Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201847 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193711 May 29, 2013
Bruno wrote:
If SSM is so important, then why don't gays go to the states that have fallen under presure and get married. Just get is done and quit crying about it.
We did. Many of us do. However, just like anyone else, we want to live in particular states for particular reasons - either we grew up there, we have family there, or we prefer the climate there or were offered a job there.

I grew up in NJ. I moved to FL when I was 26 because I didn't like winter and had some cousins who lived here.

Eventually I met my husband here. We got married in NJ because I have some family members who don't fly (never been on an airplane in their lives.) NJ considered it a "civil union" at the time, even though we got married. But the only other state at that time that recognized gay marriage was Massachusetts.

Why would we want to move to Massachusetts? We had no friends, family, or job there - and it's cold. So while we may gain legal recognition of our marriage (only at the state level) we would lose a whole lot.

The following summer, when gay marriages were being legally recognized in California (and they didn't have a residency requirement as Massachusetts did at the time) we flew out there and got married. Don't think it didn't cross my mind to move there. As much as I am "east coast" and noticed the difference between the coasts when I spent considerable time in California in prior years - at least it was warm. But my husband did not want to leave Florida because his Dad is still here, and he did not want to leave his Dad.

Ultimately, down the road, when his Dad is no longer with us, might we move to California? It's a consideration, but now we own a home here and have put a lot of work into it. I also own a business here that may not be so easy to relocate. And who wants to go to all that trouble? We're very happy here, and have no desire to leave, all things being equal.

But they're not equal. And he has had type I diabetes since he was 10 years old. We know there will be complications. So if it becomes burdensome to live in a state that doesn't recognize our marriage, we may have to move at some point, even though we don't particularly care to.

A better idea is to work to change the laws in our state and at the Federal level. And we are just itching to sue the state of Florida to recognize our California marriage - especially depending on how the SCOTUS rules at the end of June.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193712 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I love to remind them of our nationís founding, by extreme, even radical liberals of their day
Yes, those radical liberals who considered homosexuality a capital crime punishable by death. That certainly is extreme.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193713 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it? Mr. Olsen stated that polygamy "raises questions....". He also ignored the fact that polygamy is also prohibited based on status, religion. Gay and lesbians aren't prohibited from getting married, they are prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. As to the question:
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
What is the answer? If they all consenting adults, and marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?
You have been schooled on this before, you just choose to ignore it.

Polygamists can fight for legal recognition RIGHT NOW. They don't need to wait for gay marriage to be legally recognized first, nor would that help their case.

In fact, most (Mormon) polygamists would not even want to be compared with gay couples as they are very anti-gay.

Polygamists have much more in common with traditional marriage than with gay marriage, so that door is open for them right now, as they can ask the question: "If a man can marry a woman, why can't a man marry a woman and another woman?" That is MUCH more similar and logical than saying, "If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry two women?"

Only stupid people don't see that.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193714 May 29, 2013
Adam Mosh wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. People are just more dumb than I imagined.
I mean, really, you think whether the government recognizes gay marriage or not effects your life more directly than say, the fact that the government takes in a tax revenue of 16 dollars for every $100 it owes and borrows 40 dollars for every 100 it spends.
YES, absolutely. Stupid.(And the sky is blue - surprise!)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193715 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>A better idea is to work to change the laws in our state and at the Federal level. And we are just itching to sue the state of Florida to recognize our California marriage - especially depending on how the SCOTUS rules at the end of June.
Tony I donít think the SCOUTS ruling will be that major

They will likely kick it back because the defenders donít have standing ( my opinion )

Which means they will lift the stay and same sex marriages will again be legal in California

the DOMA ruling is actually more important to my mind, federal recognition.

It is a long road, the right thing will happen, but it will take some time.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193716 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it? Mr. Olsen stated that polygamy "raises questions....". He also ignored the fact that polygamy is also prohibited based on status, religion. Gay and lesbians aren't prohibited from getting married, they are prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. As to the question:
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
What is the answer? If they all consenting adults, and marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?
Religious belief is a conduct. You don't pop from the womb a Catholic or a Jew. You are "raised" to be a Catholic or a Jew. You "learn" to become these things.

All of our best information on homosexuality shows that being gay IS NOT something that is learned. You either are or you are not gay. You come from the womb a gay person or a straight person.

That makes homosexuality a "status"--like race and gender.

And regarding your last question as to "what state restrictions could ever exist?"; that is the whole point of the court battles, legislative processes, etc. No one is saying that the state can't restrict marriage in whatever way it sees fit. However, the LGBT community is attempting to overturn one of the state's restrictions--namely the law that doesn't allow same-gender partners to marry.

You guys continue to try to convince others that if gay marriage is allowed, then the floodgates will open up. And we respond by saying that the state will consider each individual issue brought before it, just like it is considering our issue.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193717 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we undermine childrens' potential by teaching them bigotry.
While it may (or may not) be the "ideal" for a child to be raised in an intact (mom/dad) family, we do not prohibit other families from existing, and many, MANY children from single parent households and gay parent households will outperform and be better adjusted than many children from more traditional households, and especially more than the effed up step-family situations.
You not only are trying to equate the exception to the rule, you are denying the preference of the child. But fundamentally, evolution has established the best setting for offspring through millions of years of refinement.

Additionally you accurately slam step families but ignore the fact that many SS households are in fact step.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193718 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been schooled on this before, you just choose to ignore it.
Ignore what exactly?
Polygamists can fight for legal recognition RIGHT NOW. They don't need to wait for gay marriage to be legally recognized first, nor would that help their case.
Actually it already has.

[QUOTE[
In fact, most (Mormon) polygamists would not even want to be compared with gay couples as they are very anti-gay.
[/QUOTE]

Not all polygamists are Mormons. Nor is it a comparison to gay couples.

[QUOTE[
Polygamists have much more in common with traditional marriage than with gay marriage, so that door is open for them right now, as they can ask the question: "If a man can marry a woman, why can't a man marry a woman and another woman?" That is MUCH more similar and logical than saying, "If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry two women?"
Only stupid people don't see that.[/QUOTE]

Only stupid people fail to realize that gay marriage advocates, like polygamists, faced the same obstacle to legal recognition, the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife nationwide. Now that it is no more, the door is open. SSM has led the way.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193719 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You should take your own advice for it is good advice- Deal with it.
You should try saying something that makes sense. That didn't.

Another stupid bigot.(Cliche. Yawn.)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193720 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been schooled on this before, you just choose to ignore it.
Polygamists can fight for legal recognition RIGHT NOW. They don't need to wait for gay marriage to be legally recognized first, nor would that help their case.
In fact, most (Mormon) polygamists would not even want to be compared with gay couples as they are very anti-gay.
Polygamists have much more in common with traditional marriage than with gay marriage, so that door is open for them right now, as they can ask the question: "If a man can marry a woman, why can't a man marry a woman and another woman?" That is MUCH more similar and logical than saying, "If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry two women?"
Only stupid people don't see that.
If a man can marry a man why can't he marry two men?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193721 May 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Tony I donít think the SCOUTS ruling will be that major
They will likely kick it back because the defenders donít have standing ( my opinion )
Which means they will lift the stay and same sex marriages will again be legal in California
the DOMA ruling is actually more important to my mind, federal recognition.
It is a long road, the right thing will happen, but it will take some time.
I don't tend to think it will be that major, either, but we're almost guaranteed at least an incremental win.

I find it hard to believe Prop 8 will still be the law of the land in California. That's a win.

And if section 3 of DOMA is struck down, that's a great time to then go after section 2, IMO.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193722 May 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You not only are trying to equate the exception to the rule, you are denying the preference of the child. But fundamentally, evolution has established the best setting for offspring through millions of years of refinement.
Additionally you accurately slam step families but ignore the fact that many SS households are in fact step.
The child has never gotten a vote in the composition of their families.

Also, the child will readily adapt to nearly any situation.

There is no perfect family. There is no reasonable expectation of being raised in one. There is no right to one.

I will go as far as saying nearly every family has drawbacks and is responsible for some detriment in their children (including yours, obviously.)

Same sex parents is not a drawback. It's an improvement over a huge number of straight parents. That's hardly an exception.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193723 May 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignore what exactly?
<quoted text>
Actually it already has.
<quoted text>
Not all polygamists are Mormons. Nor is it a comparison to gay couples.
<quoted text>
Only stupid people fail to realize that gay marriage advocates, like polygamists, faced the same obstacle to legal recognition, the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife nationwide. Now that it is no more, the door is open. SSM has led the way.
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.

"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?

Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?

You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193724 May 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If a man can marry a man why can't he marry two men?
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?

Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193725 May 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You not only are trying to equate the exception to the rule, you are denying the preference of the child. But fundamentally, evolution has established the best setting for offspring through millions of years of refinement.
Additionally you accurately slam step families but ignore the fact that many SS households are in fact step.
If you believe that all children do better in intact families--meaning that their biological parents must raise them--then that's what you need to push for.

This would mean:

1.) No divorce for whatever reason. Divorce would be universally banned.

2.) No legal or any type of parental separation. All people must remain in the household with the person who is the father/mother of their children.

3.) No remarrying of any kind after a parent dies. All children must remain with their surviving birth parent. If that birth parent needs help rearing the children, then that help must come from within the extended family.

4.) No unwed parents. All people who have children out of wedlock MUST become married by order of the state.

5.) Adulterers who have children by different mothers/fathers must be required to maintain a double (or triple) spouse home (polygamy) so that the children will be able to be raised by both their mother and their father--even if it means sharing a father with another household.

6.) Foster care programs should cease to operate. If a child's parents dies or becomes physically/mentally unable to raise the children, then the closest living married relatives (grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings) should be required by law to raise the children.

7.) Adoption programs would also cease to exist based on #6.

8.) Couples who have sterility problems should not be allowed to adopt children--even those from outside the U.S.

9.) Abusive parents, neglectful parents, alcoholic/drug dependent parents should never lose custody of their children. Regardless of how horrific the home life of the children being raised, the kids should never be removed.

10.) Parents who break laws requiring jail time should have their sentences postponed until their children reach the age of maturity and can live on their own.

I'm sure there are other, equally ridiculous ways we can come up with to ALWAYS insure that children will have intact families.

This seems to be so very important to you. You don't care what kind of parenting skills a couple of people has, just as long as children ALWAYS stay with their parents.

It's more important to you that kids have an intact home, even when a same-gender couple has the capability of raising a needy child in a functional, supportive, loving environment.

No family is perfect, regardless of the gender combination of the parents. But scientist and common sense indicates that the parenting skills of the couple or individual who raises the kid has the largest impact on the outcome of children.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193726 May 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
...You guys continue to try to convince others that if gay marriage is allowed, then the floodgates will open up...
There will be no floods. Those wishing to enter a poly marriage will remain so rare that you will probably never have to be offended by the sight of a happy poly family.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193727 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I didn't make the rules. Did you think you made a point?
Because if you were using that to claim that same sex marriage makes polygamy more likely via "why can't a man marry two men" - I suggest you ask all the polygamist gay couples about that. LOL. Fricking idiot.
I support marriage equality, and you do not. LOL. Fricking hypocrite.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193728 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't tend to think it will be that major, either, but we're almost guaranteed at least an incremental win.
I find it hard to believe Prop 8 will still be the law of the land in California. That's a win.
And if section 3 of DOMA is struck down, that's a great time to then go after section 2, IMO.
Yep, a lot of major multi-billion dollar businesses want section 2 to go down, they want to move their people around and the different laws in different states makes that impossible.

it will happen, but it will take time
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193729 May 29, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're stupid. Stupid people see it that way. "Anything different = a free for all." That's stupid.
"Actually it already has." Says who? Proof?
Again, that door is already open right now. If you can marry one woman, why can't you marry two?
You lack perspective and critical thinking skills. You've got one more shot and you're back to being ignored.
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.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#193730 May 29, 2013
The issue here is this: how does a self-consciously modern, liberal society continue to criminalize a form of marriage that has existed throughout the world for millennia, when it has at the same time legalized a completely new form of marriage between same-sex couples?

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
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Sun CLEANnSOBERMF 37
Two BASE Jumpers Got Kilt Feb 5 Redneck 2
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Feb 1 rabbee yehoshooah... 72,023
drugs (Jun '15) Jan '16 mtry831 3
News Snapchat Selfie Helps ID Suspect Jan '16 DILF 2
News Some Mexicans leaving US, planning never to return (Dec '08) Dec '15 Fitus T Bluster 15,730
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Dec '15 jayy 1,541
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages