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
169,021 - 169,040 of 200,328 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“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.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193723
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193724
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193725
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.
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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193726
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193727
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193728
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193729
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193730
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193731
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.
He doesnít understand that there is no such thing as "more illegal" It was illegal before, and will continue to be illegal afterÖ. Zero effect.

Whether or not it should be illegal is a different question, I personally donít have a problem with poly by consenting adults.

But it doesnít have public support the way Same sex marriage has

He is not the sharpest tool in the shed
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193732
May 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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.
While there certainly are gay polygamists (The Advocate had an article on them recently) there are no "polygamist couples" of any kind.

And you call me an idiot!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••