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
162,441 - 162,460 of 200,565 Comments Last updated 7 min ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185955
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Too funny!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185956
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Too funny!
I had to post those Lucky Charms, but I'm sure that you knew that ...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185957
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OMG, I got a hit on my 2 word post! That wasn't me that hung those Charms on my own post, it won't let us judge our own posts...ROFLMAO. You'll need a 1 word post, to beat that! I have a suggestion for you, but I am going to wait and see if you produce it!
:D

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185958
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly can't agree with the "slippery slope" label, as you're right in the rest of your post. I can't see the issue any other way, except to note it as a logical implication, not a slippery slope.
I just don't how a group could come before a court and argue a case that would support incestuous marriage. With all that is known about possible medical issues of offspring, I just don't see it happening.

Bigamists may at some point try to bring their case before a court, but how can they base their on same-gender marriage? Gays aren't asking for the right marry multiple partners.

The US addressed plural marriages with the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and in the Supreme Court case Murphy v. Ramsey.

There is an attorney in Utah, Jonathan Turley, who has files suit against the state; asking that plural marriages become legal. I don't know how far he's gotten.

Anybody in the U.S. has the right to pursue whatever rights they believe they are due.

I just don't think that same-gender marriage is going to lead to or open the door to incestuous or plural marriage.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185959
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Too funny!
It took me a second. Thanks for those Charms...
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185960
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Did your Grandkids pass ou...., er, go to sleep yet, or did you break out the Duct Tape?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185961
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, just to keep things honest between us, I am sure that you have realized that my particular choice of camps is more of an academic one, correct?
Yes... Sorry if I came off too snarky.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185962
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't how a group could come before a court and argue a case that would support incestuous marriage. With all that is known about possible medical issues of offspring, I just don't see it happening.
Bigamists may at some point try to bring their case before a court, but how can they base their on same-gender marriage? Gays aren't asking for the right marry multiple partners.
The US addressed plural marriages with the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and in the Supreme Court case Murphy v. Ramsey.
There is an attorney in Utah, Jonathan Turley, who has files suit against the state; asking that plural marriages become legal. I don't know how far he's gotten.
Anybody in the U.S. has the right to pursue whatever rights they believe they are due.
I just don't think that same-gender marriage is going to lead to or open the door to incestuous or plural marriage.
Well, as I see it, the whole issue of SSM is based upon claims of Constitutional rights granting "Protections", although which specific rights, under the Constitution, weren't made exactly clear in the document. Vague cross-references to the 14th Amendment notwithstanding. But the inference is that gays aren't allowed to make selections, based upon violations of these rights. They claim that they should possess the rights to choose who they wish. But, the Mormons are also granted these same vague rights, except their religious rights are being violated by the same governmental overstepping. And the Mormons have actually shown that they consider this a violation of "Religious Freedom", more specifically granted under the C.
As per incestuous marriage, SSM arguments have clearly claimed that procreation is not enough to validate or invalidate marriage. Birth control being available, and medical procedures that can render sterility. Probably a bit of a ramble, as I am no Constitutional scholar, but there aren't too many of those in here, anyway.
As to the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, and Murphy v. Ramsey, I would counter that we used to have Sodomy Laws on the books and that these, also, were repealed. And that the same arguments that had these laws repealed could also serve the same purpose for the P and I crowd, eventually. Views change over time, and if we are to allow for changing to suit one, why not others? Upon what basis does the government stand, to justify meddling with marriage laws, at all?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185963
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes... Sorry if I came off too snarky.
NOT AT ALL. You have come across as intelligent and thoughtful, not snarky at all. I merely wished to clarify my position.
:-D
"Snarky"...never heard that one, but, meaning understood.
:-D

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185964
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever noticed that the only ones who talk about incestuous and plural marriages are those who are against same-gender marriages?
And they call us depraved...
Have you ever noticed that the only ones who won't talk about incestuous and plural marriages are those who are for same gendered marriages? It works both ways VV.
By the way, using your own ridiculous "slippery slope" argument, you can trace all of these issues back to the fact that the government got involved in marriage.
Perhaps, but gov't simply recognized a pre existing relationship, in some respects it simply took over a function performed by the Church.
If the government had never given any special rights and protections to married couples in the first place then nobody--not gays, not bigamists, not anyone--would be seeking legal marriage.
We'd all just go to the church of our choice and get married.
Sounds plausible.....however societies throughout human history have virtually always accorded marriage an elevated status within society. Marriage, that had been, throughout time and place a male female union.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185965
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the benefits that are available by being recognized by the government are what we want as well. Equality
Again, find yourself a nice girl, and get married. You'll get the same rights. Equality.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185966
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT AT ALL. You have come across as intelligent and thoughtful, not snarky at all. I merely wished to clarify my position.
:-D
"Snarky"...never heard that one, but, meaning understood.
:-D
I forgot "Eloquent".
:-D
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185967
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

BTW,VV, give ol' Taz a pet for me....If he'll have it...
:-D

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185968
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't how a group could come before a court and argue a case that would support incestuous marriage. With all that is known about possible medical issues of offspring, I just don't see it happening.
Bigamists may at some point try to bring their case before a court, but how can they base their on same-gender marriage? Gays aren't asking for the right marry multiple partners.
The US addressed plural marriages with the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and in the Supreme Court case Murphy v. Ramsey.
There is an attorney in Utah, Jonathan Turley, who has files suit against the state; asking that plural marriages become legal. I don't know how far he's gotten.
Anybody in the U.S. has the right to pursue whatever rights they believe they are due.
I just don't think that same-gender marriage is going to lead to or open the door to incestuous or plural marriage.
Its rather simple. As Frankie has posted on numerous occasions, if monogamous conjugal marriage is no longer the standard, or words to that effect, there's no compelling reason not to at least consider a variety of consenting adult relationships as marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185969
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
Did your Grandkids pass ou...., er, go to sleep yet, or did you break out the Duct Tape?
They stay up past my bedtime. I'm lucky they don't duct tape me. I threaten they'll be cut out of the will by my attorney if I die under fishy circumstances.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185970
Mar 31, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to post those Lucky Charms, but I'm sure that you knew that ...
Same here. I threw you a couple.

Rose_NoHo and Bill are obviously not out tonight. Or we'd have 10 or 11 each. You know how those dopey jackasses rig the judge-its. Can you imagine what kind of loser would do that, like it matters or something? Too funny.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185972
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is strictly a religious thing why do you need a marriage license issued by the government and why are divorces settled in court by lawyers? Why can you get married by a priest but also by a judge, mayor or many other government employees? Why do they say by the power vested in me by the state of _______??? All of these things prove it's a civil matter not religious. If you can't see that you are just dumb. You can have your beliefs but don't impose your will upon others. If your beliefs and faith are hat get you by that should be enough for you. Don't hold others from having their own beliefs. That's what this country is about freedom.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a direct failure of the primary goal of evolution.

Government interest in the sole safe birthplace of societies members was to protect and provide for the wife and offspring.

Man up Jared, you don't need to deplete resources from women and children!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185973
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bible also prohibits tattoos, eating ham or using a pigskin football, getting remarried after divorce, rounded haircuts, men missing testicals from entering a church, psychics, gossip, women speaking in the house of god, cursing at your parents, eating shellfish, working on the sabbath, and losing your virginity before marriage. If you want to follow your little book maybe you should focus on everything in it not just gays that want to be happy.
Jarboy, your ignorance is showing. You are confusing Christianity and Judaism to start with.

You also are confusing different types of Judaic law (Ceremonial, health and identity), at the expense of ignoring the profound distinction those Laws had on a single culture.

All of this to justify a evolutionary defect that seeks to equate the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex with natural, normal sex.

Do you see how stupid your denial has made you???

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185974
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
It shows that it's a legal contract. Government decisions on issues are supposed to be based on the constitution not religion.
If you want a contract, go get a lawyer, you don't need to dumb down marriage to do that.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185975
Apr 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you admit some is fiction? Most is opinion. It takes the views and opinions of many and expects people to follow like sheep. Logically that just sounds stupid. Why do I believe something because someone told me to? Really that's their basis? Think for yourselves people. Women couldn't vote that was wrong blacks couldn't do almost anything that was wrong interracial marriage was illegal that was wrong. We should all be treated as equals including gays.
So racism and gender abuse is a result of Christianity?

Do you see the hateful, ignorant bigotry in that 'logic'???

In 8000 years of human history, every single culture has had marriage.

In 8000 years of human history, not ONE SINGLE culture has embraced calling ss couples married from the start of the culture to end. Nowhere has that perversion established itself and spread.

In the extremely rare places where it did appear, it quickly disappeared.

Things don't look real good for you historically Jarboy...

Snicker.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Oceanside Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 3 hr Bee Keepers 4,977
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 8 hr facts faced 15,929
Bankruptcy-liency for some -punishment for others (Dec '12) 22 hr Nerve of some people 5
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon Mudflys to 7,901
2003 Chevy Trailblazer-CHECK ENGINE LIGHT AND R... (Dec '11) Aug 17 brianr 209
Tar (Aug '13) Aug 16 pillzman22 6
Men like Elliot Rodger are not owed anyone or a... Aug 13 reputationtar 40

Search the Oceanside Forum:
•••

Flash Flood Watch for San Diego County was issued at August 20 at 1:25PM PDT

•••
•••
•••

Oceanside Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Oceanside People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oceanside News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••