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
166,141 - 166,160 of 200,577 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#190293 Apr 27, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact.: SSM is a rip-off.
That opinion, plus fifty cents, gets you Jack Schitt.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190294 Apr 27, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
so what if it is about the Benjamens??
why should a heterosexual married couple be able to leave their spouse an estate without having to pay taxes and a homosexual couple can't. That's one of the cases before SCOTUS. A gay woman had to pay nearly $400,000 in taxes on the property her married partner (to her) owned when her partner died. Since the IRS (Federal Gov't) didn't recognize their marriage thanks to DOMA.
Why should heterosexual married couple have hospital visitation rights and homosexual couples don't.
why should heterosexual couples benefit from tax breaks that are denied homosexual couples.
its all about equality and yes some of that is monetary equality
You know I don't understand what the big hang-up is. What two adults with regards to their personal lives do is completely between them.
Please explain exactly how legalizing same sex marriage will adversely affect your life?
Relax fruitloops.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190295 Apr 27, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you check your history. Same sex marriages have been around for thousands of years, including Europe in the Middle Ages.
I suggest you get lost creep.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190296 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Look in the mirror Frank
No, seriously, look at most of X-boxes posts, it is its modus operandi...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190297 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Is everything a joke to you? Don't you understand that Gay rights are a serious issue? Have you some how missed the point? I bet in the 60's you said you where for civil rights for Black Americans, and then cracked jokes when you where hanging with your White Power buddies. We have your number Frank, we get you, now piss off.
Why don't you keep your postings trelevant? Stop trying to suppress the opinions of valid Americans, who have more of a right to equal treatment than do you. You're a damn Fascist. YOU piss off.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190298 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
5 posts in a row, all ad- hominem attacks. The spot light is shinning on you Frank. Bask in the glory, revel in your self righteousness. Yes Frank you are the man.
Why, look. There's the Fascist, attempting to silence an American..
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190299 Apr 27, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Cool, do you know any more CB radio lingo? Still stuck in the 70's .
Breaker, breaker, you got Frankie the troll in a Chevy Vega, over.
What's that, "good buddy"? Cruisin' for some ass? Keep cruisin', ass-bandit....There's a pickle park ahead, just full of real men...Copy that?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190300 Apr 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all little boy, you cry and whine when others give you what you hand out.
makes you so upset.. it is sad, and funny, but sometimes I feel guilty over making fun of someone so pathetic, it is like making fun of mentally disabled people
There you go again, imagining your own omnipotence.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190301 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get your numbers? Have a look at this article, which indicates that ALL churches are losing members; including evangelicals. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-fi...
Your side absolutely THRIVES on pushing religion out of the way...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190302 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you have posted the facts?!? Hell, you've NEVER posted a fact that I can recall. Remember your "facts" about how gays are the result of "epi-genetic mistakes"? There's nothing factual about that.
I wouldn't believe you even if your tongue came notarized.
Of course you wouldn't, as his true facts invalidate you. You'd dispute God himself, if He appeared, in order to get what you want so badly, legal protection of your deviance, flying in the face of society.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190303 Apr 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What then is the point? Why do men need to "marry" men, and women "marry" women?
If procreation is a "dead argument" there is no need to prohibit marriage between consenting blood relatives.
Don't confuse them with stone-cold logic. They'll only call names and rant about how you "fear" them...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190304 Apr 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.
The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."
Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.
So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?
To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."
To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.
As usual, eloquent and perfect.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190305 Apr 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It took less than 3 years for Germany to go from a Free people to the Third Reich.
Sorry, I was just looking at history.
While the volk watched...
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190306 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unaware or simply in denial that many same-gender couples have families?
Does it not occur to you that same-gender couples need the protection of marriage for the same reasons that heterosexual couples need protections?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then, perhaps, they should have entered into a different arrangement.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190307 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's where I am with regards to the financial implications of legalizing same-gender marriage... Every equal rights movement has come with financial difficulties. There were costs with racial integration and affirmative action. There have been increased costs associated with providing accommodations for the handicapped.
The way I see it, private and public institutions got away without providing these services for decades--even centuries. It was a social expense that should have been incurred all along.
And until the equality is realized, there will be costs associated with these changes.
The system will balance itself one way or another. As you have suggested, maybe governments will decide that it's too expensive to provide benefits and protections to all married couples, so they will slash current benefits that are only available to heterosexual couples.
But until that happens, same-gender couples SHOULD HAVE access to the same benefits AND protections as opposite-gender couples.
Other countries are managing to do this. Why would the U.S. be unable to do this?
Please, refresh my memory as per the financial expense of granting equality to the Negroes? Of granting women equality?
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190308 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't read any of the documents you listed.
I am a gay man who wishes to have the right to marry another gay man who is of the age of consent and who is not related to me.
If opposite sex couples have that right, then I believe that I should have that right too.
I don't care how it comes about. I don't care if it comes about through a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. I don't care if it come about by way of an amendment to the Constitution. I don't really give a damn how it comes about. It's what I want and what millions of other tax paying, law abiding, citizens of this country want.
You can argue about the methods we use until you are blue in the face. I do not care. Your worries about the Constitution is of absolutely no concern to me.
As I have said, many people who are much smarter and more powerful than you or I are involved in this issue.
We will get what we want, one way or another.
As Gavin Newsom said, "Whether you like it or not..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Ms0hugRkgv8XX
That may be YOUR belief, sir, but it is not shared by the majority of us. And you may not care how you gain your coveted prize, but your pursuit of it carries implications that you ignore. As stated by AKPilot. Increased governmental control. You want what you want, when you want it. To HELL with the costs, both tangible and intangible. You, like the baby crying for some yum-yums, only knows wants, not costs. "Don't care, want cookie".
This line here: "Your worries about the Constitution is of absolutely no concern to me." is frightening. The Constitution is both your "weapon" and your footmat. You will gladly sacrifice freedom to gain a pat on the head, like a simple child. OUR freedom. It is what you will gladly hand over, for your personal gratification. Granting of legitimacy, for validation of sexual gratification. Labelling perversion "legitimate" is all you care about. And the rights that you do not rate. These may be minuscule, as pointed out by Sheesh, and AK, but they are part of the issue, at least to me. I have repeatedly watched you claim that it is about rights, but your pleasure carries too high a cost for me to pay, and I say "NO".
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190309 Apr 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You live in a world of abstraction.
I live in reality.
And when I see, for example, a man whose job is not protected by the Family Medical Leave Act, so that he can care for his seriously ill partner of 25 years, while a legally married person can do this, then I know that equality, rights, and protections are not being distributed fairly.
It is inhumane to allow a law to protect one set of people, while another set of people go unprotected--simply because of their orientation.
We live in a country where every medical and scientific association has taken homosexuality off its list of disorders--did so decades ago. Science has determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation--that it has nothing to do with a person's ability to function and contribute to society.
You want to argue procedure. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.
The rest of us will be working in reality--with real people who are dealing with real events.
Your orientation be damned. He should have thought out his choices better. He made a decision that carried costs, and he should act like it. Pay his own price, instead of asking for us to pay his bills. Parasites. And traitors.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190310 Apr 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are admitting you can't counter my argument.
Don't you ever get sick of being you?
I took a poll, and we all agree. You should just STFU.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

#190311 Apr 27, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, monster, you have both sets of genes, so if you got married, there would be a duplicate of one gender!:)
BTW, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Your parents should have been sterilized, while still at the zoo...
Why gays are NOT normal

Fremont, CA

#190312 Apr 27, 2013
Hi phellas- Im William Im just a dripppin cksker who luves some big honker driven up me rear end! Theres nothing like a poundin from a big hard throbin weenie. It makes me feel like the gay butt magnet I am.......and remember this: I am as NORMAL as any other person, just because I like a hard drivin anal pounding by a man , dont think Im not normal.\ ahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhh

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 1 hr JOEL 68,956
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 2 hr Macko mono 5,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 11 hr Tank ever 7,926
First City Festival 2014 Brings Ugly Rock Metal... 18 hr JoeMama 2
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles 20 hr Money 1
Mills brothers face new lawsuits over loans (Nov '08) Tue Plain Simple 16
MONTEREY HERALD LOSS monterey bay, monterey cit... Aug 26 roensoledad 2
•••
•••

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 ]
•••