Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190169 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.
Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
ARe you serious??? Hollywood is the basis of your counter? That's priceless.

Do you understand your choice of example only validates the inability of gays to judge marriage and family? No marriage honoring or caring parent would equate with those examples.

Amazingly stupid...

Smirk.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190170 Apr 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
-It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
-How do you know this?
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190171 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.
Nice XBox....did u write that last line yourself, or did your Mommy help you with the big words?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190172 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, there are many precedents for overturning laws based on ballot measures, you are in for some serious disappointments pretty soon.
We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.
GO read Article III and get back to me.

Then go study and understand the difference between the Federal and State Judiciary.

And "precedent" doesn't make something Constitutional, it is simply repeating the error.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190173 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>

We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.
We are a Constitutional Republic. The founders wanted nothing to do with democracy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190174 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think they are desperately trying to preserve the holiness of Brittany Spears 3 day "just for fun" marriage
Yeah right Big D. That's what they are desperately trying to do. Sure.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190175 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.
Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
If marriage is so f$cked up, why would you want to be a part of it? Kind of like buying a new car for MSRP with a blown engine if you ask me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190176 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people...
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190177 Apr 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
GO read Article III and get back to me.
Then go study and understand the difference between the Federal and State Judiciary.
And "precedent" doesn't make something Constitutional, it is simply repeating the error.
Read Article III? Big D don't need to read no stinking Articles!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190178 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people.
How many times are you ignoring the equal protection of the husband AND wife within the marital relationship?
And where is it written that changing one aspect of a law means ALL aspects are required to be changed?
Think about the simple requirements that are in place now XBox. The participants have to consent, be of age, not closely related by blood other than first cousins in some states, not currently married, and of the opposite sex in most states. If the opposite sex requirement is dropped, there's no need to prohibit same sex siblings from marrying. No chance of pregnancy there.

If the nature, conjugality (as in husband and wife) of the marital relationship is no longer a requirement, why should the number be a requirement? Why prohibit certain pairings? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190179 Apr 26, 2013
marcus wrote:
<quoted text>
Simmer down there, queer-o. You two need to get a room and take it there.
Try and control yourself swizzlestick.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190180 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.
Where did he say he was afraid of the unknown Miss Thing?
destinythecreato rr

Los Angeles, CA

#190181 Apr 26, 2013
Awww but my friend is bi

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190182 Apr 26, 2013
For those whom are too lazy to look it up themselves.

"
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." US Constitution Article III
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190183 Apr 26, 2013
destinythecreatorr wrote:
Awww but my friend is bi
That's nice fruitcake. Go play with him on the 5.
Mike the Pike

Glenn, CA

#190184 Apr 26, 2013
Next thing you know, marriage will be between a man and his dog!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190185 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
ARe you serious??? Hollywood is the basis of your counter? That's priceless.
Do you understand your choice of example only validates the inability of gays to judge marriage and family? No marriage honoring or caring parent would equate with those examples.
Amazingly stupid...
Smirk.
OK... Let's look at "real America". In 2008, just over 40% of live births in this country were to single parent households. That's up from 18.4% in 1980.

I thought that evolutionary mating behavior (from a cross cultural perspective) depended on marriage.

Apparently not...

Don't throw gays under the bus just because you straight people can't seem to stay married.

Hundreds of thousands of us would love to be given the opportunity to marry someone for life.

You can't predict whether or not a gay couple will divorce any more than I can predict whether or not a straight couple will.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190186 Apr 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is so f$cked up, why would you want to be a part of it? Kind of like buying a new car for MSRP with a blown engine if you ask me.
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.

Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare. I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.

If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.

Wouldn't you agree?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190187 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.
Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare. I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.
If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.
Wouldn't you agree?
The reason the government is in the marriage business at all is that marriage is good for society. It is a stabilizing influence and a family is the building block of society. Children play very heavily into this but it is true that they are not the only reason the government encourages marriage. Families without children and or having no intent or ability to have children are still beneficial to society.

I believe same sex, opposite sex, poly marriage and yes, incest marriage all deserve EQUAL consideration and respect, for they all contribute to a stable prosperous society.

And I believe SSM supporters who don't support polygamy and incest marriage are hypocrites.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190188 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because not all marriages are so fucked up (you can write the word out). Some do last.
You seem to be centering your argument on the basis that they don't, and that is why same-sex marriage is a non-issue. Are you no longer interested in that line of reasoning?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you probably didn't read my post clearly, you likely missed the point I was making to Kimare.
You hardly ever have a point, you simply post talking points over and over again. Most times they don't even relate to the post you are replying to.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I was simply trying to point out that not all marriages are a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Marriage is a social construct created by homo-sapiens.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people enter into marriage for reasons other than to raise families.
If marriage was solely about the creation of families, then laws would be in place that mandated fertility testing prior to marriage. There would also be laws in place that would automatically dissolve a marriage if it did not produce an offspring.
Wouldn't you agree?
It doesn't matter if I agree or not. The historical basis for marriage, as the government regulates it in this country, was to protect and ensure stability for the children that could potentially be created from such a union. This is the entire reason the court has accepted that there is a State interest in marriage. If this is no longer the case, than what interest does the State have?

The State interest has always been in regards to "potential." You would know this if you would actually educate yourself rather than running around thinking any of your opinions have any basis if fact.

What is completely illogical, is a group of people not only inviting, but demanding the government regulate them.

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.

Nevada City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Little Shop of Horrors', a cult classic, bloss... Sep '14 Zombella 1
East Palo Alto's Highway 101 Ped/Bike Bridge Al... Aug '14 fishes 1
Restored - steam donkey' from Birchville Mine n... Aug '14 The right is wrong 2
Spa cover recommendation Aug '14 mmeisner 1
Patient blacklisting happens (Jul '06) Aug '14 GoodOleBoyNetwork 30
RN Salary in Nevada County Jul '14 Curious 1
Steer that was set on fire gets new, safe home Jul '14 Kimber shaw 1
Nevada City Dating
Find my Match

Nevada City Jobs

Nevada City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Nevada City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Nevada City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]