Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,164

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

#184086 Mar 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal doesn't mean differences can't be taken into consideration, or distinctions not made. Uninals aren't installed in the women's locker room, blind people aren't allowed to drive, men can't be mothers nor women fathers, and most states legally define marriage as a union of husband and wife.
p.s. I expect to see blind people as the only occupants of a vehicle in my lifetime :)

well... sort of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverles...

we do not live in a static world, but an ever evolving one.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184087 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
ďThis most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.Ē
&#8213; Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
You and Isaac are entitled to all the opinions you want, that book ( which I have read ) of course is not about that subject, which is why that was only presented as an opinion.

It wasnít about that subject because opinion is all one can have, there is zero evidence supporting the existence of any of the billions of gods man has believed in.

You are free to have that opinion however, as long as you donít try and enforce the rules laid down by your imaginary palmate on anyone else.

You know I can post statements by many physicists before and after Newton who had a totally different opinion.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184088 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Animals generally kill members of their own species, even family that try to eat their kids... so do we. I support the death penalty
I don't.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184089 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>

No I think we have done well as our species gained the intelligence to form into groups, create cultural ties, and even ( rolls eyes ) government. Although our species has certainly not found the "perfect government" it is an effort, and a constantly striving and evolving process.
So I guess you are not happy with a lot of other species that have not set up groups and cultures? Are you upset at some of the monkeys that didn't evolve? What species do you model yourself after?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184090 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You and Isaac are entitled to all the opinions you want, that book ( which I have read ) of course is not about that subject, which is why that was only presented as an opinion.
It wasnít about that subject because opinion is all one can have, there is zero evidence supporting the existence of any of the billions of gods man has believed in.
You are free to have that opinion however, as long as you donít try and enforce the rules laid down by your imaginary palmate on anyone else.
You know I can post statements by many physicists before and after Newton who had a totally different opinion.
ďScientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.

Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.Ē
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184091 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I don't.
I used to not... I have actually flipped on that issue a couple of times. So I respect your opinion, it isnít mine, but I can certainly understand someone with the position you support.

I had to ask myself if I could kill someone before I entered the military, because if I could not, my superiors should certainly know that, I decided that I could.

Later after having a family, it stuck me that there are people out there that we as a society are better off without.

Although I support the death penalty, I am certainly opposed to states that have used it too easily and often, and I am not all that upset that it is not currently used in my state.

Yours is an opinion that I can respect on that subject
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184093 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess you are not happy with a lot of other species that have not set up groups and cultures? Are you upset at some of the monkeys that didn't evolve? What species do you model yourself after?
Not at all, you are assuming a whole lot here

Other species have indeed set up groups according to their abilities, some quite complex.

Monkeys did evolve, have evolved, likely still evolving, you need to go back to school before talking about this.

We are not the pinnacle of evolution, simply where our branch has led us.

Sharks have not evolved for tens of millions of years, if you want to talk about a species that has not evolved recently you should mention them. They have had no pressure to do so, a near perfect machine for the niche they fill.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184094 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>ďScientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.
Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.Ē
Wrong

more and more scientists are actually going the other way, you would know this if you looked at actual factual websites instead of the websites that fill you with garbage that you want to believe.

again you do not have enough information to be able to discuss this, and you are taking away from the actual topic of this forum.

We are done

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184095 Mar 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but a Christian would never kill an innocent person. If they did, they violate a fundamental principle of Christianity. A Christian woman killing her unborn child would be the worst of that truth.
You have made the assertion that many claim to be Christians and are not. I would suggest this is an example. Or do you disagree?
Moreover, I have never said homosexuals are mentally deformed. You lie. Again.
A true Christian will not murder an innocent child. For any reason.
Well, how about we put it this way... There are many "Christians" who claim to be pro-life, who are pro-capital punishment and pro-war.

And there are many people who claim to be Christian, who believe in abortion in instances of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, and/or mental/physical defect of the fetus.

So, don't lie and say that "Christians" as a concerted group would NEVER abort a fetus they believe is going to become gay. Because we BOTH know that's not the case.

If we lived in a society where all of those people who claim to be Christians REFUSED to go to war, REFUSED to own guns, REFUSED to in any way support capital punishment, and REFUSED to abort their children; then MAYBE I would agree with you.

1.2 million abortions are performed in the U.S. annually. Many of those abortions are performed on church going, Christ believing women. They justify it for many reasons. Telling them that they're going to have a gay/transgender son or daughter will simply be another reason for them to justify it.

That's reality... And it's people like you--who claim that we are defective--that we are "sinners"--that we destroy the family, etc; people like YOU who give will be giving them the motivation to abort.

You don't get to bitch about the existence of homosexuality--wanting us to disappear from the planet--and not have blood on your hands.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184096 Mar 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are not an equal relationship, just like all other relationships, every single one of which is ideally birthed solely by marriage.
Just admit it, you have no logical answer, so you spew out ad homoan attacks.
Smile.
Show me in law where marriage MUST BE based on a cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating.

Show me any jurisdiction in the country that refuses to allow marriage that is not based on a cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating.

Waiting...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184097 Mar 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, how about we put it this way... There are many "Christians" who claim to be pro-life, who are pro-capital punishment and pro-war.
And there are many people who claim to be Christian, who believe in abortion in instances of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, and/or mental/physical defect of the fetus.
So, don't lie and say that "Christians" as a concerted group would NEVER abort a fetus they believe is going to become gay. Because we BOTH know that's not the case.
If we lived in a society where all of those people who claim to be Christians REFUSED to go to war, REFUSED to own guns, REFUSED to in any way support capital punishment, and REFUSED to abort their children; then MAYBE I would agree with you.
1.2 million abortions are performed in the U.S. annually. Many of those abortions are performed on church going, Christ believing women. They justify it for many reasons. Telling them that they're going to have a gay/transgender son or daughter will simply be another reason for them to justify it.
That's reality... And it's people like you--who claim that we are defective--that we are "sinners"--that we destroy the family, etc; people like YOU who give will be giving them the motivation to abort.
You don't get to bitch about the existence of homosexuality--wanting us to disappear from the planet--and not have blood on your hands.
I would add that there are thousands of Christian churches that support same sex marriage and want to preform them in their churches.... why are their religious rights being denied?

You are right, Christians are not one block that speak with one voice, that has not been the case ever, and particularly not since the ending of the dark ages.

Not to mention that they are NOT the only religon in this country.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184098 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to not... I have actually flipped on that issue a couple of times. So I respect your opinion, it isnít mine, but I can certainly understand someone with the position you support.
I had to ask myself if I could kill someone before I entered the military, because if I could not, my superiors should certainly know that, I decided that I could.
Later after having a family, it stuck me that there are people out there that we as a society are better off without.
Although I support the death penalty, I am certainly opposed to states that have used it too easily and often, and I am not all that upset that it is not currently used in my state.
Yours is an opinion that I can respect on that subject
I too have flipped. But since they don't carry out the death sentence and we spend millions housing them in a certain way and with all the appeals. It's a waste of money, make them suffer behind bars. I'd be for it if it was a faster process for those with no doubt of guilt.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184099 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
more and more scientists are actually going the other way, you would know this if you looked at actual factual websites instead of the websites that fill you with garbage that you want to believe.
again you do not have enough information to be able to discuss this, and you are taking away from the actual topic of this forum.
We are done
Wrong

more and more scientists are actually going more towards a higher power, you would know this if you looked at actual factual websites instead of the websites that fill you with garbage that you want to believe, like the Government sites and Government sponsored studies.

again you do not have enough information to be able to discuss this, and the subject of gay marriage: what more needs to be said? we are done!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184100 Mar 22, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D.
Yes. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and speakers. It is a weak argument to pull up out of context quotes they may have made without reference to their overall political and religious philosophy.
Ronald
in the same token, you could say the same thing about biblical passages.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184101 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I do notice that baby changing stations do exist in menís bathrooms now :)
Yes they do....babies can't change themselves.
It is fine to notice a difference, but justice wears a blindfold, blind to Race, creed, color, sex, religion, orientation, or national origin.
Religion? Even fundamentalist Mormons? Muslims..... hmmmmm...what do they have in common....what practice....
A goal we have not actually achieved, but always strive for.
Shoot for the moon.
You are on the wrong side of history
Perhaps..... or perhaps those who oppose redefing legal marriage will be vindicated by history. Opponent s of "no fault divorce" are one such example. Sounded great in theory, not in reality. We are paying the price today. Certain institutions are tampered with at our own peril
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184102 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I too have flipped. But since they don't carry out the death sentence and we spend millions housing them in a certain way and with all the appeals. It's a waste of money, make them suffer behind bars. I'd be for it if it was a faster process for those with no doubt of guilt.
Yeah, in a perfect world we would know innocence or guilt, and carry out the punishment without all the fuss and expense.

I suppose it boils down to, would I go for a headshot if you attacked my wife or children or grandchildren... the answer is.. yes I would, and not feel a moment of guilt over it.

You arenít wrong there, which is why I wonít argue your stance, it is a logical and understandable one.

But there are a few that I would gladly flip the switch on myself. And I think we have tied the hands of justice a lot already.

If it came to a vote today, on re-legalizing the death penalty... I would have to think about it before I voted, and I cannot tell you now which way I would vote, because I am not sure which way I would go.

I agree wiht the death penalty in principal, but not how it is currently practiced in most states.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184103 Mar 22, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Yup you're right, it should have read moral-less liberals. As in lacking morals.
oh, i see.

wanting to the principles of feeding the poor, offering homes to the homeless, clothing those in need are all principles of "moral-less" liberals.

and the "high-morals" of the republicans include not spending any money on those less fortunate or the healing the sick or even creating a second class citizen of the tax paying homosexuals.

gotcha, nutcase.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184105 Mar 22, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
oh, i see.
wanting to the principles of feeding the poor, offering homes to the homeless, clothing those in need are all principles of "moral-less" liberals.
and the "high-morals" of the republicans include not spending any money on those less fortunate or the healing the sick or even creating a second class citizen of the tax paying homosexuals.
gotcha, nutcase.
I donít find their stance to be "moral" to single out people based on their orientation and deny specific rights.

I consider those "low morals" and certainly un-American, however as I suspect the republicans are currently changing their stance on this issue as quickly as they can ( they can see the political and historic wind blowing ) it will only be the fringe of their party complaining.

A dwindling minority

We have "right", and "moral" on our side, that is why I do not doubt the outcome.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184106 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít find their stance to be "moral" to single out people based on their orientation and deny specific rights.
I consider those "low morals" and certainly un-American, however as I suspect the republicans are currently changing their stance on this issue as quickly as they can ( they can see the political and historic wind blowing ) it will only be the fringe of their party complaining.
A dwindling minority
We have "right", and "moral" on our side, that is why I do not doubt the outcome.
hence the quotation marks. LOL. i call those types of "christians" self-avowed because it's a little difficult for me to buy into the line of thinking that it's ok to be derisive of my fellow mankind or to think "christians" are better than any other type of human on the earth (athiest, muslim, etc) and are to be treated deferentially by the laws of this nation.

i get disgusted by these types of self avowed christians that paint an ugly face of christ for others to see and to be pushed away from that which all christians should feel, share and understand : God's grace.

i respect your choice in being an athiest. i do not desire to force my christian outlook or expectations upon you or anyone else via legislation.

i think this swing that we're seeing in numbers of christians that are falling away and the rise in polling of people that are for same sex marriage is a direct result of the verbiage of these self avowed christians - and how they treat non-christians. why would anyone want to join their 'club' if they treat people the way they do? i think, by and large, people aren't buying into the way christ is depicted and certainly aren't buying what the self avowed christians are selling.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184107 Mar 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they do....babies can't change themselves.
<quoted text>
Religion? Even fundamentalist Mormons? Muslims..... hmmmmm...what do they have in common....what practice....
<quoted text>
Shoot for the moon.
<quoted text>
Perhaps..... or perhaps those who oppose redefing legal marriage will be vindicated by history. Opponent s of "no fault divorce" are one such example. Sounded great in theory, not in reality. We are paying the price today. Certain institutions are tampered with at our own peril
My point is, noticing a difference, and designing laws to grant rights on those differences are two very different things.

No fault divorce is a fact, "irreconcilable difference" is a nice catch- all that allows any individual a divorce if desired.

What price are we paying? I agree with no-fault divorce. But then marriage is a contract, a promise, and contracts are broken, as are some promises.

we are not talking form a religious perspective here, as there are many religions here, including none at all, but from a legal perspective.

Yes there are consequences to breaking a contract, who everyone that has been through a divorce knows very well.

But as a society we are better off for it, wives of men who abuse them are no longer without an avenue of escape, those who remain married do so because it is their desire to do so.

I personally think we are much better off than before.

But before you respond, realized that I donít consider the number of divorces a problem, the goal is NOT to keep people married, but for people who are married stay that way because they have a good marriage. I do not think wedding rings should be forged into a ball and chain

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) 19 hr scirocco 71,008
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec 12 Alex Montgomery 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:29 am PST