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
161,341 - 161,360 of 200,358 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184785
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

WinstonSmithAKAsheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have my history correct I believe Lincoln thought the slaves were inferior beings even though he sympathised with their plight and he wasn't the darling of the true abolitionist.
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".

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184786
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We both know that is not true. Consumation is the first act of sexual intercourse, coitus, by husband and wife. So what sexual act between two men, and two women, would constitute "consumation", considering, coitus, is not possible?
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184787
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage benefits were designed to support the biological children and the mothers who nutured them.
Gay couples not only don't qualify for those benefits, they don't need them. Nor is it right that they deplete the resources for those who do.
Man up VV. Being a queen is only pretend!
Smile.
So, do these benefits end when the children are raised? What if the couple are sterile, don't want kids, or are too elderly to have kids? Do they not get these tax benefits as well?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184788
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), and Jon Tester (Mont.) have joined a growing list of U.S. senators that have backed extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Also among the senators clarifying their same-sex marriage support in recent days are Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D), and as the Blade has reported, Virginiaís Mark Warner (D), Missouriís Claire McCaskill (D) and Ohioís Robert Portman (R).

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/03/26/kai...
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184789
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you extract arguments, which do not exist, from my posts, in order, to give you a reason to continue to pontificate. No fault divorce is just that. Annullments, in certain states have specific grounds, one of which failure to consummate.
again I donít need to read any further, you still donít comprehend

and annulment requires one of the married couple to desire an annulment, it is NOT something the state will step in against their wishes and terminate the marriage.

You still have not been able to separate it in your tiny little mind so we will go over it again

Consummation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in any conceivable from, even fundamentalist Churches have performed marriage ceremonies for veterans that could not consummate the marriage, let alone the legal aspect that it is not in any way any kind of requirement for a marriage license.

Have you got that yet? or do we need to go over it again

No reason for a divorce or annulment is used to deny a couple that requests a marriage license.... do you have that now?

We can go over this dead argument as many times as you like

Procreation is a dead argument, consummation is a dead argumentÖ do you have it yet?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184790
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
Is there really any misunderstanding as to what "consummation" means? I understand legal SSM has brought forth efforts to render certain words non gender specific, or gender less, but some words just ain't gonna change.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184792
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Normal people distinguish between intercourse and anal abuse...
Did you miss me VV?
Snicker.
Youíre not smart enough or qualified to make a sweeping generalization about what ďnormalĒ people do. Youíre posts are more to insult than to impart any wisdom on anyone. You do realize that the definition of normal doesnít say anything about how people privately show love and affection for each other? Why do you think about or care what other do sexually?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184793
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
When the pixie dust from the limp wristed gay twirl dance settles, this reality will still exist;
marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples can't qualify.
So I enjoyed a delightful, delicious dinner out as husband and wife for her birthday.
The best is yet to come...
Good night.
Smile.
Iím sure sheís learned to endure your once or twice a year five minute interlude.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184794
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
again I donít need to read any further, you still donít comprehend
What I don't comprehend is your continued misreading of my position.
and annulment requires one of the married couple to desire an annulment, it is NOT something the state will step in against their wishes and terminate the marriage.
I did not say it would.
You still have not been able to separate it in your tiny little mind so we will go over it again
Consummation is not any kind of requirement for a marriage, not in any conceivable from, even fundamentalist Churches have performed marriage ceremonies for veterans that could not consummate the marriage, let alone the legal aspect that it is not in any way any kind of requirement for a marriage license.
Have you got that yet? or do we need to go over it again
Perhaps if you looked past your own inflated ego, you'd see I never stated it was a requirement for a marriage license. It is however part of marital jurisprudence. As I pointed out several post ago, which you ignored.
No reason for a divorce or annulment is used to deny a couple that requests a marriage license.... do you have that now?
Do u understand I never said it was. Probably not, you'll more than likely continue to pontificate about the secular sacred cow know as same sex marriage.
We can go over this dead argument as many times as you like
Procreation is a dead argument, consummation is a dead argumentÖ do you have it yet?
The All Wise and Powerful Big D has spoken, all hail the Big D. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

The bottom line is that SSM is, again, the secular sacred cow, of the left, and there's no possible argument against it, for everyone who opposes it, including those self hating traitor gays, are homophobes, bigots, and anti gays. Your continued pontificating on the matter only proves that.

I see no compelling reason for it. However different situations, different solutions. Several states, and countries have acknowledged this, and same sex couples, by granting them civil unions. Your turn, let's see if you respond with what I think you will, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184795
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying wonít help you, I didnít say it was one issue, I said every major issue, every cause of the secession ( quite a number of them ) was tied to the institution of slavery and the continuation of that institution.
That is a fact
the civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. There were so many reasons.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184796
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is like they are only getting skewed information, Lost Cause arguments, and conspiracy theory websites and Faux News and nowhere else.
Says the idiot that thinks it's a good idea to shoot dangerous chemicals in babies to prevent them from getting the flu when there is no epidemic. LOL

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184797
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
akpilot wrote:
How sad is it that there are generally 6-8 people who have no life, and spend their lonely days trolling the thread to post judge-it's not based on the content of the post, but based on the name attached to the post?
How much sadder would it be if there was only 1 person?
Seriously, look at the judge-its. With near 100% accuracy you will see page after page, 6-8 judge-it's.
So sad.
<quoted text>
He is not 'right here with us', he makes one of the most reasoned, respectful and thoughtful responses found here.
No matter what he says, there are 6 to 8 'judgits' that deem it 'hate'. Mindless responses like yours that simply reveal bigotry.
Grow up.
Smile.
<quoted text>
So your justification of childish troll behavior towards another poster is that I am on 10 forums and supposedly lie? Wow, that is 'logic' beyond normal...
Please quote where I claimed science reached a conclusion about epi-markers. I'm calling you a liar. Again...
Smirk.
On Monday, March 24, post#184434 you said:

"More BS gay twirl lies.

THE LATEST SCIENCE SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A (sic) EPI-MARKER MISTAKE.(emphasis added)

Moreover, the most intimate imitation of natural sex, anal sex, is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. I've posted that fact from a gay friendly medical site many times if someone doesn't have the common sense to know the anus is not a vagina.

Could be just a couple reasons why it's so hard for every culture in all of human history to get...

Snicker."

----------

The latest science DOES NOT say that homosexuality is an "epigenetic mistake". If you search Google, you will not find the words "epigenetic mistake" written with regards to homosexuality by anyone other than you.

So you continuously lie to people on here.

Scientist who theorize that homosexuality is related to epigenetics use words like "might be" or "could result in" or "further study is needed".

No one has came up with a final answer as you suggest over and over again.

Scientist have come up with a theory that "on paper" appears to suggest a connection. They've conducted NO clinical work in the laboratory.

Furthermore, scientists are not suggesting that this is a "defect" or a "mistake". They are simply saying that there appears to be a connection--that it might explain why homosexuality exists. They haven't made a judgement as to whether or not homosexuality is a mistake by using this theory.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop lying.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184798
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there really any misunderstanding as to what "consummation" means? I understand legal SSM has brought forth efforts to render certain words non gender specific, or gender less, but some words just ain't gonna change.
Consummation - Noun - the completion of marriage by sexual intercourse.(I see nothing about genders listed here)

And "marriage" in states that recognize "marriage" between same-gender partners is called "marriage". It isn't called "same-gender marriage" or "same-sex marriage". The certificates and licenses for couples of the same gender are no different than the certificates and licenses for opposite gender couples.

With that in mind, the term "consummation", in those states that recognize marriage between couples of the same gender, would be complete once they have had sexual intercourse.

I haven't seen any definition of "consummation" that indicates a penis must penetrate a vagina. As you know, even with heterosexual couples, "intercourse" can involve any number of acts.

Finally, consummation concerns are typically only used to annul marriages. If the couple doesn't consummate their marriage with sexual intercourse, it isn't like the government is going to bust down their door and force them to divorce one another.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184799
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>the civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. There were so many reasons.
worng, and you are not likely to ever know better
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184800
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they really? The entire Supreme Court, or just a few justices, or was some people in the court room?
one justice made the joke and just about everyone laughed including the other justices

They said perhaps California should prohibit people older than 55 from being able to marry if procreation has anything to do with the legal right to marry.

Or something like thatÖ it was the end of that line of argument
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184801
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
one justice made the joke and just about everyone laughed including the other justices
They said perhaps California should prohibit people older than 55 from being able to marry if procreation has anything to do with the legal right to marry.
Or something like thatÖ it was the end of that line of argument
that was their best arguement and it was compleatly laughed out of court by everybody...

ill bet they ARNT playing that audio clip on faux news!!

there were some real gems....

i cannot wait for tommorow....

same same, but different???

im refering to these two cases, not same sex marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184802
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
that was their best arguement and it was compleatly laughed out of court by everybody...
ill bet they ARNT playing that audio clip on faux news!!
there were some real gems....
i cannot wait for tommorow....
same same, but different???
im refering to these two cases, not same sex marriage.
I am amazed their lawyers were stupid enough to try and use that line of argument. They had to really be digging in the bottom of a barrel to come up with that.

I mean I expect that crap from people in a forum like this, but we are talking lawyers, and THAT is what they come up with, It deserved to laughed down.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184803
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What I don't comprehend is your continued misreading of my position.
<quoted text>
I did not say it would.
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you looked past your own inflated ego, you'd see I never stated it was a requirement for a marriage license. It is however part of marital jurisprudence. As I pointed out several post ago, which you ignored.
<quoted text>
Do u understand I never said it was. Probably not, you'll more than likely continue to pontificate about the secular sacred cow know as same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
The All Wise and Powerful Big D has spoken, all hail the Big D. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
The bottom line is that SSM is, again, the secular sacred cow, of the left, and there's no possible argument against it, for everyone who opposes it, including those self hating traitor gays, are homophobes, bigots, and anti gays. Your continued pontificating on the matter only proves that.
I see no compelling reason for it. However different situations, different solutions. Several states, and countries have acknowledged this, and same sex couples, by granting them civil unions. Your turn, let's see if you respond with what I think you will, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.
what an excellect solution.

we can further sort out the bigots(rightwingers) by corraling them all off into three distinct regions of the country....the south, the great plains and Idaho, utah and wyoming.

that is another reason why i recommended utah...

youd feel more at home there, politically.

the rest of the states will allow gay marraige

and benefit from tourist dollars from other tolerate populations from other tolerant(blue) states.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184804
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
The real question is why do haterís always digress to references of a sexual nature? Why do they feel compelled to focus on what people do to express their love and affection for their lover? Donít they realize that regardless of sexual orientation we all have very diverse sexual desires and needs?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184805
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
what an excellect solution.
we can further sort out the bigots(rightwingers) by corraling them all off into three distinct regions of the country....the south, the great plains and Idaho, utah and wyoming.
that is another reason why i recommended utah...
youd feel more at home there, politically.
the rest of the states will allow gay marraige
and benefit from tourist dollars from other tolerate populations from other tolerant(blue) states.
The problem is that as more and more states do the right thing there will be less and less room for the bigots and the idiots

however it is still a good idea, education does sink in after a while and there will eventually be fewer of them.

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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••