Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,151

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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182817 Mar 8, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You realize that a dictionary is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE don't you?
.
well as long as you donít know the meaning of the words there is no point in discussing this with you.
We are a representative democracy, we are also a republic
if you knew the meaning of the words you would understand, you refuse, so .... shrug, Ignorance is totally up to you
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182818 Mar 8, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was the State Legislature which made reproduction and issue in regards to marriage. The reason we even have state regulated and sanctioned marriage was to promote child rearing and a stable environment for them to be raised. That's half the reason for all the deductions on taxes, and other benefits that go along with the union.
The courts have continued in supporting this notion until quite recently.
Right or wrong, that is historical fact.
You really should educate yourself on the subject matter prior to posting.
You really should educate yourself as to why you hang out in gay forums.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182819 Mar 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is sex between men and women makes babies.
I have friends that are married that cannot have children, now you want to deny their rights as well?

I also know an older couple who are getting married that have no intention of having children, now you want to deny their rights to marry as well?

I didnít realize just how far you Prop 8 supporters were willing to go, to rip asunder millions of marriages even by straight people, or am I misunderstanding you and marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with having babies?

Because if it has nothing to do with having babies then we can dispense with that entire line of arguments.

Which is it?

1 Marriage is specifically only for people who are going to have babies

2 The intention of having babies has nothing to do with the right to marry

One or the other please and then we can continue to discuss this
david traversa

Alexandria, VA

#182820 Mar 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You really should educate yourself as to why you hang out in gay forums.
Why do you hang out here? You looking for more d!ck?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182821 Mar 8, 2013
david traversa wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hang out here? You looking for more d!ck?
I have all the dick I can handle, thank you.
endtime

AOL

#182822 Mar 8, 2013
.

COMING POPE --#-- to Mediate MIDEAST PEACE



.
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#182823 Mar 8, 2013
I have witnessed the happiness of two senior citizen men who where finally able to come out of the closet after the death of the wife of one of them. The man who had been married had a lesbian granddaughter.
That made me wonder if it was wise to continue to force the idea of only marriage of 'one man and one woman'. One of those could be gay. It would be better for society for gays to marry each other rather than marry straight partners and pass on whatever trait produces homosexuality. However if homosexuals want to raise their own children,(the instinct to be a parent is separate from sexual orientation). They should be allowed to adopt.
They hire a surrogate woman to bare their child. or use a sperm bank so one of them can be the biological mother.
Big Tony

Alexandria, VA

#182824 Mar 8, 2013
Dorn wrote:
I have witnessed the happiness of two senior citizen men who where finally able to come out of the closet after the death of the wife of one of them. The man who had been married had a lesbian granddaughter.
That made me wonder if it was wise to continue to force the idea of only marriage of 'one man and one woman'. One of those could be gay. It would be better for society for gays to marry each other rather than marry straight partners and pass on whatever trait produces homosexuality. However if homosexuals want to raise their own children,(the instinct to be a parent is separate from sexual orientation). They should be allowed to adopt.
They hire a surrogate woman to bare their child. or use a sperm bank so one of them can be the biological mother.
No one forced the queer to marry. He did that all on his own.
BeekerBeeker

Covina, CA

#182825 Mar 8, 2013
Knotting Ham has a better sale then Windover does.
Dorn

La Puente, CA

#182826 Mar 8, 2013
Big Tony wrote:
<quoted text>
No one forced the queer to marry. He did that all on his own.


He married a straight because he could not legally marry the man he loved.
MuchMore

Covina, CA

#182827 Mar 8, 2013
stupid California Republican activists gathered for their spring convention 2013 at the state capital to try and revitalizing the sick party.

Talking Points;

1.) Republicans hold no statewide offices.

2.) They are weak in the Legislature against Democrats' two-thirds supermajority.

3.) They lost ground here in the 2012 congressional election.

4.) The state party is heavily in debt.

5.) Most if not all California voters HATE them.
Big Tony

Alexandria, VA

#182828 Mar 8, 2013
Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>He married a straight because he could not legally marry the man he loved.
How stupid does that sound, he married a straight because he couldn't marry a queer. Wow, how desperate is that? I wouldn't marry another guy just because I couldn't marry a woman that I loved. No one forced him to marry, let alone a woman that queers find repulsive. To fake his whole life!! You know he couldn't have been giving the love to the woman like she thought she would get, not even close. That's really pathetic.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182829 Mar 8, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I have friends that are married that cannot have children, now you want to deny their rights as well?
What part of my statenent.....
The bottom line is sex between men and women makes babies.
.....was unclear, or false?
I also know an older couple who are getting married that have no intention of having children, now you want to deny their rights to marry as well?
Again what was unclear or false about that statement?
I didnít realize just how far you Prop 8 supporters were willing to go, to rip asunder millions of marriages even by straight people, or am I misunderstanding you and marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with having babies?
I think you mean conjugal marriages of husband and wife.
Because if it has nothing to do with having babies then we can dispense with that entire line of arguments.
Which is it?
1 Marriage is specifically only for people who are going to have babies
2 The intention of having babies has nothing to do with the right to marry
One or the other please and then we can continue to discuss this
Sigh..... marriage is about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex makes, babies. Not every marriage can, or will either have sex, and/or make babies. That doesn't change human reproduction and marriage as a societal means of regulating that, and sex between men and women. Men and women, regardless of procreational ability, and/or intention to have sexual relations, and have married. Why would it change now?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182830 Mar 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of my statenent.....
<quoted text>
.....was unclear, or false?
<quoted text>
Again what was unclear or false about that statement?
<quoted text>
I think you mean conjugal marriages of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Sigh..... marriage is about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex makes, babies. Not every marriage can, or will either have sex, and/or make babies. That doesn't change human reproduction and marriage as a societal means of regulating that, and sex between men and women. Men and women, regardless of procreational ability, and/or intention to have sexual relations, and have married. Why would it change now?
so what I have gathered here is that for you, marriage is only about making babies. Fortunately you donít get to define marriage for everyone else.

I have news for you, there are already too many babies in the world. I have some more news, many couples donít have children, I know quite a few people that married later in life, or second marriages that have no children from that marriage.

Are you belittling their marriages? Do you deem them less than other marriages? If you do, then I donít particularly care what you deem anymore.

Marriage is a commitment between 2 people, regardless if they will have children or not. You are opposed to this commitment in same sex circumstances, I am not. I believe this is the land of the free, where equality, freedom and justice trump religion, trump tradition, and certainly will trump the view of people that think only having children is what a marriage is all about.

I can tell you right now, children was not the reason I got married, and I would have married her regardless of if we would have children or not, and I donít particularly care what others thing of that.

Same with same sex couples, why should they care what you think?
tennison

Los Angeles, CA

#182831 Mar 8, 2013
Dorn wrote:
I have witnessed the happiness of two senior citizen men who where finally able to come out of the closet after the death of the wife of one of them. The man who had been married had a lesbian granddaughter.
That made me wonder if it was wise to continue to force the idea of only marriage of 'one man and one woman'. One of those could be gay. It would be better for society for gays to marry each other rather than marry straight partners and pass on whatever trait produces homosexuality. However if homosexuals want to raise their own children,(the instinct to be a parent is separate from sexual orientation). They should be allowed to adopt.
They hire a surrogate woman to bare their child. or use a sperm bank so one of them can be the biological mother.
It would be more ideal if these two senior gays just stuck to blowing each other at the YMCA and kept to themselves. Sounds like YOU want a three-way with them, Dorn.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182842 Mar 8, 2013
Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
He married a straight because he could not legally marry the man he loved.
He married his wife, not a "straight". He must have loved her on some level. The state recognized their marriage because it composition was no different than any other marriage of husband and wife.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182844 Mar 8, 2013
NoIQ wrote:
<quoted text>
He married a woman because he couldn't marry a man???? His life is miserable so he wants to make someone else's life miserable and a lie. Really compassionate creatures.
LOL. Stupid on so many levels. First or all, judging all gay men based on the actions of one.
Second, it takes two to tango. The woman wasn't forced to marry him. Odds are she knew.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182845 Mar 8, 2013
Big Tony wrote:
<quoted text>
No one forced the queer to marry. He did that all on his own.
Oh really? And you've never felt peer pressure to get married?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#182846 Mar 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He married his wife, not a "straight". He must have loved her on some level. The state recognized their marriage because it composition was no different than any other marriage of husband and wife.
P.s. I didnít mean to jump on your case earlier, but the whole "marriage is for making babies" argument just pisses me off. It could not be farther from the truth.

One of my daughters is incapable of having children for medical reasons, and to think anyone would belittle her marriage to her husband because "marriage is only about making babies" makes me what to hit someone... and I am a peaceful person... but go after my kids and the hair raises on the back of my neck.

I know that was not your intent, but there is a HUGE hole is the "marriage is for making babies" argument.

It is a lame excuse of an argument.

None of my children happen to be gay, but I would be fully supportive of any of them if they happened to be. I do have an extended family member that is gay, and she got married before prop 8 and is one of the 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California, and I applaud them and wish them well.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#182847 Mar 8, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
He married a woman because he couldn't marry a man???? His life is miserable so he wants to make someone else's life miserable and a lie. Really compassionate creatures.
Yeah.... sort of like your wife....married to a closet queen.

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 Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... 3 hr Beath 2
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
Complaint CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (Jan '08) Dec 1 kent 48
Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:25 pm PST