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 (Page 8,073)

Showing posts 161,441 - 161,460 of200,312
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184899
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you splitting hairs, now? Any alcoholic will tell you that it is their right to be an alcoholic, and many also live happy, productive lives. This doesn't make the rest of us any more likely to applaud their choices.
I don’t think any same sex couples are worried about not getting your applause.

Your applause isn’t the issue here, but a point of law.

Your approval or applause is not needed for anyone to marry.

Reading the judges’ comments on DOMA sure shed some light

with DMOA it is more clear

There are some 120,000 legally married same sex couples in the US today. The Judges asked the lawyers for a list of reasons those legally married people should not receive the same federal benefits and protections that any other legally married couple has.

No list appeared, the lawyers didn’t seem to know what to do with that request.

I don’t think DOMA can survive the events today
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184900
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have missed this very important detail. Chongo misses it all the time. There are more straights, making for larger percentages, in EVERY arena. D-ohhh....
and a majority of those straight people support same sex marriage, I am one of them

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184901
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
since the judges used the terminology of "redefine" i'll grant you that.
Whoa H&M....was that an admission from the Team Rainbow, that SSM redefines marriage? Hallelujah...praise The Lord.......just teasing, but thanks none the less.
HOWEVER, they also conceded that homosexuals are barred (walled off) from enjoying the same fundamental right of marriage as heterosexuals.
Hmmmmmm.....the problem with that is the reality of mixed orientation marriages, including those who truly choose to marry, or stay together by choice.
so, no, homosexuals cannot marry a member of the same sex and have that legal union recognized in all 50 states as the laws are currently written. however, from the looks of things,
That requires first redefining the legal definition of marriage.
if you read the transcripts, that's going to change. DOMA looks pretty much an over and done deal - the case brought before SCOTUS today dealt with a widow's claim of being forced by the irs to pay inheretance taxes on property she and her legally married female spouse shared.
It may, or may not, or it may be a mixed ruling.
however you may feel about same sex marriage will not stop the judges from changing the laws regarding same sex marriage. you may dislike their ruling. you may disagree with their ruling. but the laws will be what they will be.
That may happen, or they may allow the states to choose to regulate marriage as they see fit, even creating civil unions for SSCs, which a number of states have done. Would a CU suffice, if the Feds treated it as marriage with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, they extend to marriage? What is your opinion on that?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184902
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex couples are sexually intimate with each other, but due to lack of corresponding genetilia, do not engage in coitus.
Definitions and stimulation factors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...
Sexual intercourse is also known as copulation, coitus or coition; coitus is derived from the Latin word coitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together" and is usually defined as penile-vaginal penetration.[3][29][30][31] Penetration by the hardened, erect penis is additionally known as intromission, or by the Latin name immissio penis (Latin for "insertion of the penis").[32] Copulation, although usually used to describe the mating process of non-human animals, is defined as "the transfer of the sperm from male to female" or "the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman".[33][34] As such, common vernacular and research often limit sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration, with virginity loss being predicated on the activity,[9][10][19][20] while the term sex and the phrase "having sex" commonly mean any sexual activity – penetrative and non-penetrative.[9][14][35] The World Health Organization states that non-English languages and cultures use different terms for sexual activity, with slightly different meanings.[14]
<quoted text>
Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. What did he mean by "sex"?
<quoted text>
Whew...that's a relief...I was worried there for a moment.:)
<quoted text>
No I. Thanks...grazie.
<quoted text>
No one is advocating that VV, nor am I. However, as it is legally permissible in certain states, a person can have their marriage annulled for failure to consummate. It simply illustrates that not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence in gender neutral.
Only men and women can engage in coitus. I FULLY understand that.

But "consummation of marriage" DOES NOT REQUIRE "Coitus". It requires "sexual intercourse". And sexual intercourse can be any variety of sexual acts between two people--opposite sex or same sex.

That's the only point I'm try to make.

It seems like you're trying to say that gay people can never be legally married because they cannot engage in coitus. And I just haven't seen any laws where "coitus" is required. A guy who has had his penis shot off in war would not be able to engage in coitus. A transgender male who has had "the big operation" and now has a penis COULD engage in coitus.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184903
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Judge Walker excluded evidence and witnesses; that's why he misruled. The US Supreme Court has reviewed a state's right to redefine marriage as one man and one woman in Baker v Nelson; that stands as precedent.
Not to mention this: "Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8—the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on “antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And that arguments against gay marriage are “nothing more than tautologies.”

And:“Proposition 8…enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”[Emphasis added.]

The “evidence” is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men’s and women’s “roles” were defined by their “gender.” Liberals would have us believe that this is more “settled science,” just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Other experts disagree with Walker’s view of marriage. But, a bunch of them that had been scheduled to testify withdrew because they feared for their personal safety. As for their chief expert witness, David Blankenhorn, Walker threw out his entire testimony as “inadmissible” and to be “given essentially no weight.”

According to liberal bloggers and commentators, Blankenhorn’s credibility disintegrated under seven hours of testimony; I wasn’t there, so perhaps that was the case. Walker ended up ruling out Blankenhorn as an “expert” witness because he, according to the judge,“lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of … factual assertions [by proponents of Proposition 8].”

According to Walker, one of the things that disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert opinion witness was his alleged failure to do original research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s puzzling for two reasons:

1. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of two important and best-selling books, including Fatherless in America. He has spent a lifetime studying marriage, fatherhood and family structure, is in demand as a speaker and—not that it matters—is thoughtful and not at all like the stereotype that many gay activists accuse their opponents of being. He, in essence, conducts his research and assembles knowledge by, for example, relying on studies from other experts. But for Walker, that’s not enough.

2. And yet, despite Walker’s perspective of Blankenhorn as something of an unqualified aggregator, the judge qualified as an expert someone from the other side whose “research” was remarkably like Blankenhorn’s. George Chauncey, the judge himself noted in his opinion, is a history professor specializing in “social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians.” While he has “authored or edited books on the subject of gay and lesbian history,” as Walker put it, he—like Blankenhorn—“relies on government records, interview, diaries, films and advertisements along with studies by other historians and scholars in conducting his research.”
I wonder how higher courts will view such discrepancies in Walker’s decision when the case is appealed.

From http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/the-fla...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184904
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Blue Moon In Your Eye wrote:
<quoted text>
No he didn't you are a liar! Try again,I've read the transcripts meny times and he did NO such thing! Try again bumper sticker boy!
Read it, and weep...
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Judge Walker excluded evidence and witnesses; that's why he misruled. The US Supreme Court has reviewed a state's right to redefine marriage as one man and one woman in Baker v Nelson; that stands as precedent.
Not to mention this: "Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. district chief judge in San Francisco, declared unconstitutional Proposition 8—the voter-approved referendum by which California citizens declared marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

After carefully weighing the testimony of a bevy of social scientists, Walker found that the idea of heterosexual marriage is based on “antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And that arguments against gay marriage are “nothing more than tautologies.”

And:“Proposition 8…enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that

the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.”[Emphasis added.]

The “evidence” is testimony by social scientists who view marriage to be a vestige of a time when men’s and women’s “roles” were defined by their “gender.” Liberals would have us believe that this is more “settled science,” just like they insist that global warming is man-made and abortions play no role in breast cancer.

Other experts disagree with Walker’s view of marriage. But, a bunch of them that had been scheduled to testify withdrew because they feared for their personal safety. As for their chief expert witness, David Blankenhorn, Walker threw out his entire testimony as “inadmissible” and to be “given essentially no weight.”

According to liberal bloggers and commentators, Blankenhorn’s credibility disintegrated under seven hours of testimony; I wasn’t there, so perhaps that was the case. Walker ended up ruling out Blankenhorn as an “expert” witness because he, according to the judge,“lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of … factual assertions [by proponents of Proposition 8].”

According to Walker, one of the things that disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert opinion witness was his alleged failure to do original research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s puzzling for two reasons:

1. Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of two important and best-selling books, including Fatherless in America. He has spent a lifetime studying marriage, fatherhood and family structure, is in demand as a speaker and—not that it matters—is thoughtful and not at all like the stereotype that many gay activists accuse their opponents of being. He, in essence, conducts his research and assembles knowledge by, for example, relying on studies from other experts. But for Walker, that’s not enough.

2. And yet, despite Walker’s perspective of Blankenhorn as something of an unqualified aggregator, the judge qualified as an expert someone from the other side whose “research” was remarkably like Blankenhorn’s. George Chauncey, the judge himself noted in his opinion, is a history professor specializing in “social history, especially as it relates to gays and lesbians.” While he has “authored or edited books on the subject of gay and lesbian history,” as Walker put it, he—like Blankenhorn—“relies on government records, interview, diaries, films and advertisements along with studies by other historians and scholars in conducting his research.”
I wonder how higher courts will view such discrepancies in Walker’s decision when the case is appealed.

From http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/the-fla...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184905
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Bottom line"? Pun intended? Simply because they occur does not mean they are equal. Would "homosexual intercourse" constitute "consummation" of the marital relationship?
LOL, not after they target and adulterate THAT definition next... When they are done, only SSM will be valid. We'll be the "faulty" ones...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184906
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
So am I, but many of the people here can only be happy if they make other people unhappy.
That is thier goal
No, it isn't. Don't put words into our mouths.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184907
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It has also been suggested that the far right immigrate to Afghanistan and join the Taliban
Religion is mandated, everyone has a gun, social customs are law upon pain of death, just as they like it
Yes, several times, you have suggested that we emigrate to Afghanistan. Funny. Why don't you guys move to another country, form your own country, where anything can fly, and the rest of us, who know better, can sit back and watch how long your "Libertine-istan" lasts....
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184908
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t want Atheism mandated, I want freedom for both those that believe in one of the billions of Gods man has dreamed up or not as they choose. Dissent is a good thing not a bad thing.
Nope not the place for me
but you really should check out the Taliban... you would fit right in
But, they ARE free to do as they wish. They wish to extend their rights past the acceptable point. Are you really that familiar with the Taliban that you are recruiting for them? Helping them to undermine America?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184909
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Just remember on the pot topic, endocannabanoid says he is smoking 2 ounces of pot a week.
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184910
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. Quit trying to act like you know anything about science. The FACT that there has been a stable gay population across time and all cultures PROVES that homosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is found in EVERY species of animals (that reproduce sexually).
The government isn't "forcing" any view on you. You are free to be the country's biggest dumbass. No one can force you to accept the facts, but no one is going to excuse you for being a liar.
You're dismissed. Be gone. Homosexuality is a dead-end, an activity practiced by the non-productive segment of any species. Bye now ... Don't let the door hit you on the as.... Oh, I don't care if it hits you, or not ...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184911
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa H&M....was that an admission from the Team Rainbow, that SSM redefines marriage? Hallelujah...praise The Lord.......just teasing, but thanks none the less.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm.....the problem with that is the reality of mixed orientation marriages, including those who truly choose to marry, or stay together by choice.
<quoted text>
That requires first redefining the legal definition of marriage.
<quoted text>
It may, or may not, or it may be a mixed ruling.
<quoted text>
That may happen, or they may allow the states to choose to regulate marriage as they see fit, even creating civil unions for SSCs, which a number of states have done. Would a CU suffice, if the Feds treated it as marriage with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, they extend to marriage? What is your opinion on that?
i merely conceded what a judge referred to - it's in the transcripts so i cannot deny the word he utilized in court.

why a couple decides to marry, or stay together, cannot be dictated by law. nor can it be dictated by anyone else.

i'm not sure if a CU would suffice or not. my concern is, humans being human, mistakes will be made in either the editing of existing laws to include appropriate CU verbiage or in writing additional laws. this will be expensive for the fed to accomplish and lengthy (in terms of writing and time). from my own personal experience, it's never an easy task, the old adage "all ya gotta do is" is never as simple as the sales guy thinks it is (i speak from an engineers perspective...LOL). i'd hate to see a couple strung up due to a verbiage error. i'd hate to see the extra expenses of rewriting laws or the costs involved when a mistake is made. i just think that allowing same sex couples to use the same terminology makes the most sense, is the expeditious means to grant everyone access to the same laws, protections and priviliges. others may feel or think differently. that's just my take on CU's.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184912
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Medically validated dangers of anal sex? Demeaning, unhealthy?
ahahahahah
ahhaahhaahha
ahahahahhahaha
Then don't do it, prude face. YOU don't get to make that decision for anyone else.
"Then don't do it, prude face. YOU don't get to make that decision for anyone else." Umm.... We are not telling you not to. We are drawing the line between your practicing it, and using the government to wedge it into our midst, under the misappropriated title of "valid marriage". Different.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184913
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
how could i be lying??
you just confirmed what my claim was, that gays have LOWERR divorce rates....so far.
I didnt differentiate between gay and lesbian couples...
other countries are a good place to start when looking to see how an issue might play out here in america.
universal health care is another good example....
try to calm down, were more or less on the same side of this issue??? right??
you want GAYS to be able to marry??
I want gays to be able to be married...
cheers!!
"Bitch slap" (with a backhand).. Universal healthcare, in other countries, has shown to deliver a lower standard of healthcare to the recipients.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184914
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, several times, you have suggested that we emigrate to Afghanistan. Funny. Why don't you guys move to another country, form your own country, where anything can fly, and the rest of us, who know better, can sit back and watch how long your "Libertine-istan" lasts....
"Libertine-Istanbul" ..... That was funny. Salud!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184915
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the door naked, they dont come back, in fact they will make an effort to stay far away from your house.
Hey, D, I've done that, with a beer in my hand, invited them in, too. It works well, doesn't it?
:-D
I've also used fluorescent make-up to paint a pentagram on my door. they won't even knock on it.
One time, I was raking my front yard and they came walking up, asked to talk to me, and I removed my shirt, showed them the tattoo of a pentagram on my back, and asked them if we could discuss my religious beliefs. They didn't wish to.
:-D
Awfully narrow-minded, they are...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184916
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I do know what you mean about tolerated, and I agree.
As I said, if she wants it, it is hers and she will win it in a walk. Her popularity now is higher than before, and the Secretary of State is a MUCH more important job than the VP
I don’t think Biden would have a chance against her.
I don’t see any republican, no matter how moderate with a ghost of a chance against her, and the far right.... it will be a joke and a total meltdown of the republican party if they run a Santorum or anyone like him.
The problem republican have ( that they have still not faced ) is that no candidate can be nominated without sounding like a right wing nut job, and no candidate that sounded like a right wing nut job during the primaries can win in the general election.
Not in this political climate
I don’t think they can adapt in time.
Y'all don't get it. Jeb Bush. Say the name, get used to it. Our next president. Google "Bush Crime Family", and read all about our true masters.

“Never give up”

Since: Dec 12

Avon, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184917
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I don't agree with the notion that everyone needs to 'get with the times' asap and be openly acceptive of gay marriage.

As a Christian, I oppose it on moral grounds but apart from that I also oppose it because of all the potential complications that could arise from gay marriage and the adoption of heterosexual children.

For example, if a heterosexual teenager develops a hateful attitude towards homosexuals including towards his gay parents, should the gay parents punish him/her for it? Do they ground the child until they give up their 'hate'? I think it could lead to many cases of angry, unruly children, and many may run away from home.

Or I'm sure that gay parents will want to give a kiss and a hug to their adopted heterosexual children from time to time and this may make some of the children uncomfortable even though it would be just a sign of love and affection.

Gay marriage will likely create new family dynamics that have never been dealth with before. I'm still not convinced that gay marriage will be a good thing for our society, so excuse me if I don't get with the times asap.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184918
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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
So the "D" in Big D stands for dodge, got it. Try answering the question.

Are gay people who oppose legal SSM, for,the very same reason, marriage is a union of husband and wife, orientated around their sexual union and what that union produces, as do straight people, bigots, homophobes, self haters, and/or traitors "to the cause"?

It same argument put forth by the Al Sharptons of this world, they just call black Americans who disagree with their political views, "Uncle Toms". So much for tolerance.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 161,441 - 161,460 of200,312
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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 ]
•••