Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,168

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

#196277 Jun 15, 2013
kookaa wrote:
Did you guys realize this is a comment board, NOT A CHAT ROOM?
Shuddup. Who asked you?
Pakis

Monrovia, CA

#196279 Jun 15, 2013
Pakistan is a global leader in intolerance towards homosexuals, but leads the world in Google searches for gay pornography.

According to an analysis of search terms published by Mother Jones.

Must be something in the water in Pakistan or being so close to the Taliban?
Not To Bright Are You

Toronto, Canada

#196280 Jun 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It never should have been given in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propo... (2000)
Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code. This stated that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary".[4] While related sections of the law made references to sex, a State Assembly committee that was debating adding sex-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married".[5] That year, the legislature amended the legal definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity. In 1992 the legal definition of marriage was moved from the Civil Code to Section 300 of the Family Code.
When Proposition 22 came before voters, marriage was defined in the Family Code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary" [italics added].[6]
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, Section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere. This stated that a "marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state".[7] Advocates of Proposition 22 described Section 308 as a "loophole", apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state.[8]
To address this, Proposition 22 did not reword the existing provisions of the Family Code, but added to them the declaration that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".[9] The official citation of Proposition 22, the "California Defense of Marriage Act", is almost the same as that of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. This federal law had a similar purpose, and was intended to prevent any state from being obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.
Why YES,I agree wholeheartedly! Once a right is given in this case the right to marry between the same sexes,it should NOT have been taken away! And thus,this is why Prop 8 will be overturned when the Supreme court throws it back to California which means Judge walkers decision which was upheld by the appeals court will rid California once and for all of the illegality of Prop 8 once and for all! Good call! Should happen in the next 2 weeks!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196281 Jun 16, 2013
Chester Hester wrote:
I gotta say I have no horse in this race. I'm not gay, but I do like to see some of the debates on this thread. Pietro Armando u have to admit, at least on some level, that you're getting totally owned by this guy. He's making u look pretty bad son, and you're exposing yourself as an ignorant bigot. I know people who hide behind their computers rarely, if ever, admit defeat...but dude come on, he's waxing the floor with u.
I'm going to take your ignorant comments as a compliment. Anyone who thinks that Pietro has a legal leg to stand upon clearly doesn't know the lay of the land. Your familiarity (son) is not appreciated.

Pietro has no legal basis for their opinion. Both of you will be sorely disappointed in the near future when the US Supreme Court advances marriage equality, because there are no valid legal grounds to deny it.

Those who advocate for fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law will never win the battle. They are fools, nothing more.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#196282 Jun 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Serious Chester, you should get out more. So it's "bigotry" to advocate that marriage, as a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife, remain just that, legally?
Absolutely, assuming of course there is no compelling state interest served by such a restriction. Thus far,y ou have never been able to indicate one.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is that want they teach in reeducation camps?
No, it's what they teach in Constitution 101.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If gay people, share the same sentiment as I do, and there are those who do, are they "bigots" too?
First find me some gay people who share your position. You once made this claim, but it turned out that the couple in question objected only to the vocabulary, not the legal ramifications, which rather sullied your point.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How does that work, one is only a bigot, if one opposes redefining marriage and is not gay? But is one is gay and opposes redefining marriage, they're not a bigot?
No, anyone arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law is worthy of the term.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There is very confusing. Oh well off to the "reeducation camp".
Reeducation would imply that one had been educated in the first place, which is clearly not the case with you. Run along, brother Jim has some Kool-aide for you.
laughing man

UK

#196283 Jun 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who advocate for fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens
I consider Caligulas who french kiss dogs on international television, it's only purpose being for shock value, isn't second class, but raw sewage.

And I'll submit that all those homosexists who soil their panties because they aren't accepted and who sit silent concerning the Caligulas at their forefront, are sewage too.

You sit silent. You approve. You deserve scorn, ridicule, deportment.
laughing man

UK

#196284 Jun 16, 2013
Awwwww, you poor baby. You got offended and mashed a few smilies. I especially mock you for mashing the "off topic" one, because it has everything to do with the topic of homosexuals.

They're silent about their kind. In other words, they're the kind of neighbor who never takes out their own garbage, who parks and leaves rusting hulks in the front yard, who has their Velvet Boy George's hanging behind the couch...

The garbage keeps piling up, and it's rotting, and it stinks, and there's flies and disease.

No, I don't want them in my neighborhood. They're not responsible and self sufficient and show no respect for others.
BarkingFrog

Monrovia, CA

#196285 Jun 16, 2013
Laughing man from the UK can take that filth bucket Pairs Morgan back to your country free of charge.
laughing man

UK

#196286 Jun 16, 2013
BarkingFrog wrote:
Laughing man from the UK can take that filth bucket Pairs Morgan back to your country free of charge.
I'll have to take your word for it since I haven't a clue as to who you're talking about, but if it's a filth bucket then your kind will park it in the front yard and mindlessly defend it with "phobe" and "bigot" and "prejudice" and the other various and sundry pubescent epithets.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196287 Jun 16, 2013
Not To Bright Are You wrote:
<quoted text>
Why YES,I agree wholeheartedly! Once a right is given in this case the right to marry between the same sexes,it should NOT have been taken away! And thus,this is why Prop 8 will be overturned when the Supreme court throws it back to California which means Judge walkers decision which was upheld by the appeals court will rid California once and for all of the illegality of Prop 8 once and for all! Good call! Should happen in the next 2 weeks!
Hey Bill! Why do you end every sentence with an exclamation point!? It looks silly! What, are you all hopped up on dope!? You should use periods! You are such a dummy!

OK fruitloops! Hope that helps!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196288 Jun 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to take your ignorant comments as a compliment. Anyone who thinks that Pietro has a legal leg to stand upon clearly doesn't know the lay of the land. Your familiarity (son) is not appreciated.
Pietro has no legal basis for their opinion. Both of you will be sorely disappointed in the near future when the US Supreme Court advances marriage equality, because there are no valid legal grounds to deny it.
Those who advocate for fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law will never win the battle. They are fools, nothing more.
Relax son.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196289 Jun 16, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
I consider Caligulas who french kiss dogs on international television, it's only purpose being for shock value, isn't second class, but raw sewage.
And I'll submit that all those homosexists who soil their panties because they aren't accepted and who sit silent concerning the Caligulas at their forefront, are sewage too.
You sit silent. You approve. You deserve scorn, ridicule, deportment.
You can't lump all gay people into the same category any more than you can lump all straight people into the same category. Gay people have different values depending on their belief systems.

I just don't come here to yammer on about what so-and-so did that I found disgusting. What's the point? My feelings of disgust about someone's behavior aren't going to change the world.

Instead, I just carry myself in a dignified manner, exhibiting the values and beliefs that are important to me.

Here's the thing... When you start making the same comments about the sick freaks that exist in the heterosexual community, maybe someone will take you seriously. For example, there are those here who advocate incestuous marriages.

Until you express your outrage at their values and behaviors, you're just another small-minded, pinhead, who comes here to fan the flames of anti-homosexual sentiment.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#196290 Jun 16, 2013
laughing man wrote:
Awwwww, you poor baby. You got offended and mashed a few smilies. I especially mock you for mashing the "off topic" one, because it has everything to do with the topic of homosexuals.
They're silent about their kind. In other words, they're the kind of neighbor who never takes out their own garbage, who parks and leaves rusting hulks in the front yard, who has their Velvet Boy George's hanging behind the couch...
The garbage keeps piling up, and it's rotting, and it stinks, and there's flies and disease.
No, I don't want them in my neighborhood. They're not responsible and self sufficient and show no respect for others.
I guarantee if a few gay men moved into your neighborhood, your property values would go up. We KNOW how to keep our homes neat and pristine. We can take a shit-hole of a house and turn it into something beautiful. It happens in just about every single neighborhood where gays are present.

It's called "gay gentrification". You should have seen The Castro District in San Francisco before the queens arrived and turned it into one of the most magnificent (and expensive) places to live in the city.
laughing man

UK

#196291 Jun 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't lump all gay people into the same category
The hell you say, gutter dweller.

Take out your trash or get the f*** out of my neighborhood.

End of story.
laughing man

UK

#196292 Jun 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I guarantee if a few gay men moved into your neighborhood, your property values would go up.
Take out your trash, gutter dweller, and that includes your yellowed and tattered scripts.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196293 Jun 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't lump all gay people into the same category any more than you can lump all straight people into the same category. Gay people have different values depending on their belief systems.
I just don't come here to yammer on about what so-and-so did that I found disgusting. What's the point? My feelings of disgust about someone's behavior aren't going to change the world.
Instead, I just carry myself in a dignified manner, exhibiting the values and beliefs that are important to me.
Here's the thing... When you start making the same comments about the sick freaks that exist in the heterosexual community, maybe someone will take you seriously. For example, there are those here who advocate incestuous marriages.
Until you express your outrage at their values and behaviors, you're just another small-minded, pinhead, who comes here to fan the flames of anti-homosexual sentiment.
You ridicule incest marriage just like some people (you call them bigots and homophobes) ridicule same sex marriage. Classic hypocrite.

Why are you against marriage equality?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196294 Jun 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't lump all gay people into the same category any more than you can lump all straight people into the same category. Gay people have different values depending on their belief systems.
I just don't come here to yammer on about what so-and-so did that I found disgusting. What's the point? My feelings of disgust about someone's behavior aren't going to change the world.
Instead, I just carry myself in a dignified manner, exhibiting the values and beliefs that are important to me.
Here's the thing... When you start making the same comments about the sick freaks that exist in the heterosexual community, maybe someone will take you seriously. For example, there are those here who advocate incestuous marriages.
Until you express your outrage at their values and behaviors, you're just another small-minded, pinhead, who comes here to fan the flames of anti-homosexual sentiment.
"lump" Too funny!
laughing man

UK

#196295 Jun 16, 2013
There's no pleasing Lumpy, is there?

It soiled its panties over someone not complaining about the straights with their trash and Velvet Elvis',(which is incredibly stupid since I mocked the very thing I don't like in ANYbody)and it's the very same lump of dog squeeze who the other day soiled its panties over "drive by" comments.

When things are explained to it, in detail, and with the utmost care, risking projectile vomiting by getting on its grade school level, it shows its appreciation by having a juvenile kick and scream in the cereal aisle attack.

They don't possess the most basic of emotional maturity and awareness of those around them, and I don't want them in my neighborhood.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#196296 Jun 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely, assuming of course there is no compelling state interest served by such a restriction. Thus far,y ou have never been able to indicate one.
There is one, some courts have stated such, but u don't agree with it.
First find me some gay people who share your position. You once made this claim, but it turned out that the couple in question objected only to the vocabulary, not the legal ramifications, which rather sullied your point.
Nooooooo...it didn't. They want the protection, but not the name, which they feel should be reserved for the male female union only.
No, anyone arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law is worthy of the term.
I advocate everyone should b in first class. C'mon in, find yourself a person of the opposite sex, and join the institute of marriage.
Reeducation would imply that one had been educated in the first place, which is clearly not the case with you. Run along, brother Jim has some Kool-aide for you.
Reeducation is for those who don't agree with the prevailing leftist orthodoxy that marriage should be redefined, but only for them.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#196297 Jun 16, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing to prove. I know exactly what I am saying, whether you know or not means nothing to me
Classic Big D. That's why I like this thread!

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.

Palm Desert Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... Dec 18 Tracy 3
Debate: Gay Marriage - Coachella, CA (Jan '12) Dec 16 Brian_G 6
mexican landscapers dump in the desert Dec 11 Jean 22
Re-Thinking Southern California Earthquake Scen... Dec 8 Rick 1
Lower gas prices means more people on the road ... Dec 7 Ronald 6
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Dec 6 Bobbo Yogi 154
Review: Inter-City Plumbing (Jun '09) Dec 3 Jean 11
Palm Desert Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palm Desert People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palm Desert News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Desert

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:03 pm PST