Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,977

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
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184989 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.
Ooohhh......Those pesky labels.... Those darned, inconvenient identifiers.... Drat.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184990 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#184991 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i merely conceded what a judge referred to - it's in the transcripts so i cannot deny the word he utilized in court.
Thanks for the admission none the less.
why a couple decides to marry, or stay together, cannot be dictated by law. nor can it be dictated by anyone else.
Agreed.
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.
Thank you. appreciate the input. In a sense the laws are already being rewritten now, or in some cases, gender specific terms are being deleted, and there is a difference in the nature of the union. I don't know the extent of the Colorado CU, but I would presume it is extensive.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184992 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and a majority of those straight people support same sex marriage, I am one of them
No, you keep repeating that lie. It is not true. You just parrot the polls that you like, and ignore the ones that you dislike. I am out in the world more than most, and I know that few actually "support" it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184993 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
different polls from different organizations...

so far they are ranging anywhere from 53% to 60% in favor of same Sex marriage
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184994 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Libertine-Istanbul" ..... That was funny. Salud!
:-D TY.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184995 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
I forgot, rethuglicans dont do polls...

this was obvious when you guys thought you were about to win by a landslaide, last fall.

what rude awakening that must have been!!

the 538(nate silver) polls nailed it......

mabey you should pay attention to him next time, instead of piggy rove, or rush.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184996 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you keep repeating that lie. It is not true. You just parrot the polls that you like, and ignore the ones that you dislike. I am out in the world more than most, and I know that few actually "support" it.
No I am telling you something you are ignorant of, a majority of American are in favor of Same sex marriage and that means tremendous support form heterosexuals
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184997 Mar 27, 2013
BraveCon wrote:
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.
Now, that's a fresh view. I like that. Good point.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#184998 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Even bigotry from the left? Are you a caped crusader?
which bigotry is that??

im curious
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184999 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks RR.....but I don't know if they fit into Team Rainbow's concept of "tolerance". I guess some are more equal than others.
Yeah, I read that book, too. Snowball and Napoleon.
Bics

La Puente, CA

#185000 Mar 27, 2013
Sounds more like a pubic-hair problem to me.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185001 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as much full of shit as D is.
Im full of shit because i believe some of the commonly accepted things taught in school?

like evolution??

or that the earth revolves around the sun and is not flat??

you guys always remind me of flat earthers....because your always refuting the latest science on "religious grounds"

some of you are really deficiant in the history dept.....ricardo think the tories of the late 18 the century were liberals.

the first paragraph in any mainstream explaination of them calls them "conservative"

as opposed to liberal.

since then, the crown colony has been anything but a bastion of liberalism throught he years(NH, for instance, was one of the last two states to accept MLK's B day, as a federal holiday)

but they voted for Obama this time, so they must be waking up.

unlike you.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185002 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
If the rethugs were silly enough to give bush the nomination??
he will get steamed rolled BY WHO EVER.
but HIllary, on the other hand, will steamroll ANYONE who runs agianst her.
im hoping you guys make good on your threat to nominate a "TRUE"
conservative, like santorum, palin or bachmann...
so you can see what it was like to be barry goldwater..
you thought 2012 was close?
mitt lost by 3 million votes...
because his campaign effort, s&&cked.
and your party's values stink badly.
No, see, that is what I am telling you. It doesn't matter who they hold up as running, because the results have already been decided. Jeb has announced that he is going to run. his family runs this country. It is a done deal, already. Seriously, google "Bush Crime Family' and read about all that they have done so far. Financed the Third Reich. All kinds of shit. They own us. And, not my party.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185003 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
how is that??
im not gay, but im a crusader against ALL bigotry.
there is your answer.
the poll from ABC news was at 58% favorablity for gay marraige.
what polls do YOU have to show us ??
the arguements the right are offereing, are being picked apart this week by the scotus justices, just like they were picked apart in the lower courts...
youve been making them as well i see.
so let me see if i get this straight??
you are pro-federal law/ when it suits your cause?/
AND you are pro- states rights also, when it serves your cause?
I'm about smaller government, and leaving power where it belongs. And leaving some institutions alone.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185004 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Democraps will nominate....?
<quoted text>
Hillarity will steamroll anyone....oh sure
<quoted text>
Nah.....ya might say the wind blew in at just the right time to put Obama back in.
Id say the 47% video had a bit more of an effect on the outcome of the election. mitt was almost tied with Obama before that.....

then he plummeted 10 pts in 10 days...

if you guys didnt get that amercia rejected your ideas??

then double down on stoopid, and ill hand ya the next shovel...

hint: minorities vote on policy just like white people do.

so trying to restrict their voting, might not be seen as the nicest thing you could be doing to court their votes.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#185005 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
"All but settled"?!? Are you kidding me?!? Show me one scientist who has said this. Bring me one serious, scholarly article that implies this.
Scientists have discussed these issues ON PAPER! They've not even tried to show how this works on lab rats or any other test subjects at this point. No laboratory has started a project to prove it that we know of.
This is a THEORY. It is not FACT. It is not "all but settled".
Good GOD, you REALLY missed out on the scientific method when you were in school.
Here's a refresher's course:
Scientific Method Step 1: Ask a Question (Why are their gay people?)
Scientific Method Step 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research (Not all people are gay, there must be a reason for this)
Scientific Method Step 3: Propose a Hypothesis (based on information gathered from reading other research, perhaps epigenetics or some other biological inheritance related process that would explain why people are gay)**by the way, this is as far as scientists have gotten with regards to determining if epigenetics play a role**
Scientific Method Step 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis (it's at this point a scientist would design a LABORATORY EXPERIMENT to see if epigenetics do play a role in homosexuality)
Scientific Method Step 5: Test the Hypothesis (scientists would run their experiment and record the results)
Scientific Method Step 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis (based on the results of the experiment, the scientists would either accept their hypothesis that epigenetics play a role in homosexuality or they would not)
Sorry to have to publicly school you on basic, grade school science, but your blatant lack of scientific knowledge makes it necessary.
Weve found a story that looks really good, concluded Rice in the U.S. News article.Theres more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically. This can be tested and proven within six months. Its easy to test. If its a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order.

http://www.lifebeyondtherapy.com/index.php...
entry-132-researchers-say-they -have-found-genetic-switches-f or-homosexuality/

I wonder if another stage of denial is possible for you?

Smile.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185006 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
actaully,im pro 2nd amendment rights.
Im for your right to OWN YOUR PEICE..
that post was more about the fact that you had to sign a loyaty plegde JUST to hear what they were pitching.
when you are an activist??
you try to get your message out.
unless you are somehow ashamed of the message you are lecturing on...other wise, you are just going to be preaching to the choir.
background checks make sense, so does an assault rifle ban.
as well as limiting clip size (lets face it, you can have as much ammo as you can carry)
90% of the country supports background checks...
Cool. I think that background checks are good in essence, but useless in practice. Limited clip size and assault rifle bans are wrong, to me, as a criminal may have a bigger clip, and not all shots hit the mark. Also, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow us to guard against government aggression. I am an activist just about all the time. I currently drive semis and spend a lot of time on my radio, engaging in activism. And I get called a lot of names, some good, some bad. It goes with the territory.
And that loyalty pledge is a bunch of hooey, in my opinion. Anyone should be able to hear what is being said publicly. But there might have been some talk that would have bordered on subjects not in line with Big Brother. Who's to say? "No just government fears an armed population"
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#185007 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
unfortunatley i wont find a copy of such a fine interpretation in any place but the south.
you seem to long for old days, before the thirteeth amendment.
Just for the record, I was born in N.Y. to British parents. Not raised in the South. I long for the days when reason ruled, not debauchery or Bacchanalia...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#185008 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
tehn you might explain that to the attornies arguing the cases before the judges then. it was referenced even in SCOTUS yesterday.
I don't need to, the court has already explained it. Again if you people would actually do some actual research instead of simply taking everything you read on a liberal blog and repeating it you might actually learn something.
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced."..."In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added]).[FN2] Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the{**7 NY3d at 372} values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union,[FN3] it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.[FN4][*13]"- Hernandez v Robles

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) 5 hr Eric 69,397
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 10 hr scoop 2,273
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 23 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Thu Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 17 Blazing saddles 7,954
The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming (Sep '13) Sep 12 Earthling-1 123
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 11 gotti jr 9
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••