Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184975 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
how is that??
im not gay, but im a crusader against ALL bigotry.
Even bigotry from the left? Are you a caped crusader?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184976 Mar 27, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Not far from true.
Lincoln quotes you never saw in the history books:
""I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
"Do the people of the south really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, there is no cause for such fears."- Letter to Alexander Stephens
Other little Lincoln tid-bits you didn't hear about in school:
- July 1861- General Freeman declares martial law in Missouri, declares all slaves held by owners whom oppose the Union are free. Lincoln cancels the order. As a result Congress passes the Confiscation Act.
-May 1862, General David Hunter issued an order declaring all slaves in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina to be free. Lincoln again revokes the order. Congress again responds by passing the SECOND Confiscation Act.
They also won't tell you that Lincoln felt that the freed slaves should be COLONIZED elsewhere. Yup, he was looking to send the black out of the US. Congress even passed a bill to spend $100,000 to :
"to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine."
Yeah, Lincoln the "great emancipator".
Excellent work, sir, I am humbled. I only gave a generalized account of the War, You provided hard facts. Salute.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184977 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Democraps will nominate....?
<quoted text>
Hillarity will steamroll anyone....oh sure
<quoted text>
Nah.....ya might say the wind blew in at just the right time to put Obama back in.
as the landscape looks right now, yeah steamroll anyone

Obama's second term was the change to defeat a democrat, but Romney had to dance to the right to get the nomination and so lost the general.

A lot can change between now and then, but the snapshot now… Hillary would win in a walk
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184978 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The definitions that I've seen say nothing about man and woman. They have simply said "spouses".
That's because, in the Age Of Reason, when reason prevailed, "spouses" was understood to mean man and woman. Anything else?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184979 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
the supreme court does, and did, I am glad they agreed with me
No, you agreed with them, they did not consult with you first. Therefore, they did not agree with you. They're not even aware of you.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184980 Mar 27, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
as far as i an see??
you are just a bigot...
Then, buy some glasses, the Constitution allows for us to have differing opinions, else it would have mandated that those of us do not toe the party line be branded as "bigots". Funny, last time I read the old Document, it didn't order us to agree. Dumb-ass. You're the bigot, looking down your nose at someone for disagreeing with you. You're the bigot.
what freaks

AOL

#184981 Mar 27, 2013
if the supreme court had any balls ,....
they would say OK to gay marriage ,..but at the same time declare it unconstitutional for the government to give benefits to spouses of state and federal employees ,...

the nation is broke ,...
we can not afford this madness any more -
the private sector no longer can afford to dish out lavish benefits to its employees,... the U.S. government should be forced to stop also ,..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184982 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) First off you try to equate the terms "sexual intercourse" and "coitus". They are not the same words.
"Sexual intercourse" takes place between two people of any gender. Do you deny that same-gender couples have sexual intercourse? I don't think you do.
"Coitus" very specifically refers to the "sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (from the on line dictionary "Farflex" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coitus ).
You may think I'm splitting hairs. But it's important for you to understand that there is a very distinct difference.
2.) Marriage licenses in states that recognize same-gender marriage have removed gender and replaced it with "person" or "applicant".
3.) You don't have to explain all of the various sexual acts. We're all adults.
4.) I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful. I just wanted to paint the picture of the police busting down a couple's door and forcing them into divorce court, because word had gotten out that they had never consummated their marriage.
"Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, is the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction."

Any other sexual act is DADT.

Smile.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184983 Mar 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Say.... you like definitions. What's the definition of bigot? someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
If the shoe fits...
But, you twist again. We are not treating anyone with "hatred, contempt, and intolerance", we are merely drawing a line in the sand and declaring that SSC's do not fit the accepted roles needed for a true marriage.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184984 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
tehn you might explain that to the attornies arguing the cases before the judges then. it was referenced even in SCOTUS yesterday.
They can read. They are as eager as you to pound a square peg into a round hole.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184985 Mar 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Never been a problem.
If ss friendships deserve those benefits without ever being capable of mutual procreation and it's special needs, then legally EVERYONE deserves them.
Apparently you think two men need the protection and provision that women and children do... Man up VV, man up!!!
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this clear...
You're saying that sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who will never have children SHOULD NOT get tax breaks and other tax benefits that families with children currently get?
Where in hell did you get that from what I said?

Smile.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184986 Mar 27, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this clear...
You're saying that sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who will never have children SHOULD NOT get tax breaks and other tax benefits that families with children currently get?
You do understand that the woman suing against the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act is basing her case on the fact that she has had to pay over $300,000 in inheritance taxes don't you?
And based on what your posting seems to be saying, then no couple who doesn't have children (including you, since your children no longer live in your home) should be able to receive property from their spouse after a death without paying taxes. So if you die and your have a piece of property in your name or have an item that isn't considered joint property, then your wife would have to pay taxes on that property. And you're OK with that?
You are forgetting that these couples bring all the required equipment into the game, aren't you?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184987 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.
Great reply Pietro!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184988 Mar 27, 2013
WinstonSmithAKAsheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
Any idea what we can make out of the peanuts & lemons we're getting?
A nice, big "The SSM Crowd Thinks Those Count For Something" cake? Or, some fun, yummy "Someone Has Nothing To Say" pie? How about some Fruitcake?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184989 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrr....In my town there are two rest rooms, one for men, one for women. Neither one restricts on the basis or orientation. Just like marriage, single union of one male plus one female, no restriction on orientation.
Ooohhh......Those pesky labels.... Those darned, inconvenient identifiers.... Drat.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184990 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are behind the times, better check the polls
53% to 58%( depending on which poll ) are in favor of Same Sex marrage in the US
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#184991 Mar 27, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
i merely conceded what a judge referred to - it's in the transcripts so i cannot deny the word he utilized in court.
Thanks for the admission none the less.
why a couple decides to marry, or stay together, cannot be dictated by law. nor can it be dictated by anyone else.
Agreed.
i'm not sure if a CU would suffice or not. my concern is, humans being human, mistakes will be made in either the editing of existing laws to include appropriate CU verbiage or in writing additional laws. this will be expensive for the fed to accomplish and lengthy (in terms of writing and time). from my own personal experience, it's never an easy task, the old adage "all ya gotta do is" is never as simple as the sales guy thinks it is (i speak from an engineers perspective...LOL). i'd hate to see a couple strung up due to a verbiage error. i'd hate to see the extra expenses of rewriting laws or the costs involved when a mistake is made. i just think that allowing same sex couples to use the same terminology makes the most sense, is the expeditious means to grant everyone access to the same laws, protections and priviliges. others may feel or think differently. that's just my take on CU's.
Thank you. appreciate the input. In a sense the laws are already being rewritten now, or in some cases, gender specific terms are being deleted, and there is a difference in the nature of the union. I don't know the extent of the Colorado CU, but I would presume it is extensive.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184992 Mar 27, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
and a majority of those straight people support same sex marriage, I am one of them
No, you keep repeating that lie. It is not true. You just parrot the polls that you like, and ignore the ones that you dislike. I am out in the world more than most, and I know that few actually "support" it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184993 Mar 27, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
These being the polls presented by The Ministry Of Propaganda?
different polls from different organizations...

so far they are ranging anywhere from 53% to 60% in favor of same Sex marriage
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#184994 Mar 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Libertine-Istanbul" ..... That was funny. Salud!
:-D TY.

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
facetime? (gay guys only) (Jul '11) Nov 30 Chechi6 67
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Nov 29 SnottyGurl 24
News The Pass2 men charged with attempted murder in ... Nov 24 Cabazon 4real 1
David Thornton Sells Obama Salts For Millions. ... Oct '16 Patriot 1
News Teens protest legislation (Mar '06) Oct '16 never really a part 227
Obama does not want you to check for ill Att. c... Oct '16 Luke 1
Obama does not want you to check for ill Att. c... Oct '16 Luke 1

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages