Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,172

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

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190163 Apr 26, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You are not 'updating' it, you are undefining it.
Why don't ss couples have the courage and integrity to establish their own defined relationship? Instead, you insult intelligence by demanding everyone equate duplicate sterile couples with marriage.
Societal health has suffered dramatically with the demise of marriage commitment. Children are paying the greatest cost. You want to further that decline with a radical dilution of marriage and family.
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?

When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?

Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.

Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.

You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.

Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190164 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
actually yes it does, more child abuse and domestic violence is reported because in the bad old days, no one dared report it.
He that does evil, hateth the light ( gee you may know that phrase )
I know children that were saved from hateful and abusive parents, I know what the old days you pine for were, and we as a people free from that tynary are never, ever going back
Yeah right Big D, he pines for hateful and abusive parents, domestic violence and child abuse.

P.S. Learn how to spell tyranny. It's not a typo. You think it's spelled tynary.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190165 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
That was a marketing gimmick.
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
That was proof that love is ageless.:)
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
World record attempt, maybe?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
No, that was correcting a mistake.
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
True. Otherwise "gay marriage" wouldn't be an issue.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another.
They can do that now without the state's involvement.
It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
How do you know this?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190166 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.
Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
I still think they are desperately trying to preserve the holiness of Brittany Spears 3 day "just for fun" marriage

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190167 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
actually yes it does, more child abuse and domestic violence is reported because in the bad old days, no one dared report it.
He that does evil, hateth the light ( gee you may know that phrase )
I know children that were saved from hateful and abusive parents, I know what the old days you pine for were, and we as a people free from that tynary are never, ever going back
Actually, it is far worse, and not just because of better reporting. Nor is it just those two areas.

I like your quote, that's why I corrected your gay twirl.

Smile.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190168 Apr 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Updating it? How do you "update" it by eliminating one half of it, and duplicating the existing half? There's only two sexes. Marriage is a union of both of them.
<quoted text>
Why limit it to couples? Marriage, throughout human history has been either monogamous, or polygamous. Is it fair to deny those who love more than one, marital recognition?
<quoted text>
Again, why limit it to couples? Why maintain certain restrictions at all? If two men/women can marry in certain states, and those same states also allow first cousins to marry, why prohibit same sex siblings from marrying? There is no need to maintain such a restriction.
How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people.

And where is it written that changing one aspect of a law means ALL aspects are required to be changed? It's such a bogus argument. If I thought you had any sense, I'd expect you'd be embarrassed, but somehow YOU think it's a valid point. Yeah, right.....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190169 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.
Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
ARe you serious??? Hollywood is the basis of your counter? That's priceless.

Do you understand your choice of example only validates the inability of gays to judge marriage and family? No marriage honoring or caring parent would equate with those examples.

Amazingly stupid...

Smirk.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190170 Apr 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
-It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
-How do you know this?
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190171 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.
Nice XBox....did u write that last line yourself, or did your Mommy help you with the big words?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190172 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, there are many precedents for overturning laws based on ballot measures, you are in for some serious disappointments pretty soon.
We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.
GO read Article III and get back to me.

Then go study and understand the difference between the Federal and State Judiciary.

And "precedent" doesn't make something Constitutional, it is simply repeating the error.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190173 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>

We are not just a democracy, rule of the mob, we are a nation of law, a representative democratic republic.
We are a Constitutional Republic. The founders wanted nothing to do with democracy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190174 Apr 26, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I still think they are desperately trying to preserve the holiness of Brittany Spears 3 day "just for fun" marriage
Yeah right Big D. That's what they are desperately trying to do. Sure.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190175 Apr 26, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
When Kim Kardashian married Kris Humphries for 72 days, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Anna Nicole Smith, who met 85 year old oil tycoon, J. Howard Marshall, at the strip club where she performed and then married him, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
When the minister, Glynn "Scotty" Wolfe, married and divorced 29 times, were those cross cultural constraints on evolutionary mating behavior?
When Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander at The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas; only to have it annulled 55 hours later, was that a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior?
Face it, you boob, heterosexual marriage has been in decline for centuries. It has nothing to do with gays.
Perfectly normal, long-term gay couples wish to marry one another. It will have NO impact on marriage and families.
You have a cob up your jacksie about gays--that's all. You think we're "broken"--that we are genetic mistakes. You think these things even though you have no proof to back up your claims.
Get over it! Gays are normal, functioning, people. I would say that they're just like you, but that would be insulting to us.
If marriage is so f$cked up, why would you want to be a part of it? Kind of like buying a new car for MSRP with a blown engine if you ask me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190176 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people...
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190177 Apr 26, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
GO read Article III and get back to me.
Then go study and understand the difference between the Federal and State Judiciary.
And "precedent" doesn't make something Constitutional, it is simply repeating the error.
Read Article III? Big D don't need to read no stinking Articles!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190178 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have you made this stupid argument? Equal protection of the law. PLEASE explain how 5 people in a marriage are equal to two people.
How many times are you ignoring the equal protection of the husband AND wife within the marital relationship?
And where is it written that changing one aspect of a law means ALL aspects are required to be changed?
Think about the simple requirements that are in place now XBox. The participants have to consent, be of age, not closely related by blood other than first cousins in some states, not currently married, and of the opposite sex in most states. If the opposite sex requirement is dropped, there's no need to prohibit same sex siblings from marrying. No chance of pregnancy there.

If the nature, conjugality (as in husband and wife) of the marital relationship is no longer a requirement, why should the number be a requirement? Why prohibit certain pairings? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190179 Apr 26, 2013
marcus wrote:
<quoted text>
Simmer down there, queer-o. You two need to get a room and take it there.
Try and control yourself swizzlestick.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190180 Apr 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee.... why do you bother to get out of bed in the mornings if you are so afraid of the unknown. What a wuss.
Where did he say he was afraid of the unknown Miss Thing?
destinythecreato rr

Los Angeles, CA

#190181 Apr 26, 2013
Awww but my friend is bi

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190182 Apr 26, 2013
For those whom are too lazy to look it up themselves.

"
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." US Constitution Article III

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... Dec 18 Tracy 3
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 6:21 am PST