Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,179

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
Pukers

Covina, CA

#190632 Apr 30, 2013
Let the puking begin, this topic is dead.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190633 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.
1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.
2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.
Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.
This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?
<quoted text>
You are avoiding the point with a lie.
Surprise.
Snicker.
You know, I just adore when you respond in this way. It only makes you seem more bizarre with each passing day.

At what point do I "lie".

You asked a question and I answered it.

Do you know of any pair of legal contracts that are exactly the same in every way, but are called by completely different names?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190634 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax poly boi
No Fairyhopper.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190635 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Can you follow my line of questioning? Let me spell it out for you, if itís a Lesbian (in part or whole) how can its incessant babble about how Gay Americans have some sort of defect not admit itís junk science points out itís own defect? Do you get it? I canít believe you had to ask.
Why are you a hater?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190636 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you a hater?
Ah shuddup, hater.
Windover

Covina, CA

#190637 Apr 30, 2013
I was informed this topic was as good as gone, what happened did some Mormon BLOW some life back in to it?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190638 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it would be up to the lawmakers in those states to try to pass an Amendment to the Constitution--not the voters. So, I'm not so concerned about what individual voters might or might not do.
You really don't understand how our system of government works, do you?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
And you seem to forget that Proposition 8 will be five years old come November.
So? The Constitution is 225 years old.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
And the backlash to that backlash has been the overwhelming support of CA voters who would not likely vote for such a ballot today.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I seem to remember this same argument with Prop 8.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Times have changed considerably.
Not really.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Republican lawmakers at all levels have changed their personal views re: same-sex marriage.
You paint with such a broad brush. Life must be grand in fantasy land.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
And many of these lawmakers DO NOT want to be forced to stand against same-sex marriage. They would welcome the Supreme Court's ability to make a sweeping decision.
Has less to do with being forced, and more to do with a political play. But who cares if our elected officials uphold their oath's to support the Constitution?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand by my predictions.
That's nice.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190639 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I see you guys throwing straight supporters of same-sex marriage under the bus all the time. It's hardly gruesome.
And nobody knows exactly how many gay people there are in this country.
Not everyone who participates in homosexual activity thinks of his/herself as gay. Many closeted gays would admit to being gay, even though they have attractions to members of the same gender.
So you're probably not going to get an accurate count anytime soon.
Nevertheless, you can rest assured that most in the LGBT community AND our heterosexual allies do, in fact, support same-sex marriage.
You sure do like to spend a lot of time talking about nothing important at all, don't you?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190640 Apr 30, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,it seems sometimes you really don't think things through! Sorry OH great one but there have now been 3 states that have passed Marriage equality by popular vote! Now,are you lying or was it an honest mistake on the part of your ignorance? Geez,and we all thought you knew it all! Care to try again?
3 states by popular vote,Maine,Maryland and Washington state!
www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-cam...
Yup, my error. I stand corrected. 3 States.

Unlike most on your side, I can admit a mistake and actually learn something. I don't have an agenda like so many others.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190641 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Can you follow my line of questioning? Let me spell it out for you, if itís a Lesbian (in part or whole) how can its incessant babble about how Gay Americans have some sort of defect not admit itís junk science points out itís own defect? Do you get it? I canít believe you had to ask.
We can see the heavy Rose_NoHo influence in your posts. Hateful. Stupid. Arrogant. Hypocritical.

Nice! She'll be proud.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190642 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We can see the heavy Rose_NoHo influence in your posts. Hateful. Stupid. Arrogant. Hypocritical.
Nice! She'll be proud.
Relax, Hater.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190643 Apr 30, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
There is the question of how likely that will happen as well as the question about some of those states doing away with their bans on SSM thus increasing the required number of states left needing to pass one for an amendment to the US Constitution.

I'm inclined to believe there won't be any such amendment added to the Constitution in the current climate. It is arguable that right now there are 7 states with the potential climate for such an event, then again there are 2 states that may reverse their position.
It is HIGHLY unlikely. The point being made is to point out this fantasy that SSM is "sweeping the nation" and popular opinion is swiftly changing. If that were true, the SSM crowd wouldn't be putting so much faith in a sweeping decision from the SCOTUS. Fact is, without such a decision you are stuck at possibly 19 States unless citizens of the 31 States with bans vote to amend their Constitutions again. Personally I think the fight to convince a politician to legislate favorably towards SSM is much easier than doing the same with the citizenry to reverse themselves.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190645 Apr 30, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It is HIGHLY unlikely. The point being made is to point out this fantasy that SSM is "sweeping the nation" and popular opinion is swiftly changing. If that were true, the SSM crowd wouldn't be putting so much faith in a sweeping decision from the SCOTUS. Fact is, without such a decision you are stuck at possibly 19 States unless citizens of the 31 States with bans vote to amend their Constitutions again. Personally I think the fight to convince a politician to legislate favorably towards SSM is much easier than doing the same with the citizenry to reverse themselves.
You make that statement as though anyone in American as the right to vote on others rights. Besides, you assume all the ignorant haters who voted against other Americanís rights will be alive or able to do the same in the future. If you werenít such an arrogant, self-important windbag you might pause long enough to realize that. The USA is changing whether you like it or not. And there will be Gay Marriage Rights in all 50 states whether you ďvoteĒ for it or it gets jammed down your throat. Pontificate on that douche bag.
a takeover

Dinuba, CA

#190646 Apr 30, 2013
Ummmm hmmmm

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190647 Apr 30, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It is HIGHLY unlikely. The point being made is to point out this fantasy that SSM is "sweeping the nation" and popular opinion is swiftly changing. If that were true, the SSM crowd wouldn't be putting so much faith in a sweeping decision from the SCOTUS. Fact is, without such a decision you are stuck at possibly 19 States unless citizens of the 31 States with bans vote to amend their Constitutions again. Personally I think the fight to convince a politician to legislate favorably towards SSM is much easier than doing the same with the citizenry to reverse themselves.
Back in the days before widespread media access, the nation went from passing an amendment to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol to allowing the sale and use of alcohol in a period of 13 years.

That's a pretty quick change of heart for an entire nation, don't you think?

The pace of the momentum to support same-sex marriage has quickened over the past decade. People's minds have changed considerably, as indicated by every reliable statistic and poll on the subject.

What people felt about gays and gay rights ten years ago have changed. You can't deny that.

The LGBT Community and its allies have made great headway into demystifying who we are. So many of us have come out of the closet that most people now either have a family member or know someone closely who is gay.

One of the few positive outcomes of the HIV/AIDS crisis over the past 30 years has been to bring LGBT issues to the forefront. Since the disease largely began in the gay male community, we had to fight for political recognition in order to get adequate medical care and benefits that would help those who were suffering from the disease.

Rights and protections for LGBT people are now on the minds of most Americans. They either oppose them or support them. But unlike times in the past, they are at the very least thinking about LGBT issues.

That's progress...

Look... We all know where this is going to end. Same-Sex marriages will be legal throughout the U.S. within the decade, if not sooner. About 12 of the 25 First World Nations have passed laws that legalize Same-Sex Marriage.

Can you see a trend?

It's only a matter of time.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190648 Apr 30, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
It is HIGHLY unlikely. The point being made is to point out this fantasy that SSM is "sweeping the nation" and popular opinion is swiftly changing. If that were true, the SSM crowd wouldn't be putting so much faith in a sweeping decision from the SCOTUS. Fact is, without such a decision you are stuck at possibly 19 States unless citizens of the 31 States with bans vote to amend their Constitutions again. Personally I think the fight to convince a politician to legislate favorably towards SSM is much easier than doing the same with the citizenry to reverse themselves.
Oh, and another thing... We aren't necessarily putting our faith in the Supreme Court's decision.

If the Supreme Court comes back and upholds DOMA and Prop. 8, don't think for one second that the LGBT community will run for the hills, tails between our legs.

We're hopeful that the Supreme Court makes it easy on us so that we don't have to pursue the issue for the next 10 or so years. But we're willing to stay the course and go the distance.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190649 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You make that statement as though anyone in American as the right to vote on others rights.
You must first make marriage a "right". So long as the Government has the power to regulate, define, and sanction the act of marriage it is nothing more than a PRIVILEGE!!

And since in this country the "Government" is WE THE PEOPLE, we certainly have to RIGHT to VOTE on how our government will regulate, define, and sanction a PRIVILEGE!

Now if you are truly interested in once again making marriage a "RIGHT" I am behind you 100%, but since you aren't you are on your own.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190650 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and another thing... We aren't necessarily putting our faith in the Supreme Court's decision.
If the Supreme Court comes back and upholds DOMA and Prop. 8, don't think for one second that the LGBT community will run for the hills, tails between our legs.
We're hopeful that the Supreme Court makes it easy on us so that we don't have to pursue the issue for the next 10 or so years. But we're willing to stay the course and go the distance.
Isn't it funny how you base the quality of a Supreme Court decision on if you get your way or not and not on the constitutionality of the decision?

BTW, your opinion on the direction of this country is irrelevant to this discussion. The Constitution isn't changed by social changes, it is changed through the Amendment process.

Oh, and another thing. If the SCOTUS upholds DOMA based on the opinion of the lower court which is- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LACKS THE ENUMERATED POWER TO DEFINE MARRIAGE, IT IS A STATE ISSUE PER THE 10th AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION-- how then can they possibly mandate, as a federal entity, to the State how it defines marriage? The two decision are completely contradictory.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190651 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax, Hater.
If I get any more relaxed, I'll turn into rubber tough guy.

Why are you a hypocrite?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190652 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You make that statement as though anyone in American as the right to vote on others rights. Besides, you assume all the ignorant haters who voted against other Americanís rights will be alive or able to do the same in the future. If you werenít such an arrogant, self-important windbag you might pause long enough to realize that. The USA is changing whether you like it or not. And there will be Gay Marriage Rights in all 50 states whether you ďvoteĒ for it or it gets jammed down your throat. Pontificate on that douche bag.
Too funny!

Try and relax, Fruitcake.

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) 31 min J RULES 71,116
Carmel River diverted to allow dam removal, pre... Dec 16 Clint 1
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal stu... Dec 13 John Smith 1
Kristen Scannell Saratoga Springs NY Adds New H... Dec 12 Alex Montgomery 1
Who do you think is the MOST corrupt Monterey C... Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Dec 9 montereyusedtobenice 5
Help! In need of opiates preferably boi Dec 5 Njp9080 1
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:58 am PST