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 8,452)

Showing posts 169,021 - 169,040 of199,087
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193703
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I will vote in favor of it when it comes up, think of it as a jobs program, can you imagine a divorce of one person out of the marriage?
Full employment for our Lawyers!
Seriously though, I donít see a reason not to vote in favor of it.
Of course you should (but won't) thank Frankie for your new tolerance and acceptance. It wasn't long ago you referred to polygamists as "welfare cheats and child rapists using polygamy to commit their crimes." You've come a long way baby!
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193704
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I love to remind them of our nationís founding, by extreme, even radical liberals of their day
Tell us, Caligula, what they might think of your bread and circus "pride" parade or Folsom Street or bug chasers.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193705
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
It doesn't seem like there's any point in reasoning with you. That ability to seems to be broken.
I've seen 2 nations go bankrupt in my lifetime through direct experience. The USSR and Argentina. I guess we'll just have to suffer through it too.
Yes. Gay marriage kinda loses its importance when you're starving or dead.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193706
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we undermine childrens' potential by teaching them bigotry..
That is why we no longer allow any religion in the classroom.
Children are resilient, and even children of ignorant parents ( all prejudice is ignorance by definition ) will come to a time where they realize their parents are wrong.
But we will not teach bigotry from a position of governmental authority like a teacher.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193707
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you already are stupid, and you clearly don't understand the proper use of the word 'oxymoron.'
Kids don't have two biological dads. But some kids are raised by two dads, and many kids have a dad and a stepdad (and call them both "dad" or again, two different names meaning dad.)
This isn't hard for the kids to understand, yet you seem to have a big hangup about it.
Whether you choose to acknowledge the reality in front of your face or to continue to delude yourself, the fact is gay couples do and will always raise children, and they have just as good a shot at raising great ones.
So, once again, my husband and I are each husbands. Deal with it.
You should take your own advice for it is good advice- Deal with it.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193708
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have a fairly accurate view of society. What you are missing is the importance of each point. Children are the future of our culture. We are severely undermining their potential by these acts. There is no better place most often to raise children than in an intact family.
When gay marriage is legal in the U.S., there will still be intact families to raise children.

And, since 1993, gay people have been able to adopt children in the U.S. That was before gay marriage was legal anywhere in the country. So regardless of what happens to gay marriage, gay people will continue to be able to adopt children in this country.

Put a period at the end of this chapter and move on...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193709
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Marriage. There is no one right way.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193710
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Duplicate husbands? An oxymoron.
Kids don't have two dads. Never. One may be the dad, but the other is always a default.
You aren't asking me to raise my standards, you are asking me to be stupid.
Gurrrlll... Nobody has ever HAD to ASK you to be STUPID! You've been stuck on it for years!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193711
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193712
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193713
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193714
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193715
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193716
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193717
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193718
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193719
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193720
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193721
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193722
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 169,021 - 169,040 of199,087
|
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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••