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 8,300)

Showing posts 165,981 - 166,000 of200,213
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190112
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Logic and the law have little in common, the law in California recognizes both opposite and same sex marriage now, there are 18,000 same sex married legally recognized in California.
That point is moot, it is already a fact that same sex marriages exist and are recognized legally. No more a sham marriage than your marriage is ... maybe that is a bad analogy as your marriage is so fragile that you feel it is in danger... so no more a sham that my marriage, and you will not find a stronger one than mine.
Equal under the law, which wears a blindfold, blind to Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin is exactly what they seek, and in fact some already have.
The question of equality is why some same sex married couples are recognized, and others are denied.
"... maybe that is a bad analogy as your marriage is so fragile that you feel it is in danger... so no more a sham that my marriage, and you will not find a stronger one than mine."

Oh, spare us. You are truly a jackass.
Stimied

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190113
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Medical and recreational marijuana may be legal in Colorado, but employers in the state can lawfully fire workers who test positive for the drug, even if it was used off duty, according to a court ruling Thursday.

The Colorado Court of Appeals found there is no employment protection for medical marijuana users in the state since the drug remains barred by the federal government.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190114
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

4/17/2013
As a lawyer in the same-sex marriage litigation at the Supreme Court who has spent a couple years working through all the implications of declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, it became clear that such a declaration would also mean there is a right to polygamy.
When I previously explained these reasons, gay marriage supporters said the country would never go there. Well, now the far-left magazine Slate has come out with a full-throated endorsement of polygamous marriage.
For thousands of years, Western Civilization has always recognized three elements to marriage. It is the union of (1) two consenting adults,(2) of opposite sex,(3) who are not close blood relatives. Gay marriage advocates say the second element can be jettisoned. I’ve always asked why those same people say the first element cannot be touched.
Slate believes,“Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.”
They’re wrong on all counts. On the constitutional issue, for liberties not found in the text of the Constitution (where marriage is never mentioned once), the Supreme Court has held a fundamental right is one that is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” of the American people. Marriage of one man and one woman satisfy this test, which is why the Court held in the 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S. that there is no constitutional right to polygamy. It’s also why there is no right to gay marriage but why laws against marriage between different racial groups are clearly unconstitutional.
Slate elaborates on their reasoning:
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us.
If you believe that marriage is merely the union of consenting adults, and nothing more, then this argument might make sense. I’m still waiting for one of the lawyers working on the gay marriage cases to explain why this means their argument for a right to gay marriage doesn’t extend to polygamists.
This is especially important, since same-sex marriage has only existed on earth since 2001, but polygamy has been around more than 5,000 years of recorded history. Also, gay marriage is legal in just over a dozen countries, but polygamy is legal in over four dozen (roughly 50) nations and is expressly sanctioned by the second-largest religion on earth with 1.6 billion followers, Islam.
One point Slate misses is that there are two forms of polygamy that could never involve disadvantaging women: a multi-person gay men marriage, and a multi-person lesbian marriage. If three men decide to enter into a polygamous gay marriage, how could any woman be victimized by it? It becomes increasingly harder for those trying to redefine marriage to explain their arbitrary line-drawing choices.
Slate concludes:“All marriages deserve access to the support and resources needed to build happy, healthy lives, no matter how many partners are involved.” I give them credit for their honesty; they admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States.
Slate completely misses the point of marriage laws in America. We’ll write about that when the Supreme Court hands down its decision in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190115
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Of course they do, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, grandparents.
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
That reasoning could be applied to a number of consenting adult relationships.
Picture this... Two men who have been together for 50 years. One partner was in upper management before he retired--made decent money. The other was a teacher. They have some savings--a house that's paid for... They both receive social security.
Suppose the two men were brothers.....does it change the situation?
Now, if the former manager has a stroke and goes into a nursing home for long-term care, the couple, just like a heterosexual couple, would have to spend down their assets to something like $80,000 before Medicaid would step in to cover the cost of long-term care.
And the brothers?
Here's the difference... When Medicaid begins paying for the care in the homosexual couple's situation, Medicaid will stop all of the former manager's Social Security benefits. They take the Social Security to help reduce the amount that the government is paying for long-term care.
This leaves the former teacher with one source of income--his own social security. And since he didn't make as much money--didn't pay as much into the Social Security system, then he is at risk of having to sell the house and its contents in order to make up for the huge cut in pay. He may end up on welfare or relying on charity just to get by.
Would the brother?
With the legally married heterosexual couple, the dual social security income that the couple had relied on is not cut. The spouse who continues to live at home can continue to draw 100% of the spouse's income; the one who lives in a nursing home.
Legally married opposite sex couple. They could be of "mixed orientation".
The Federal Government made the decision a few decades back to do this so that the spouse living at home would not have to sell everything in order to survive.
And if one spouses in the married couple dies, the other spouse continues receiving income from the deceased for life.
This doesn't happen with same-gender couples.
Nor with siblings?
If one spouse has Medicare in a legally married couple, then both have access to it. It's not available to an unmarried same-gender couple.
It's not available to other adults in similar situations either.
These are two VERY REAL concerns for same-gender couples.
Heterosexual couples could marry at age 70 and get the protections that a same-gender couple, who have been married for 50 years, cannot get.
Same-gender couples cannot get FMLA. So if one of the partners becomes sick, the other cannot have job protection in order to care for him/her.
Same-gender couples need the protection of marriage just like heterosexual couples.
Why stop at couples? If marriage is simply a protection program, it's unfair to limit it to "couples". Plural marriages, adult siblings living together long term, etc., could also benefit from marriage protection.
StopANgo

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190116
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

The U.S. cities with the worst traffic jams last year were:

Los Angeles

Honolulu

San Francisco

Austin, Texas

New York

Bridgeport, Conn.

San Jose, Calif.

Seattle

Washington, D.C.

Boston

Glendora

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190117
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Stocking wrote:
Oh, KiMare
Society evolves else we'd be forever stuck in the dark ages. There was a time in early marriage legality when the wife was not considered a person, she was part of 'chattal', belongings. If marriage is only a 'cross-cultural constraint of mating behaviour' then no couple would be allowed to marry knowing that one or both of them are infertile. Taken to the extreme reductions which you imply then you yourself would not be allowed to have married, as genetically you're not singularly male; and from a psychological point how do you justify you yourself having kids when you can not give them an entirely male role model?
Marriage is gestaltian ie. it is more than the sum of its' parts. Yes it has traditionally served the function of procreation but reality (that thing you think you're so fond of) is it is more than that. Nowadays plenty of couples have children before they marry, it's quite common to have the kids at the wedding as flower bearers.
Stopping gay couples from marrying is not going to stop homosexuality and neither is it going to stop them having (biological surrogates or adoption) having children; any more than it stops single people having children if they want.
Think about it, you're obviously legally male or else you wouldn't have been able to marry your wife. What if with a slight differentiation you had been registered female. Assuming you married out of love, then you would be left wanting a SSM. Changing marriage to define two people instead of man and woman would avoid this problem, not only for gays/lesbians but for transgenders/intersexed too.
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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190118
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

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.
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
do you have any other points you need squashed so easily?
Waiting...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190119
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

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.
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't hate you. In fact I feel quite sorry for you. I can only come up with the names of three people that I know well enough to hate them based upon their actions and vile nature. Two were the parents of a high school girlfriend and the other was the stepfather of a college girlfriend. I'll leave the details for you to ponder. Fortunately for the rest of us all three have shuffled off this mortal coil. None too soon for they left their mark on at least two people, probably more like 6 or 7 in reality.
No, I don't have proof of your "medical condition." You've made outlandish claims and subsequently stated that your identity was a known quantity or some such rot. It isn't, you're just and anonymous buffoon with a computer. Like I said before, you've posted a great deal of opinion and you've confused it with fact. If you want to stick with your two facts, go right ahead. It'd be refreshing to see you drop the rest of your schtick.
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.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190121
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190122
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190123
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190124
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

No need to worry about all the negative posters, here.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190125
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190126
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190127
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190128
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190129
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190130
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190131
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190132
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 165,981 - 166,000 of200,213
|
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 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 ]
•••