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
164,641 - 164,660 of 200,602 Comments Last updated Yesterday
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188606
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it mention Martians and Venusians? Why yes it did! Because men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and you're from Uranus!
I just couldn't resist.:)
Nope didn’t mention Polygamy either but it did mention Man and Woman, a direct slap in the face of those that want to marry Space Aliens of different sexes :)

So we are settled, prop 8 was as much about Marrying Space aliens as it was about poly
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188607
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.ejssb.org/4.html
Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
The claims and interests of those engaging in samesex sex (SS) roil Western civilization. Effective, clearheaded public policy requires sound empirical information about this behavior, including the psychology and demographics of those who practice SS, medical and public health aspects of SS, social and cultural ramifications of SS, etc. Though there are scientific journals that publish some empirical studies and reviews about human SS, no journal is solely dedicated to its empirical study. The Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior (EJSSB) aims to fill this void.
EJSSB was conceptualized by Dr. Paul Cameron and Dr. George Rekers in late 2006. Both felt that a pall of censorship had descended upon academia, and an unbiased peer-reviewed journal — editorially, neither dedicated to, nor in opposition to, gay rights — was needed. A clear illustration of this censorship occurred in the on-line version of Pediatrics. When Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron first submitted ‘Problems With Pawelski, et al’s Article on the Well-Being of Children of Homosexuals’ to Pediatrics ( aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/118/1/349 , 2006), it was published immediately and remained on the website for a couple of months. A member of the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted another critique and it too was published — briefly. Both then disappeared. After multiple attempts to get these articles reinstated — as per the claimed policy of Pediatrics — it became clear that inclusion of facts not in accord with the pro-gay rights stance of the journal (indeed, generally better facts) would not be permitted. This kind of censorship is diametrically opposed to what science and free inquiry are all about. Further, in this instance, professionals dealing with children were exposed to a one-sided, prohomosexual set of poor research. Not telling the ‘whole truth’ has consequences for any society.
Being empirical rather than theoretical, studies published in EJSSB will generally use descriptive rather than diagnostic or political language. We agree with Ludwig von Mises that:“...as long as we do not know how external facts — physical and physiological — produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountable methodological dualism.…“Reason and experience show us two separate realms: the external world of physical, chemical, and physiological phenomena and the internal world of thought, feeling, valuation, and purposeful action....“Identical external events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why.…“Human action is one of the agencies bringing about change. It is an element of cosmic activity and becoming. Therefore it is a legitimate object of scientific investigation. As — at least under present conditions — it cannot be traced back to its causes, it must be considered as an ultimate given and must be studied as such.”(Human Action, 1949)
Paul Cameron and George Rekers are both closet queens and discredited quacks. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for your propaganda artists, because that's all they are.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188608
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 bans polygamy too. You are now dishonestly attempting to change the argument from the effect of prop 8 to the purpose of prop 8. Just like you do with procreation.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. You are dishonest.
Yes it bans things that were already banned like poly and marrying space aliens of sexes other than Man or Woman
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188609
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Still stuck on stupid, I see.
What part of polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8 don't you understand? It will remain illegal after Prop 8.
If prop 8 remains in force will polygamy ever be legal in California Miss Thing?

If the other few laws against polygamy are repealed, and they should be, but Prop 8 stays in force, will polygamy be legal Miss Thing? No? Why not?

Let me help you- Because prop 8 prohibits polygamy! It's a simple concept really.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188610
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul Cameron and George Rekers are both closet queens and discredited quacks. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for your propaganda artists, because that's all they are.
It does show that the abbreviation "SSSB" is an actual abbreviation and in use
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188611
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it bans things that were already banned like poly and marrying space aliens of sexes other than Man or Woman
No it doesn't even mention space aliens, don't be stupid. It bans same sex and poly marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188612
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul Cameron and George Rekers are both closet queens and discredited quacks. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for your propaganda artists, because that's all they are.
Is being a "queen" bad? You are an old queen, aren't you? Are queens to be discredited due solely to their queen status?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188613
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope didn’t mention Polygamy either but it did mention Man and Woman, a direct slap in the face of those that want to marry Space Aliens of different sexes :)
So we are settled, prop 8 was as much about Marrying Space aliens as it was about poly
One man one woman only. Means no poly, no same sex. Stop being stupid.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188615
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is being a "queen" bad? You are an old queen, aren't you? Are queens to be discredited due solely to their queen status?
Closet queens who write anti-gay propaganda while they are sneaking around sucking dick are HARDLY paragons of virtue.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188616
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,“what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example,“with respect to the number of people ... that could get married?”

In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.

The Court has said, he contended, that polygamy raises “questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody” and therefore “is an entirely different thing” than same-sex marriage. Moreover, Olson argued, when a “state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct,” but if “it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.”

Justice Sotomayor’s concerns about the possibility of a path from same-sex marriage to polygamy may arise from the fact that there is already a case in federal court challenging Utah’s anti-bigamy law as unconstitutional. In any event, she should be just as concerned about this question after oral argument as she was before it, because none of Olson’s distinctions can reasonably justify a prohibition on polygamy if the Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To see why, it’s first useful to note a crucial distinction that Olson overlooked, as well as the most famous Supreme Court case regarding polygamy, which he failed to mention.
Olson’s words to the Court suggest that the state somehow “forbids” same-sex marriage today just as it “forbids” polygamy. This is not true, as Adam MacLeod noted on Public Discourse earlier this week. Under current law and Supreme Court precedent, no state has constitutional authority to punish anyone for entering into a same-sex relationship. No state in fact “prohibits” same-sex marriage. If any persons wish to enter into such a relationship and call it a marriage, they are perfectly free to do so.

The real issue, the real complaint in the case that Olson represents, is that the state simply refuses to bestow on same-sex unions the same recognition that it gives to heterosexual marriages. In stark contrast, the law in many American jurisdictions not only refuses to recognize polygamous marriages; it actively punishes them. Enter into a same-sex marriage and the government will simply ignore you. Enter into a polygamous marriage and the law permits the government to prosecute you for a crime.

Unlike the distinctions Olson raised, this one is real, and it positively undermines his assurance that we can have same-sex marriage while still banning polygamy. Common sense makes it hard to see how this could be done.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188617
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.ejssb.org/4.html
Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
The claims and interests of those engaging in samesex sex (SS) roil Western civilization. Effective, clearheaded public policy requires sound empirical information about this behavior, including the psychology and demographics of those who practice SS, medical and public health aspects of SS, social and cultural ramifications of SS, etc. Though there are scientific journals that publish some empirical studies and reviews about human SS, no journal is solely dedicated to its empirical study. The Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior (EJSSB) aims to fill this void.
EJSSB was conceptualized by Dr. Paul Cameron and Dr. George Rekers in late 2006. Both felt that a pall of censorship had descended upon academia, and an unbiased peer-reviewed journal — editorially, neither dedicated to, nor in opposition to, gay rights — was needed. A clear illustration of this censorship occurred in the on-line version of Pediatrics. When Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron first submitted ‘Problems With Pawelski, et al’s Article on the Well-Being of Children of Homosexuals’ to Pediatrics ( aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/118/1/349 , 2006), it was published immediately and remained on the website for a couple of months. A member of the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted another critique and it too was published — briefly. Both then disappeared. After multiple attempts to get these articles reinstated — as per the claimed policy of Pediatrics — it became clear that inclusion of facts not in accord with the pro-gay rights stance of the journal (indeed, generally better facts) would not be permitted. This kind of censorship is diametrically opposed to what science and free inquiry are all about. Further, in this instance, professionals dealing with children were exposed to a one-sided, prohomosexual set of poor research. Not telling the ‘whole truth’ has consequences for any society.
Being empirical rather than theoretical, studies published in EJSSB will generally use descriptive rather than diagnostic or political language. We agree with Ludwig von Mises that:“...as long as we do not know how external facts — physical and physiological — produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountable methodological dualism.…“Reason and experience show us two separate realms: the external world of physical, chemical, and physiological phenomena and the internal world of thought, feeling, valuation, and purposeful action....“Identical external events result sometimes in different human responses, and different external events produce sometimes the same human response. We do not know why.…“Human action is one of the agencies bringing about change. It is an element of cosmic activity and becoming. Therefore it is a legitimate object of scientific investigation. As — at least under present conditions — it cannot be traced back to its causes, it must be considered as an ultimate given and must be studied as such.”(Human Action, 1949)
Did you know that Dr. George Rekers had to bow out of the Family Research Institute after he was found to have employed the services of a paid male escort (i.e.: prostitute) to accompany him to Europe?

The escort spilled the beans--including the nude massages and sex that took place.

Your dear Dr. Rekers is a big, old queen, honey! He's a self-loathing queen, but he's a queen nonetheless.

And Dr. Paul Cameron is so far up the Family Research Institute's ass that he can't be taken seriously.

I mean really... Is this the best you can come up with?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188618
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It does show that the abbreviation "SSSB" is an actual abbreviation and in use
Same sex sexual behavior? Wow? Did we invent something new? I don't think so.'Sexual behavior' is an adequate phrase, unless, of course, your intent is to demonize.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188619
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

In Olson’s view, the state may not officially prefer heterosexual marriage by a policy so mild that it does nothing other than to leave same-sex couples alone while declining to formally recognize their unions. By what reasoning, then, could it have a right to prefer some definition of marriage by actually punishing those who choose to disregard it?

Moreover, in his summary of what the Supreme Court has “said” about polygamy, Olson omitted to mention the single most famous case dealing with this question, Reynolds v. United States (1879). In that case the Court upheld the federal law forbidding polygamy in the territories of the United States, and declined to find that the free exercise clause immunizes those who practice it for religious reasons.

Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice. This raises a serious problem for the defenders of same-sex marriage.

A number of the Court’s precedents defending a “right of privacy” have already strongly undermined the idea that the majority’s moral convictions are a sufficient basis for law. If the Court finds a right to same-sex marriage, it will practically dismantle the whole concept of morals legislation. But if moral preference for heterosexual marriage cannot be a reasonable basis on which to afford it a formal recognition denied to other unions, then how can moral disapproval be a reasonable ground on which to forbid and punish polygamy?

Let us turn now from the distinctions Olson overlooked to the ones he emphasized. In the first place, Olson contended that polygamy raises serious concerns about “exploitation,”“abuse,” and “patriarchy” that aren’t relevant to same-sex marriage. Presumably he was referring to the “abuse” and “exploitation” of the children and perhaps wives of plural marriages. Yet, under the constitutional theory of marriage Olson has tried to sell, none of these considerations would be sufficient to forbid polygamy. Olson insists that marriage is a fundamental right. Standard Supreme Court doctrine holds that fundamental rights can only be infringed to defend a “compelling state interest” and that the regulations made to protect that interest must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
Everyone would concede that prevention of abuse and exploitation of children and wives is a compelling state interest. On the other hand, nobody would contend that such abuse and exploitation is the very essence of polygamy. After all, abuse and exploitation can be found in monogamous marriages, too. The most one could say is that these problems are dangers to which polygamous unions are more or less prone. In any case, under the “fundamental rights” doctrine on which Olson relies, the least restrictive means to remedy such dangers would be to recur to already existing laws punishing such abuse and exploitation, rather than going so far as to ban polygamy altogether.

Olson may also have been hinting that the state could reasonably fear that abuse and exploitation of children is more likely to arise in families where the children are not related by blood to all of their parents. This is a reasonable concern, but it could be raised just as easily in relation to same-sex marriages, where at best, only one parent can be biologically related to each child.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188620
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it bans things that were already banned like poly and marrying space aliens of sexes other than Man or Woman
What about Uranusians?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188621
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or..... is this a veggie burger or a hamburger? Soooooo....in states where SSM is legal, what pronouncement does the state make? "Husband and husband", "wife and wife", "spouses for life", "I prounounce you married",etc?
Is this an important issue? I dunno, I suppose I could ask my nephew what happened. They went to a JoP for their marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh....they want to. For love, companionship, create and raise children, money, etc. DOes it matter to anyone but the two people involved as long as they're consenting adults? No state, as far as I know, requires a statment of orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license. Perhaps it should so as to prevent people marrying outside their orientation.
The above sums it up for missus sheesh and myself. Except the children part. Money is sort of involved because I didn't want my brother's meddling wives to try a grab ass on anything I've accumulated. Both are doing just that with my mother's stuff. And she's still alive!
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
More than likely. Gay men don't seem to marry at the same rates as lesbians though.
Do we have statistics on this? Scratch that, found this Huffington Post article via google.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz...
Apparently, women in general are more up for marriage than men are. The article offers several potential contributing factors.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>>
Actually so she could, I was born here.....that's silly we both were but thanks for asking.
Yer welcome.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of love? Romantic? Platonic? Friendship? etc. Suppose a couple were only marrying for the sake of "like" would the state still issue a marriage license?
Looks to be romantic love is the major driving force.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws can and do change, sometimes by court order. Please explain how barring an opposite sex pair of siblings from marrying based on the possiblity of sexual reproduction, should be applied to same sex siblings when no such possibility exists?
I'm not the one bringing incest into the equation. I suspect the number of siblings wanting to get hitched is surprisingly minute.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the honesty, appreciated it. However, there is no compelling state interest. Society can function without men marrying men/women marrying women, and has throughout the history of the republic. If marriage is nothing more than a means by which two people, or more live thier intimate personal sexual lives with government recognition and benefits, then there's no reason to deny "marriage" to a variety of consenting adult relationships.
Perhaps the state would like to see less congestion in the courts due to battles from families not wanting their deceased gay son's lover to get anything. Perhaps gaining access to marriage would make them more accepted in general, thus reducing some of the stupidity that occurs when rednecks see two men holding hands.
\
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a legal, cultural, historical, traditional, conjugal, and/or relgious, union of husband and wife, recognized in all fifty states, and by the federal government, and around the world. It's creation dates back thousands of years, and is evident in some form, as a male female relationship, in virutally all human societies throughout history. A Civil union is a modern western legal relationship structure created to accomodate same sex pairings/couples. Yes, I know the difference.
Yet, according to the article, couples would rather marry than enter into a civil union. By the article it appears we can expect SSM divorce rates to be similar to hetero couples.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188622
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Closet queens who write anti-gay propaganda while they are sneaking around sucking dick are HARDLY paragons of virtue.
But if your problem is only their credibility, why do you stress their sexuality?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188623
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex sexual behavior? Wow? Did we invent something new? I don't think so.'Sexual behavior' is an adequate phrase, unless, of course, your intent is to demonize.
Or glorify.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188624
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But if your problem is only their credibility, why do you stress their sexuality?
Because it speaks to their motivation to lie. Damn, are you completely stupid?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188625
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Or glorify.
n your case, stupify.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188627
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it speaks to their motivation to lie. Damn, are you completely stupid?
No. I am not stupid.

They are motivated to lie because they are gay?

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 Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Ocean breeze 4,993
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 3 hr Browser 15,957
City Manager Martin Magana hires Charles "Chuck... Fri Dr_Zorderz 16
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Aug 19 Ned 123
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Aug 18 Mudflys to 7,901
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Aug 17 Vivian Was Always... 685
Taggers: (Feb '06) Aug 11 endamerikkkascurr... 247

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••