now folk that not love that just nasty

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183567
Mar 16, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good points! A gay judge dismissed the lawful vote of a majority of Californians, now they cry about their 'rights'. There is no right to gender equality.
Men and women are different, vive le difference. Reason number two for keeping marriage one man and one woman; sexual differentiation. Isn't it cool how law reflects nature?
One more person that doesn't understand how America works. We're not a democratic nation. Go back and take a look at the reasons for his ruling and the subsequent judicial responses that followed his decision.

Oh, BTW, same sex marriage is gaining ground. 1 out of 4 republicans now approve of it. Democrats favor it by majority and so do libertarians.

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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••