Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201811 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#196690 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how is religion financing those on here, against SS couples imposing an impostor relationship on marriage?
So it is simply YOUR opinion that my quote of the social science essence of marriage is wrong. And you can't specifically state why.
On a gay would limit marriage to a legal contract.
That marriage is a human construct is exactly what I said. And, if it were not for mating behavior consequences, it would disappear.
It is your opinion ( which counts for nothing ) that they are imposter relationships, I have more respect for their marriages than I have for your fearful little marriage.

The point is, that marriage is a legal contract, anything more than that is in the mind of those who marry. My own marriage means more to me than just the legal contract, I know others who think less of theirs. But my opinion of theirs is meaningless, just as your opinion of same sex marriages is meaningless.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196692 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a tad behind in the news.
The state of California has overturned Prop 8, and the defenders lost their appeal in the appellate court in California.
A stay has been put on the overturn until the ruling is appealed in the supreme court.
A vote today in California would overturn Prop 8 in a walk
And you are a tad behind in reality.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196694 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Third rate jackass says what?
You are too dumb to understand, so STFU

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196698 Jun 19, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Loopholes. Marriage was never intended to validate sexual unions, or to create funding for couplings that consist of unnatural mating practices.
Loopholes.
SSM is about expanding the abilities of gays to gain benefits that were never intended for them.
We've been marching on a path towards equality and freedom since the American Revolution.

Freedom and equality is like the mythical monster, Hydra. Each time you cut off one head, two more grow back in its place.

Each time we feel that we've established freedom and equality for a particular group in this country, we see another group (or groups) of people who do not have access to certain rights that others take for granted.

You say that the benefits of marriage were not intended for gays. I say they were. They've been intended for gays since the foundation of this country.

However, it has taken over two-centuries for society to recognize this oversight. That's why you're seeing states pass laws to level the playing field for gays. That's why we're fighting in the courts to level the playing field. That's why we're educating the public about why the we need to level the playing field.

It will be level eventually. As you look around our country and at other countries, you can clearly see that the handwriting is on the wall. Equality WILL happen.

It hasn't been an easy process. Major change in ideology is never easy. There will be growing pains.

But that does not deter us from fighting for our rights.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#196699 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
A Greek and Italian were arguing over who had the superior culture.
The Greek says, "We have the Parthenon."
Arching his eyebrows, the Italian replies, "We have the Coliseum."
The Greek retorts, "We Greeks gave birth to advanced mathematics"
The Italian, nodding agreement, says, "But we built the Roman Empire."
And so on and so on until the Greek comes up with what he thinks will end the discussion. With a flourish of finality he says, "We invented sex!"
The Italian replies, "That is true, but it was the Italians who introduced it to women."
YUK!YUK!YUK!
And THUS began the downfall of mankind......
laughing man

UK

#196700 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
A Greek and Italian were arguing over who had the superior culture.
The Greek says, "We have the Parthenon."
Arching his eyebrows, the Italian replies, "We have the Coliseum."
The Greek retorts, "We Greeks gave birth to advanced mathematics"
The Italian, nodding agreement, says, "But we built the Roman Empire."
And so on and so on until the Greek comes up with what he thinks will end the discussion. With a flourish of finality he says, "We invented sex!"
The Italian replies, "That is true, but it was the Italians who introduced it to women."
YUK!YUK!YUK!
That's it, game over. Shut the thread down.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#196701 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a tad behind in the news.
The state of California has overturned Prop 8, and the defenders lost their appeal in the appellate court in California.
A stay has been put on the overturn until the ruling is appealed in the supreme court.
A vote today in California would overturn Prop 8 in a walk
You are correct about one thing, no make that two things:
the defenders lost their appeal, but you still can't marry in California, and a vote today?? hmmm you have neen saying this since the appeal. it is a long long long walk I hop e you have good walking shoes. Your today in no where in sight
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196702 Jun 19, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are a tad behind in reality.
No what I said was fact

Prop 8 has been overturned, but a stay was put on the decision for appeals

Prop 8 lost its appeal in the appellate court, but a stay was put on that confirmation that Prop 8 is overturned as it was appealed to the supreme court

Every poll, even ones owned by Faux news shows that the support in California is now very much in favor of same sex marriage.

That is the reality

Prop 8 is doomed no matter what the supreme court decides either this week or next, it will just take a little longer ( a year ) if they overturn the appeal, which is unlikely.

The most likely outcome is that they will dismiss the appeal as improvidently granted as the supporters of Prop 8 have no standing to defend it. Which will push it back to the state of California which has already overturned Prop 8
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196703 Jun 19, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct about one thing, no make that two things:
the defenders lost their appeal, but you still can't marry in California, and a vote today?? hmmm you have neen saying this since the appeal. it is a long long long walk I hop e you have good walking shoes. Your today in no where in sight
Well it wont affect me, I donít happen to be gay, but as a patriot our freedoms are important to me.

I personally believe they will make the right decision, however I also personally think the supreme court will chicken out ( not make a grand statement ) and just kick it back to the state which has already overturned it. Perhaps I should give them a break, maybe it isnít chickening out, but more of a "let the states sort this out themselves" gesture.

DOMA is the more important decision, if they strike down section 3 ( which is a good bet that they will ) that means federal recognition of Same sex marriage... that is a huge step.

Or, Nv, and now Az are all three on the path with California to overturn their bans as well.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196704 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how is religion financing those on here, against SS couples imposing an impostor relationship on marriage?
So it is simply YOUR opinion that my quote of the social science essence of marriage is wrong. And you can't specifically state why.
On a gay would limit marriage to a legal contract.
That marriage is a human construct is exactly what I said. And, if it were not for mating behavior consequences, it would disappear.
Your OPINION that marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior is an OPINION because it is contrived.

You have never shown a shred of evidence that social scientists, anthropologists, or any other credible scientific field of study supports your conclusion.

In other words, you simply made it up.

I've tried to take your definition apart, piece by piece to try to understand just what in the hell you're saying. But it makes no sense.

You have said in the past that marriage constrains primarily the husband from going out and impregnating multiple women. You've said that throughout history and in every culture, marriage has always been, from beginning to end, between a man and a woman.

I've given you examples of why people marry in contemporary society. Not all marriages are based on evolution of the species. Not all marriages are between men and women. Not all marriages are monogamous (as Frankie constantly claims).

Based on these few facts alone, your definition of marriage is false.

You are not a scientist. You certainly don't have an expertise in marriage. Standing at an alter and joining a couple in holy (not legal) matrimony DOES NOT mean that you fully understand why people marry one another.

Some marriages are born of love, others from greed, others based on attractiveness, others due to family pressure, and so on. Some marriages result in offspring, some do not.

There is no single definition of marriage.

You simply come here in an attempt to hijack the institution based on your own personal beliefs and OPINIONS.

Face it, Kim, you're just another tiny voice, screaming into oblivion, hoping to be heard. Some will agree with you. But many do not.

"Marriage" is not yours to define. Our government legally defines marriage. And based on the jurisdiction in which you live, the legal definition of marriage will differ.

We are NOT interested in your OPINION about what marriage means to you. That's not what the LGBT community is fighting for.

As tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of this country, we believe that we are entitled to the rights and protections of marriage that others already enjoy.

That's our message. And it's being heard AND accepted by more and more each day.

At this point in the game, we are winning. Who knows... In a few generations marriage equality for gays and lesbians may be repealed. The world's societies may collectively enter into an era of that takes all of us back to a time when freedom and equal rights were not valued by societies.

But for now, this is where we are. Like it or not, same-sex marriage will be legalized in this country--in the county where you live. You are powerless to stop the momentum.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196706 Jun 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the irony, they want to deny others freedom, while demanding their own freedoms, all in the name of their religion.
Hippocrates to the core
<quoted text>
Dumb and dumber.
I rarely address the religious basis for marriage.
I kind of enjoy the hissy fit when I point out the social science basis;
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
No violation of freedom, no religion. Just a clear distinction between the two relationships.
Now, watch the pink brigade show up.
Smile.
"Aside from violating the clear design of marriage, and the clear prohibition of gay sex in both the OT and NT, it violates the golden rule, the summary of the whole Law. You know, the passage you quoted.

Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Only a reprobate would assert that King David would do any such thing. "

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T0I77PKMN...
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#196707 Jun 19, 2013
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case...

As set forth in the plurality opinion, plaintiffs have failed to negate respondents' explanation that the current definition of marriage is rationally related to the State's legitimate interest in channeling opposite-sex relationships into marriage because of the natural propensity of sexual contact between opposite-sex couples to result in pregnancy and childbirth. Of course, marriage can and does serve individual interests that extend well beyond creating an environment conducive to procreation and child-rearing, such as companionship and emotional fulfilment. But here we are concerned with the State's interest in promoting the institution of marriage.

As Justice Robert Cordy pointed out in his dissent in Goodridge v Department of Pub. Health (440 Mass at 381-382, 798 NE2d at 995 [Cordy, J., dissenting]):

"Civil marriage is the institutional mechanism by which societies have sanctioned and recognized particular family structures, and the institution of marriage has existed as one of the fundamental organizing principles of human society.... Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized....[A]n orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse [between a man and a woman] commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism."
laughing man

UK

#196708 Jun 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, same-sex marriage will be legalized in this country--in the county where you live. You are powerless to stop the momentum.
Remember, Brucie, that you're only accepted by the Common Man via terrorism of Thought Crime, because the vote dredgers made you a Protected Species.

Your victories have always been hollow, Brucie, and I'm laughing at you.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196710 Jun 19, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember, Brucie, that you're only accepted by the Common Man via terrorism of Thought Crime, because the vote dredgers made you a Protected Species.
Your victories have always been hollow, Brucie, and I'm laughing at you.
Actually it appeals to us patriots as well, we Americans that actually believe in Freedom, Equality and Justice.

No one has "terrorized" me, and prop 8 does not affect me or anyone in my family, still we all support same sex marriage out of patriotism
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196712 Jun 19, 2013
Good show!, a republican Senator crosses over to the side of right without having a gay child prompt them to do so!

Bravo!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/...
TimeX

Monrovia, CA

#196713 Jun 19, 2013
TimeX and it doesn't need winding

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196715 Jun 19, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember, Brucie, that you're only accepted by the Common Man via terrorism of Thought Crime, because the vote dredgers made you a Protected Species.
Your victories have always been hollow, Brucie, and I'm laughing at you.
Hey, geezer, we don't really care how we go about getting the rights and protections that we deserve. And we don't give a damn if you support us or not.

Now call for the nurse, you old codger, your Depends is full and your stinking up the place.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#196716 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet you hate him anyway.
Him?

Didnít even look at the article did you, but you have to comment anyway on what you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about.

Par for the course I suppose.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196717 Jun 19, 2013
Big D wrote:
Good show!, a republican Senator crosses over to the side of right without having a gay child prompt them to do so!
Bravo!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/...
One small step, one giant leap. Peace
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

#196718 Jun 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet you hate him anyway.
He is a woman dumbazz. If you had clicked the link, you would not be so stupid.

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.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone see Marvin Markle lose his sh*t yesterday? (Feb '12) May 25 Barbara 100
marvin and beverly mcquarrie (Feb '14) May 22 Glenn Schoeneck 3
News SmartMeters being installed by PG&E in Butte Co... (May '10) May 21 Sigmund Freud 36
News Grand jury probed two Ridge officers (Mar '08) Apr 29 Concerned citizen 508
Review: Dennis Lucas Plumbing Repair (Oct '11) Apr 29 PB4YOU 2
News Rape suspect arrested by Oroville police (Jun '10) Apr '15 keepalowprofile 12
Review: Oroville Tacos (Aug '14) Mar '15 tamikajohnson1959 5
More from around the web

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]