Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184866 Mar 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Never been a problem.
If ss friendships deserve those benefits without ever being capable of mutual procreation and it's special needs, then legally EVERYONE deserves them.
Apparently you think two men need the protection and provision that women and children do... Man up VV, man up!!!
So let me get this clear...

You're saying that sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who will never have children SHOULD NOT get tax breaks and other tax benefits that families with children currently get?

You do understand that the woman suing against the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act is basing her case on the fact that she has had to pay over $300,000 in inheritance taxes don't you?

And based on what your posting seems to be saying, then no couple who doesn't have children (including you, since your children no longer live in your home) should be able to receive property from their spouse after a death without paying taxes. So if you die and your have a piece of property in your name or have an item that isn't considered joint property, then your wife would have to pay taxes on that property. And you're OK with that?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184867 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
From what I am seeing today, it looks like DOMA is going away.:)
We will find out in a couple of months
do you have a link to the transcripts? have they been loaded for viewing as yet?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184868 Mar 27, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
In my town, there are two public drinking fountains. One says "whites only", the other says "non-caucasians". The fountains are the same, the water is the same. Only the label is different.
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.
WinstonSmithAKAs heesh

Waldorf, MD

#184869 Mar 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Not far from true.
Lincoln quotes you never saw in the history books:
""I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
"Do the people of the south really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, there is no cause for such fears."- Letter to Alexander Stephens
Other little Lincoln tid-bits you didn't hear about in school:
- July 1861- General Freeman declares martial law in Missouri, declares all slaves held by owners whom oppose the Union are free. Lincoln cancels the order. As a result Congress passes the Confiscation Act.
-May 1862, General David Hunter issued an order declaring all slaves in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina to be free. Lincoln again revokes the order. Congress again responds by passing the SECOND Confiscation Act.
They also won't tell you that Lincoln felt that the freed slaves should be COLONIZED elsewhere. Yup, he was looking to send the black out of the US. Congress even passed a bill to spend $100,000 to :
"to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine."
Yeah, Lincoln the "great emancipator".
Any idea what we can make out of the peanuts & lemons we're getting?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184870 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.
no, pietro.

try reading the Prop 8 SCOTUS transcripts - they deal with homosexuals not being allowed to marry because they're same sex. and so far, it's not looking good for you side, buddy.

good luck.
It Is a Conspiracy

Anonymous Proxy

#184871 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Logical actually. If one does not believe in the orthodoxy of the left, in this case, SSM, one must be sent to a "reeducation camp" as has been established in the past by leftist, often communist regimes. There the non believers are "reeducated". So gay people who disagree with redefining marriage for the same reason(s) that some straight people do, marriage is about husband and wife and by extension their children, should be sent to "reeducation camps" to correct their thinking. After all any gay person who opposes SSM is automatically a traitor to the cause, self loathed, and/or ignorant.
<quoted text>
What's that comrade, some are more equal than others?
<quoted text>
Sparkle
<quoted text>
Oh but of course.....it's always the other side that's not tolerant.
If some people, straight or gay, get married for companionship or money, which happens all the time, then should they not be allowed to get married?

Can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines that gay parenting is somehow harmful to children? I think not.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184872 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual intercourse, aka coitus. Serious VV, both genders are needed for that. Legal ssm doesn't suddenly change the meaning of such words.
<quoted text>
Are both genders listed on the license?'Nuff said.
<quoted text>
Do I need to be crudely explicit here and speculate as to what ss sexual act, male and female, would substitute for coitus?
<quoted text>
Did your Dad ever have "the talk" with you? If he had, I doubt you'd make a statement like that.
<quoted text>
I never said it would. Don't start acting like Big D, and claim I did. We've had a respectual discussion and debate here VV, capeesh!?
1.) First off you try to equate the terms "sexual intercourse" and "coitus". They are not the same words.
"Sexual intercourse" takes place between two people of any gender. Do you deny that same-gender couples have sexual intercourse? I don't think you do.
"Coitus" very specifically refers to the "sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (from the on line dictionary "Farflex" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coitus ).
You may think I'm splitting hairs. But it's important for you to understand that there is a very distinct difference.

2.) Marriage licenses in states that recognize same-gender marriage have removed gender and replaced it with "person" or "applicant".

3.) You don't have to explain all of the various sexual acts. We're all adults.

4.) I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful. I just wanted to paint the picture of the police busting down a couple's door and forcing them into divorce court, because word had gotten out that they had never consummated their marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184873 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
no, pietro.
try reading the Prop 8 SCOTUS transcripts - they deal with homosexuals not being allowed to marry because they're same sex. and so far, it's not looking good for you side, buddy.
good luck.
From what I have seen so far today, I don’t see how DOMA can survive this

it won’t shock me if they do the same thing with Prop 8, determine there is no standing to bring action to attack the appeal.

That would mean both DOMA and Prop 8 would be defeated

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184874 Mar 27, 2013
Well Brian, you seem to avoid conversations. Is it because you really have no ability to debate?
Here's a post you didn't/couldn't respond to:

For the love of pete, Brian, I have never had a conversation with someone that was more exasperating than one with you. I asked you to explain yourself and all you do is repeat the same statements with absolutely no supporting argument. You don't seem capable of elaborating on anything with any degreeof intelligence.
You keep mentioning gender apartheid and segregation look up the definition of things before you use them:
gender apartheid (also called sex apartheid) is economic and social sexual discrimination against women, including strict sex segregation, as well as an "absence of justice for women in much of the non-Western world." Practices deemed instances of gender apartheid include the legal killing of wives for adultery in Syria and Haiti, wife beating in Nigeria, women needing their husband's consent for divorce in Israel, and legal kidnapping and marriage of women in Guatemala and Lebanon. Aspects of the treatment of women under fundamentalist Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism have also been described as gender apartheid.
segregation: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means
Now, one last time, try explaining just what it is you’re trying to claim instead of just repeating yourself. No group is being isolated. In fact one group is asking for inclusion and people like you insist on the continued isolation of them. If anyone is promoting apartheid it is you.

~~~~~~~~~~

While you're avoiding a response to that perhaps you can avoid a response to this...

If same sex marriage leads to all these destructive things why wouldn't same sex unions lead to them? Why no forced same sex unions in prison? Why no gender apartheid? Whatever it is you mean by that. Why no segregation?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184875 Mar 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Mkay.......... wacko. Who is calling for sending bigots to re-education camps? Is it the same boogey man that you use for every other excuse... this nebulous, un-named liberal?
So are you saying that gay people who disagree with legally redefining marriage for the same reason straight people do are "bigots"......nice. That must be from the Al Sharpton school of political activism.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184876 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
no, pietro.
try reading the Prop 8 SCOTUS transcripts - they deal with homosexuals not being allowed to marry because they're same sex. and so far, it's not looking good for you side, buddy.
good luck.
Actually homosexuals can marry in every state in the union, and have their marriage valid in all fifty states. What is being asked is that marriage redefined, from a legally recognized exclusive union of husband AND wife, to one of "spouses for life, regardless of gender composition".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184877 Mar 27, 2013
It Is a Conspiracy wrote:
<quoted text>
If some people, straight or gay, get married for companionship or money, which happens all the time, then should they not be allowed to get married?
if a man and a woman, one straight one gay/bi marry for the same reasons you posted, should they be allowed to marry?
Can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines that gay parenting is somehow harmful to children? I think not.
Can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines children should not be raised by THEIR OWN married biological mother and father in a stable home?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184878 Mar 27, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
you bigots havn't ever succeeded in presenting a rational arguement as to WHY you think homosexuality is wrong...
the rest of us DO NOT think of it as WRONG....but simply as a preference, and a civil rights issue.
you claimimg some sort of moral high ground, with your bigotry is laughable!!!
I appreciate your attempt to obfuscate here, but....never said homosexuality was wrong. Did say it wasn't a proper relationship upon which which to bestow the title of "Marriage". Thank you for clouding the issue, but it was unnecessary, and set straight.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184879 Mar 27, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
the majority of people ARE behind gay marriage being accepted.
58% of them, according to the ABC/washington post poll that came out last week.
up from 23% in 1996.
showing clearly that you are on the wRONg side of this issue, historically,.
No, that is a lie, as I keep telling you. It is propaganda, being used to facilitate the indoctrination agenda. 95% of the people are not behind it. Most do not have an opinion. Of those that do, most are against it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184880 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying that gay people who disagree with legally redefining marriage for the same reason straight people do are "bigots"......nice. That must be from the Al Sharpton school of political activism.
No.. people that want to deny rights to others based on Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation, or National Origin are bigots

and yes that is you
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184881 Mar 27, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
so let me get this straight so everyone can see how silly you are!!
your arguement for why homosexuality is wrong, is that men have dicks and and women have vagina's???
can you elaborate??
or does it have something to do with your personal beliefes instead of an arguement based on reason and science.....
Allow me to help you. I know that this is hard for you. I will be kind, and use small words. Be gay, if you want to. I don't care. I care about the misappropriation of the title "Married" for gays. I know that this is a difficult detail for you to grasp. Try harder. It can be done.(I am sorry for the use of the 2 "big" words, but, if they confuse you any more, google them.)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184882 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is a lie, as I keep telling you. It is propaganda, being used to facilitate the indoctrination agenda. 95% of the people are not behind it. Most do not have an opinion. Of those that do, most are against it.
You are behind the times, better check the polls

53% to 58%( depending on which poll ) are in favor of Same Sex marrage in the US
THE LONE WORKER

Bellevue, WA

#184883 Mar 27, 2013
It Is a Conspiracy wrote:
<quoted text>
If some people, straight or gay, get married for companionship or money, which happens all the time, then should they not be allowed to get married?
Can you point to any reputable social scientist who opines that gay parenting is somehow harmful to children? I think not.
DIviation from the normal is bad for the whole nation. Perverts will eventually destroy what is sacred and true and good. It is hurtful to teach children that anything is OK sexually.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184884 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is marriage, inclusive of both in the eyes of the law, equal in the eyes of the law,
Yet not every aspect of marital jurisprudence applies to SSM, either entering it or exiting it.
embracing one does not mean hatred for the other.
Agreed
Love can be like a candle, you can light many candles from one, and none of them diminish the light from the candle they were lit from
That's a nice.
As I am having Italian tonight I may have a little wine… I am a cab man, I like the depth and complexity of a good Cab, I know Pinot Noir is ( or was ) in vogue, but to me, it is still the Cabernet
See.....you're not such a bad guy after all...even with all your pontificating from on high.:)

Buon Appetito. Mangia.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184885 Mar 27, 2013
endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
what exactly does evolutionary design have to do with someones sexual preference??
..... our race has been expanding rapidly during the industrial age......why would a small percentage of the population being gay, matter for the over all survival of our race.
BTW: we have what is called "frozen sperm"
and frozen eggs...
so really,in throery, we wouldnt actually need marriage between a man and a women to survive as a race...
you are way out in right feild...
"Sexual preference" is no reason to covet a title which you do not rate. Being gay doesn't matter. Being gay and calling yourself "married" is a different matter. Capisce? In theory, we can legislate ourselves right out of existence, m'kay? Don't be silly...

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
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Thu Norbert of Norview 71,944
News SD-area man gets 14 years for abusing wife (Jan '11) Aug 22 dGo mnaDde lyHo i... 5
News Fear mongering in Spreckels will have been in vain Aug 7 I am sorry 1
Monterey Public Officials VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS Aug 7 Un agenda 21 and ... 6
News Del Rey Oaks Garden Center grand opening schedu... Jul '15 Kathi Buckley Smith 1
drugs Jul '15 JayJay 2
News Sex offender Tom Pollacci pleads not guilty to ... (Mar '09) Jul '15 martin5 360
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages