Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,969

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187784 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The line is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.
For example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.
That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.
That is ultimately up to the will of the people, and the rule of law. Prop 8 was passed by a small margin, but was challenged on constitutional grounds, overturned but a stay put on the results.
The situation is now reversed, put on a ballot again today Prop 8 would be overturned easily, and it is actually the courts that are the blocking point.
Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.
Not based on history, not based on tradition, not based on pseudo-science and the often misguided references here to evolution, or any ancient books, but by the rule of law, and ultimately the will of the people.
That is why even your most famous right win pundit has thrown in the towel on the issue.
All your concerns about Poly and Incest and so forth are at the same whim, the will of the people and the rule of law.
I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.
Poly… probably at some point
Incest… doubtful in the foreseeable future
But it isn’t up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.
Liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel".

Priceless!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187785 Apr 9, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't be. It is impossible.
It is visibly obvious they are only ever a senselessly duplicated half of marriage. A desecration of sacred design. A barren imposter relationship that is always a devastating deprivation of family imposed on a child for the sake of an illusion. A violent imitation of sexual intimacy.
There is nothing, at any level that equates a ss couple to marriage.
Smile.
<quoted text>
No honey, those are facts.
That is why it pierces you so deeply.
It simply exposes the denial that permeates our culture.
Another fact is that reality has a mean bitch slap for denial.
Get ready.
Snicker.
well, sunshine, that's your OPINION. nothing more, nothing less. and you're entitled to it.

however, the judges in the Prop 8 trial disagree with you - and the attornies from your side couldn't present anything to justify barring same sex marriage.

did you send them your letters containing all your opinions and offerings of help? i'm sure they could've used your words and help.(snicker)

sorry, sunshine, you're going to be sucking eggs soon enough, come sometime in June when SCOTUS hands down it's rulings. you might want to get mentally and emotionally prepared for reading wedding announcements in your local paper of your neighboring same sex couples. it's ok. you can vent here. no one will care what you say.

good luck.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187786 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel".
Priceless!
Perhaps you are not aware

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-poli...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187787 Apr 9, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
well, sunshine, that's your OPINION. nothing more, nothing less. and you're entitled to it.
however, the judges in the Prop 8 trial disagree with you - and the attornies from your side couldn't present anything to justify barring same sex marriage.
did you send them your letters containing all your opinions and offerings of help? i'm sure they could've used your words and help.(snicker)
sorry, sunshine, you're going to be sucking eggs soon enough, come sometime in June when SCOTUS hands down it's rulings. you might want to get mentally and emotionally prepared for reading wedding announcements in your local paper of your neighboring same sex couples. it's ok. you can vent here. no one will care what you say.
good luck.
It doesn’t ultimately matter what SCOTUS does, if they do the right thing and prop 8 is overturned... it is over

If they do the wrong thing and Prop 8 is upheld, we easily pass a ballot measure overturning Prop 8 wiht the majority of voters in California supporting same sex marriage.. and it is over

It is going down the toilet one way or the other... only a matter of time now.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#187788 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrrrrr...."there's an opposite couple, my mom and dad are/were an opposite sex couple, and they had sex and made me"
<quoted text>
I don't know about u, but if my mom and dad hadn't had sex, I wouldn't be here.
<quoted text>
If no one wanted sex, would marriage exist?
so you admit then that it is a very public statement of what a straight couple prefers - in effect, throwing it in everyone's face whereever they go & wear their wedding rings.

hey, that's just one way to look at it. i don't, but, at it's worst, it could be taken that way.

interesting question you pose. marriage began as a method by which to join clans or to increase the wealth of one tribe (clan), hence the dowery. marriage pre-dates christianity. now, in modern times, it seems that everyone has sex outside of marriage. so it's not a reason to get marriage any longer. very interesting question indeed. probably the best one i've seen you pose.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187789 Apr 9, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
so you admit then that it is a very public statement of what a straight couple prefers - in effect, throwing it in everyone's face whereever they go & wear their wedding rings.
hey, that's just one way to look at it. i don't, but, at it's worst, it could be taken that way.
interesting question you pose. marriage began as a method by which to join clans or to increase the wealth of one tribe (clan), hence the dowery. marriage pre-dates christianity. now, in modern times, it seems that everyone has sex outside of marriage. so it's not a reason to get marriage any longer. very interesting question indeed. probably the best one i've seen you pose.
Except the polls have already shown that a majority of heterosexual people support same sex marriage.

You need to internalize first that you are in the minority

I am a straight person, in a heterosexual marriage, as are my children, all of us support same sex marriage, the tide has turned, your opinion is now a minority opinion
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187790 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you are not aware
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-poli...
Looks like Limbaugh has evolved. Woops, forgot! Liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel"!

Looks like Limbaugh has "thrown in the towel"!

P.S. You should be happy and congratulate him.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187791 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Except the polls have already shown that a majority of heterosexual people support same sex marriage.
You need to internalize first that you are in the minority
I am a straight person, in a heterosexual marriage, as are my children, all of us support same sex marriage, the tide has turned, your opinion is now a minority opinion
It seems that the part that makes you happy is with your opponents being "wrong". Rather than with homosexuals getting equal protection.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187792 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like Limbaugh has evolved. Woops, forgot! Liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel"!
Looks like Limbaugh has "thrown in the towel"!
P.S. You should be happy and congratulate him.
I never said he evolved, he has the same stupid opinion he did before stating that... he didn’t evolve, he is throwing in the towel on the issue even though he hates it.

read it again

Do you have to have everything explained to you repeatedly, If you want to be in a conversation you need to have just a little comprehension… just a tiny bit would be nice.
CA chamber of Commece

Covina, CA

#187793 Apr 9, 2013
Yes the CA chamber of commerce is more of a anchor around the necks of any and all small businesses located in California an or the USA.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187794 Apr 9, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that the part that makes you happy is with your opponents being "wrong". Rather than with homosexuals getting equal protection.
Incorrect.. I am more happy that justice is being done for all Americans regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187795 Apr 9, 2013
Why wrote:
Why do we need gay marriage now when we never needed it before, and nobody on earth complained about that for seven-thousand-plus years? Why now?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#187796 Apr 9, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Judged:111
Could someone, a SSMer, please explain where do we, as a society, draw the line, in defining marriage? At what point, does it become pointless?
Monogamous conjugal marriage proponents advocate maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
SSM proponents advocate defining marriage as a union of (two) spouses for life, regardless of gender composition.
Plural conjugal marriage practitioners advocate for the inclusion of plural marriage in the legal definition.
Polyamorists, incest.....
Where is the line drawn?
Those who are fighting for same-gender marriage recognition have drawn the line at just that. To my knowledge, no major group in the LGBT community is promoting plural marriage. And I'm 100% certain that no one is promoting incest.

That is where we in the LGBT community are drawing the line.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187797 Apr 9, 2013
Why wrote:
Why do we need gay marriage now when we never needed it before, and nobody on earth complained about that for seven-thousand-plus years? Why now?
Why did we stop burning people at the stake, it worked for thousands of years... why did we stop?

Why did we end slavery, we had slavery for tens of thousands of years across many civilizations and we never needed to end it before?

Why did we stop murdering Christians for entertainment in the arena we never needed to stop before that?

The answer of course is... because it is the right thing to do
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187798 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said he evolved, he has the same stupid opinion he did before stating that... he didn’t evolve, he is throwing in the towel on the issue even though he hates it.
read it again
Do you have to have everything explained to you repeatedly, If you want to be in a conversation you need to have just a little comprehension… just a tiny bit would be nice.
Like I said, liberals "evolve", conservatives "throw in the towel".

Obama has "evolved", Eastwood has "thrown in the towel"!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187799 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect.. I am more happy that justice is being done for all Americans regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin
No I am correct. You are more interested in feeling superior than you are in advancing civil rights.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#187800 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who are fighting for same-gender marriage recognition have drawn the line at just that. To my knowledge, no major group in the LGBT community is promoting plural marriage. And I'm 100% certain that no one is promoting incest.
That is where we in the LGBT community are drawing the line.
To their point however it isn’t the LGBT community they are worried about. They are asking why they personally cannot determine for all future generations what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do regardless of what those future generations may believe

You and I really don’t know what they may find acceptable.

The answer is of course, that we don’t, we are not tyrants that can make all decisions for all future generations today

They would like to do that... they aren’t going to be able to

For all we know future generations may be fine with poly ( that could happen in this generation ), or with incest … but that is up to them, not up to us.

The problem with their argument it that only frightens their own constituency, it does not frighten anyone else.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187801 Apr 9, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The line is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.
I did not mention religion in my questions, but that for adding you hatred of religion.
For example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.
Okaaaaaaaaay
That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.
Why do you keep interjecting religion, when I did not.
That is ultimately up to the will of the people, and the rule of law. Prop 8 was passed by a small margin, but was challenged on constitutional grounds, overturned but a stay put on the results.
The will of the people was ignored, and the law is open to interpretation, and can be changed in one way or another.
The situation is now reversed, put on a ballot again today Prop 8 would be overturned easily, and it is actually the courts that are the blocking point.
Perhaps it would be.
Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.
There is a difference between voicing support, and voting to support it.
Not based on history, not based on tradition, not based on pseudo-science and the often misguided references here to evolution, or any ancient books, but by the rule of law, and ultimately the will of the people.
As in those states at constitutionally defined marriage as a union of a man and woman, in essence banning SSM and plural marriage?
That is why even your most famous right win pundit has thrown in the towel on the issue.
All your concerns about Poly and Incest and so forth are at the same whim, the will of the people and the rule of law.
Will of the people and rule of law? So you agree with the people voting according to the rule of law to either maintain the conjugal definition of marriage, or redefine it?
I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.
Poly… probably at some point
Incest… doubtful in the foreseeable future
But it isn’t up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.
So it's possible that SSM will be the historical turning point in the devaluation of marriage as a distinct relation of husband and wife, and reduce it to nothing more than a life style choice, regardless of its effect on society. Yes? Marriage can me anything or nothing. Is that the ultimate goal of the SSM movement? If so, why bother having state sanctioned marriage at all? Who cares who marries who?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#187802 Apr 9, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who are fighting for same-gender marriage recognition have drawn the line at just that. To my knowledge, no major group in the LGBT community is promoting plural marriage. And I'm 100% certain that no one is promoting incest.
That is where we in the LGBT community are drawing the line.
There are some LGBT promoting gay polygamy. There was an article in The Advocate about them.

Why is it OK for you to "draw the line"? Isn't that exactly what those opposed to same sex marriage are doing?

What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult men cause you?

Poly MARRIAGE deserves the same respect and consideration as same sex MARRIAGE.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#187803 Apr 9, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
so you admit then that it is a very public statement of what a straight couple prefers - in effect, throwing it in everyone's face whereever they go & wear their wedding rings.
It's opposite sex couples, let's not ignore bisexuals who marry someone of the opposite sex, and other mixed orientation OSMs.
hey, that's just one way to look at it. i don't, but, at it's worst, it could be taken that way.
See, more than one way to view the issue.
interesting question you pose. marriage began as a method by which to join clans or to increase the wealth of one tribe (clan), hence the dowery. marriage pre-dates christianity. now, in modern times, it seems that everyone has sex outside of marriage. so it's not a reason to get marriage any longer. very interesting question indeed. probably the best one i've seen you pose.
Wow! A compliment form H&M. Grazie. Think about it, if sex, the coital kind didn't make babies, would marriage even exist? Would it matter who married who? Married people do have better sex, btw, and more often.

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 22 min Laissez Faire Club 2,271
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 hr zhuzhamm 5,079
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 15 hr Pizza 16,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Wed Blazing saddles 7,954
OAKDALE (NWO) FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMP being bui... (Nov '08) Sep 16 🙈🙈 99
michael walker? Sep 15 meh 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Sep 9 KeS 16
•••
•••
Oakdale Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oakdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oakdale
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••