Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,933

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

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190121 Apr 25, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I base my opinion on logic.
No, you base it on personal bias and opinion.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Heterosexual couples are legally allowed to marry.
So are homosexuals, they are simply required to follow the same restrictions as any other person wishing to marry.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190122 Apr 25, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is up to the Supreme Court and has been since 1803 :){/QUOTE]

Based on what?
[QUOTE who="Big D"]<quoted text>
The funny part is it is the opponents of Same Sex marriage the pushed the issue to the supreme courts, as all courts that have reviewed the case below them have already ruled that Prop 8 should fall.
The unequal treatment of same sex couples will end
Only 2 ways to do that
Nullify the 18,000 legally married same sex couples that now already exist and are recognized in California ( not going to happen, can you imagine the lawsuits if they did that )
Or uphold the overturn of Prop 8 as the lower courts have already done, making all same sex couples equal in the state of California
Your opponents are expecting the latter... and they should, it is the obvious solution to the issue.
If the SCOTUS wants to truly uphold the Constitution it will reverse the original and all subsequent rulings on the basis that the Federal Judiciary lacked the power under Article III of the US Constitution to hear the case in the first place.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#190123 Apr 25, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So are homosexuals, they are simply required to follow the same restrictions as any other person wishing to marry.
Exactly.
GateWay

Covina, CA

#190124 Apr 25, 2013
No need to worry about all the negative posters, here.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190125 Apr 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
<quoted text>
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
So you are saying,
-Ss couples are not duplicates of one gender?
-Ss couples are mutually capable of procreation?
Oh, and you have medical proof of my condition?
You are the sad one, and you are not void of hate.
Smile.
<quoted text>
After being made a fool of, you were finally man enough to admit you were wrong about my two facts.
I have no 'schtick' to drop.
Smile.
You've made a fool of only one person, and that'd be you. You're going to stick with your made up BS about being a monster mutation, chimera, lesbian in a man's body garbage though. That fits right in with your foolish persona. You also need to get over your notions about reproduction and marriage. That cuts right into the relevance of your two facts. And you're quite free to have your fantasy about my emotional state.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190126 Apr 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
<quoted text>
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
So you are saying,
-Ss couples are not duplicates of one gender?
-Ss couples are mutually capable of procreation?
Oh, and you have medical proof of my condition?
You are the sad one, and you are not void of hate.
Smile.
Hey, monster, you have both sets of genes.
If you got married one set would be a duplicate of one gender.
Should you be allowed to marry?
If so, why?
LOL!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190127 Apr 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, I'm embarrassed for you VV!
Remember the gay tree in the forest?
Smile.
Do you have bolts in your neck, monster?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190128 Apr 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We didn't. We're discussing that picture of your nasty stockinged ham hock and high heeled hoof.
Take down that obscene picture! Take it down right now!
The lady doth protest too much.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190129 Apr 25, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You're no lady.
I was talking about you.
Paraphrasing Shakespeare. Should have figured it would go over your head.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190130 Apr 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The lady doth protest too much.
I agree, so how about you shut up?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190131 Apr 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic dictates a couple is either opposite sex or same sex.
<quoted text>
Opposite sex couples have the "extra benefits and protections of legal marriage", because, at least in 32 plus U.S. state marriage is a legally defined union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
If you want the benefits of the system, enter into it the same way.
<quoted text>
Again it's opposite sex couples. An opposite sex gay couple can also enter into a "sham marriage".
<quoted text>
Equal does not mean the same. Men and women are different.
[<quoted text>
If you want the EXACT SAME benefits and protections that legally married OPPOSITE SEX couples have, logic dictates you should enter into marriage the same way, by accepting a person of the OPPOSITE SEX as your respective legally recognized wife, or husband .
No, it doesn't. You don't understand logic at all. Logic dictates that your rights shouldn't depend on what's in your underwear.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190132 Apr 25, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
So what, monster?
KiMare wrote:

2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Are you monster?
And you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry, so i dosen't matter.
KiMare wrote:

Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
<quoted text>
What remains, is your opinion and my facts.
Smirk.
<quoted text>
So you are saying,
-Ss couples are not duplicates of one gender?
-Ss couples are mutually capable of procreation?
Oh, and you have medical proof of my condition?
You are the sad one, and you are not void of hate.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Waiting...
If you got married, one gender would be duplicated.
You are a monster with both male and female genes.(You called yourself a monster.)
Should you be allowed to marry?
Waiting...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190133 Apr 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You don't understand logic at all. Logic dictates that your rights shouldn't depend on what's in your underwear.
Logic isn't based on your desired outcome. That's why you have so much trouble applying it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190134 Apr 25, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The lady doth protest too much.
There are no ladies here.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190139 Apr 26, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
You've made a fool of only one person, and that'd be you. You're going to stick with your made up BS about being a monster mutation, chimera, lesbian in a man's body garbage though. That fits right in with your foolish persona. You also need to get over your notions about reproduction and marriage. That cuts right into the relevance of your two facts. And you're quite free to have your fantasy about my emotional state.
You have your panties in a hinder binder twirl because I don't fit into your logic that anyone who disagrees with calling ss couples married is a repressed gay.

It was your last bastion of 'logic' against the essence of marriage, the visible vast distinctions between ss couples and marriage, and the desolate endemic barrenness of a ss couple.

The fools are obvious...

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190140 Apr 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You don't understand logic at all. Logic dictates that your rights shouldn't depend on what's in your underwear.
"...depend on what's in your underwear."? Why are talking about bladder control issues?

Logic dictates men are treated like men, and women like women. Urinals aren't put in the women's locker room, and gynocologists don't treat men.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#190142 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that society evolves, as does evolution.
The rest is BS.
Marriage defines a distinct and unique relationship, as does family. Why are you unable to establish and relish your own?
Smile.
Yes, it does, but..
One of my points was Marriage and its definitions are not entirely the same now as they once were so where is the fear in updating it once more?
Establish and relish my own? what do you mean by that?
I am not rejecting my family or anyone's traditional family, but I am of the opinion that two people of whatever sex/gender ought to be able to marry if they wish, out of love, not out of a procreation requirement. Gay marriage and even gay adoption will not stop heterosexual marriage or traditional families. Family units also shift in the evolution of society. There was a time when it was almost unheard of to have one-parent families or divorces. I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm saying it's how it is. Yes those children's lives would have been different but not automatically better. A lot of psychological stress is caused by unhappy traditional families who stay together when they don't really want to. With some gay couples it will be the same, and if they have children there will be stress. Life is stressful and people hurt each other emotionally. But they ought to be afforded the right to publicly declare their love and intentions in the form of marriage if they wish. Why should one couple be allowed and another not?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190143 Apr 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If the SCOTUS wants to truly uphold the Constitution it will reverse the original and all subsequent rulings on the basis that the Federal Judiciary lacked the power under Article III of the US Constitution to hear the case in the first place.
Wrong, there are many precedents for overturning laws based on ballot measures, you are in for some serious disappointments pretty soon.

We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190144 Apr 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about you.
Paraphrasing Shakespeare. Should have figured it would go over your head.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

William Shakespeare
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190145 Apr 26, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. You don't understand logic at all. Logic dictates that your rights shouldn't depend on what's in your underwear.
Speaking of logic, I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

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
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr happy hour 15,991
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr Eric 69,343
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 10 hr GOP bull 2,265
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sun just a post 5,064
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
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Sep 10 refer13 1,513
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••