Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,146

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

#190652 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You make that statement as though anyone in American as the right to vote on others rights. Besides, you assume all the ignorant haters who voted against other American’s rights will be alive or able to do the same in the future. If you weren’t such an arrogant, self-important windbag you might pause long enough to realize that. The USA is changing whether you like it or not. And there will be Gay Marriage Rights in all 50 states whether you “vote” for it or it gets jammed down your throat. Pontificate on that douche bag.
Too funny!

Try and relax, Fruitcake.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190653 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Back in the days before widespread media access, the nation went from passing an amendment to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol to allowing the sale and use of alcohol in a period of 13 years.
That's a pretty quick change of heart for an entire nation, don't you think?
The pace of the momentum to support same-sex marriage has quickened over the past decade. People's minds have changed considerably, as indicated by every reliable statistic and poll on the subject.
What people felt about gays and gay rights ten years ago have changed. You can't deny that.
The LGBT Community and its allies have made great headway into demystifying who we are. So many of us have come out of the closet that most people now either have a family member or know someone closely who is gay.
One of the few positive outcomes of the HIV/AIDS crisis over the past 30 years has been to bring LGBT issues to the forefront. Since the disease largely began in the gay male community, we had to fight for political recognition in order to get adequate medical care and benefits that would help those who were suffering from the disease.
Rights and protections for LGBT people are now on the minds of most Americans. They either oppose them or support them. But unlike times in the past, they are at the very least thinking about LGBT issues.
That's progress...
Look... We all know where this is going to end. Same-Sex marriages will be legal throughout the U.S. within the decade, if not sooner. About 12 of the 25 First World Nations have passed laws that legalize Same-Sex Marriage.
Can you see a trend?
It's only a matter of time.
Too wordy.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190657 May 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it funny how you base the quality of a Supreme Court decision on if you get your way or not and not on the constitutionality of the decision?
BTW, your opinion on the direction of this country is irrelevant to this discussion. The Constitution isn't changed by social changes, it is changed through the Amendment process.
Oh, and another thing. If the SCOTUS upholds DOMA based on the opinion of the lower court which is- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LACKS THE ENUMERATED POWER TO DEFINE MARRIAGE, IT IS A STATE ISSUE PER THE 10th AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION-- how then can they possibly mandate, as a federal entity, to the State how it defines marriage? The two decision are completely contradictory.
1.) You keep saying that the Constitution isn't changed by way of social input. Rather, there is a specific process through which change must occur. However, where do you think the specific process begins? I'll tell you... It's through grassroots efforts, election processes, and political wins that put lawmakers in power to amend the Constitution.

2.) You say that marriage is a states issue. But when the Supreme Court heard the Loving case, they found that the state of Virginia's laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Their decision didn't change state laws, but it in essence made them unenforceable.

3.) The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution. And any activity that occurs in the U.S. is open for interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Court would be within its power to look at the law in CA that denies same-sex couples the right to marry and determine that it is Unconstitutional--just like in the Loving case.

4.) If states then want to try to muster the power to create an Amendment against same-sex marriage, then good luck with that. It failed before 7 years ago and failed under what was probably one of the most conservative points in recent history. I just don't think the political atmosphere is such that an amendment would pass now.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190658 May 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Too wordy.
Frances, you're making a fool of yourself again...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190659 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, I just adore when you respond in this way. It only makes you seem more bizarre with each passing day.
At what point do I "lie".
You asked a question and I answered it.
Do you know of any pair of legal contracts that are exactly the same in every way, but are called by completely different names?
They are not 'exactly the same in every way'.

I listed several of numerous core differences.

To deny those differences,'husband and wife' was changed to partners. There is an attempt to deny the terms 'mother and father' also.

Moreover, you again dumb down marriage to a 'contract'? How romantic.

You know these things VV, but sell your soul to deny reality and pretend. The simplest thing in the world is to keep putting simple points of reality on the table and watch your gay twirl hissy fits squirm.

Smirk.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#190660 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not 'exactly the same in every way'.
I listed several of numerous core differences.
To deny those differences,'husband and wife' was changed to partners. There is an attempt to deny the terms 'mother and father' also.
Moreover, you again dumb down marriage to a 'contract'? How romantic.
You know these things VV, but sell your soul to deny reality and pretend. The simplest thing in the world is to keep putting simple points of reality on the table and watch your gay twirl hissy fits squirm.
Smirk.
Are you still tilting at the gay windmills?

Will you invite me to your imaginary victory celebration?

Snark.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190661 May 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still tilting at the gay windmills?
Will you invite me to your imaginary victory celebration?
Snark.
Yes.

No.

Smile.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#190662 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
No.
Smile.
It's OK. I wouldn't attend.

What would I wear?

;p

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#190664 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.
1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.
2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.
Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.
This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?
I wouldn't use the word Monster, why monster? are we living in an anime. Mutation?, may be, but really I think diversity, genetic rarity. Monster has obvious negative implications and mutation, well were you born with regular DNA then something happened to change it. You've said chimera, I'm thinking this is what I call mosaic: a variable mix of XX and XY in any given sample. If that's the case then why use the term monster mutation, other than for dramatic effect. Well, you have the right to call yourself what you like, I was questioning the mental health of it, but then if you're happy I suppose it doesn't matter. Personally I call myself Intersexed with a genetic mosaic.
Back to the gay subject and marriage...
I've read your repeats on anal sex and yes, I disagree. If it was a complete afront to nature and design then it wouldn't feel good, and yes it does to many. To those who like it it isn't demeaning and is not inherently harmful, as this to me implies harm is a given which it is not.
SS couples did try with their own alternative to marriage and that was 'Civil partnerships'. I do agree this would have been a good thing and in some ways better than extending traditional marriage to everybody, but it ended up being a second class marriage, with many of the legal rights and attitudes afforded marriage not afforded to couples in civil partnerships. I think this is why the GLB then set their sights on marriage. In a way I do see your point about marriage being changed so much with the inclusion of SS as to be unrecognisable, but like I said from a personal viewpoint if this is the way things are going (and it's come so far now, with SSM being legal in so many places) then I look at a potential bonus positive of oneday having the wording of man and woman replaced with two people and so including not only the trans community but intersex too.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190665 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not 'exactly the same in every way'.
I listed several of numerous core differences.
To deny those differences,'husband and wife' was changed to partners. There is an attempt to deny the terms 'mother and father' also.
Moreover, you again dumb down marriage to a 'contract'? How romantic.
You know these things VV, but sell your soul to deny reality and pretend. The simplest thing in the world is to keep putting simple points of reality on the table and watch your gay twirl hissy fits squirm.
Smirk.
You said that we should pursue our own legal relationship status with our own set of benefits and protections.

Same-Sex Couples will pursue the exact same set of benefits and protections that Opposite-Sex Couples possess in marriage.

So, our relationships would be identical in every way to your relationships from a legal standpoint.

That being the case, you would have two identical contracts with different names (if you get your way).

Name two other legal contracts that are identical in every way, except in name.

Answer the question.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#190666 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that we should pursue our own legal relationship status with our own set of benefits and protections.
Same-Sex Couples will pursue the exact same set of benefits and protections that Opposite-Sex Couples possess in marriage.
So, our relationships would be identical in every way to your relationships from a legal standpoint.
That being the case, you would have two identical contracts with different names (if you get your way).
Name two other legal contracts that are identical in every way, except in name.
Answer the question.
Kuntmary already knows that the battle is lost. She's merely being obtuse as a means to fill the great void in zher personal life.
Rock Hudson

Washington, DC

#190667 May 1, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax, Hater.
Hush,child.
Rock Hudson

Washington, DC

#190668 May 1, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get you panties in a twist, Hater. Just Relax.
We all know that you could contribute to the debate. Maybe, one day, you'll get your chance...
Rock Hudson

Washington, DC

#190669 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do all straight people speak for you? Are there differing opinions re: same-sex marriage within the straight community? Why would you think that all gay people speak with a unified voice?
You guys have Obummer to speak for you. He spent more time on the phone, congratulating your latest cracked egg, than he did on the phone with families of victims..
Boston..
Benghazi..
Etc..
I even heard a lesbian from Denver, yesterday, on the radio, blasting Jason Collins, for being a coward, "priming the talk show pump" (as she put it) and questioning the need for any of you to come out, at all. A big publicity stunt. "Sexualizing everything" was the phrase I heard, and "robbing kids of their innocence", as well, 13 year olds, needing to focus more on orientation, than the game...
Hmm.. As I've said before. We always congratulate the broken ones for admitting their flaws in public. Hence, the big "I'm proud of you" speeches..
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190670 May 1, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Kuntmary already knows that the battle is lost. She's merely being obtuse as a means to fill the great void in zher personal life.
I find that amusing as well, they know they have already lost. Now it is only a matter of time. But they keep beating their chests and holding onto pipe dreams that are impossible.

And the more they promote hate, the further down the drain their churches go.

It just does not sell as well as it used to
LatterDays

Covina, CA

#190671 May 1, 2013
Look now it will soon become the new norm across the land.

Midnight marriage unions for gay couples as Colorado law takes effect.

Get to know your Mormon next door, political come back attempt after their "full Exposure" in their leader calling himself Mitt Romney's attempt at becoming the president of the USA.

Suggest you do what you do best, take multiple wives and produce kids coming out the diaper pail.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190673 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Frances, you're making a fool of yourself again...
Promoting true marriage equality makes one look like a fool in veryvermillion La La Happy Land?

Red, You're looking stupid again.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190674 May 1, 2013
LatterDays wrote:
Look now it will soon become the new norm across the land.
Midnight marriage unions for gay couples as Colorado law takes effect.
Get to know your Mormon next door, political come back attempt after their "full Exposure" in their leader calling himself Mitt Romney's attempt at becoming the president of the USA.
Suggest you do what you do best, take multiple wives and produce kids coming out the diaper pail.
You're being paged jackass.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190675 May 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that we should pursue our own legal relationship status with our own set of benefits and protections.
Same-Sex Couples will pursue the exact same set of benefits and protections that Opposite-Sex Couples possess in marriage.
So, our relationships would be identical in every way to your relationships from a legal standpoint.
That being the case, you would have two identical contracts with different names (if you get your way).
Name two other legal contracts that are identical in every way, except in name.
Answer the question.
And the name is what they fear... they are frightened half to death.. by a word.

The name does not belong to them, many religions and non-religious use the same word, that word is not their personal property, and from a recognition perspective, it is a legal term.

Our laws are applied equally ( or are supposed to be ) regardless of Race, Creed, Color, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin.
Earl

Phoenix, AZ

#190676 May 1, 2013
LatterDays wrote:
Look now it will soon become the new norm across the land.
Midnight marriage unions for gay couples as Colorado law takes effect.
Get to know your Mormon next door, political come back attempt after their "full Exposure" in their leader calling himself Mitt Romney's attempt at becoming the president of the USA.
Suggest you do what you do best, take multiple wives and produce kids coming out the diaper pail.
So it's not okay to attack someone for being gay, but it is okay to attack someone's religion?

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
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) 2 hr Jeans gay 4
mexican landscapers dump in the desert 21 hr Alex 13
Review: Simple Cash Sat NoLongerTheirClient 1
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Fri A Ha 152
Desert Hot Springs Missing Out On Revenue Nov 20 Dale 5
Review: Coachella Valley Collection Service Nov 18 Socochick 1
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Nov 13 Pussie Hole 715

High Wind Warning for Riverside County was issued at November 23 at 4:00AM PST

Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match

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 12:04 pm PST