Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191204 May 7, 2013
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02...

The social divide over same-sex marriage rights was apparent even in the opinion issued Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional in California.

Judge N. Randy Smith, who was appointed to the 9th Circuit by President George W. Bush, dissented from the primary holding of Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins, both named to the court by Democratic presidents, that there was no legitimate governmental interest in depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry.

Governments have an interest in “a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples” because they are the only ones who can create children from their union, Smith said.

“The family structure of two committed biological parents -– one man and one woman -– is the optimal partnership for raising children,” Smith added.

He noted that states may legitimately prohibit bigamy, incest, bestiality and other sexual relationships condemned by society, as well as impose age limits for marriage or require tests for venereal disease without running afoul of constitutional rights.

“Gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class” and therefore aren’t entitled to the courts’ more vigilant scrutiny of laws that affect them, Smith said, citing a 22-year-old 9th Circuit ruling.

He also cited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in another landmark Supreme Court ruling on gay rights in 2003 in saying that governments have long sought to regulate behavior considered “immoral and unacceptable.”
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there was one out of the 5 so far that didnt agree... but I am not keeping count
I take holidays off, Saturnalia is one of my favorite holidays, you know the holiday they took over when they moved the birthdate because they could not stop people from decorating trees in their house and giving gifts for saturnalia. If you can’t beat em, join em I suppose.
Yes thousands, they do preform the ceremonies, but want them as legally valid as the other marriages they perform.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191205 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course all my children support same sex marriage, because we taught them proper values, freedom, equality and justice, they are patriots, and support those values like all patriots do.
Orrrrrrrrrrr....no dissension is allowed? All must toe the party line, comrade? If one of your children offered a dissenting opinion, would s/he be "reeducated"?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191206 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Orrrrrrrrrrr....no dissension is allowed? All must toe the party line, comrade? If one of your children offered a dissenting opinion, would s/he be "reeducated"?
You are free to decent all you want, there are a lot of people living in this country that do not agree with our nations values.

I am not the one that used that word

What I object to is your desire to remove freedom and justice from others. We have 2 classes of homosexual people now, those that are legally married, and those that wish to be legally married and cannot.

That wrong is about to be resolved.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191207 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co m/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-d ivide-evident-even-among-judge s-in-proposition-8-case.html
The social divide over same-sex marriage rights was apparent even in the opinion issued Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional in California.
Judge N. Randy Smith, who was appointed to the 9th Circuit by President George W. Bush, dissented from the primary holding of Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins, both named to the court by Democratic presidents, that there was no legitimate governmental interest in depriving gays and lesbians of the right to marry.
Governments have an interest in “a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples” because they are the only ones who can create children from their union, Smith said.
“The family structure of two committed biological parents -– one man and one woman -– is the optimal partnership for raising children,” Smith added.
He noted that states may legitimately prohibit bigamy, incest, bestiality and other sexual relationships condemned by society, as well as impose age limits for marriage or require tests for venereal disease without running afoul of constitutional rights.
“Gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class” and therefore aren’t entitled to the courts’ more vigilant scrutiny of laws that affect them, Smith said, citing a 22-year-old 9th Circuit ruling.
He also cited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in another landmark Supreme Court ruling on gay rights in 2003 in saying that governments have long sought to regulate behavior considered “immoral and unacceptable.”
<quoted text>
so I was close, one out of 4 judges ( including the original judge ) agrees with you, and the other 3 agree with me.

We will have a better count when the Supremes weigh in

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191208 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
What I object to is your desire to remove freedom and justice from others. We have 2 classes of homosexual people now, those that are legally married, and those that wish to be legally married and cannot.
That wrong is about to be resolved.
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.
SEE MOORE DUCK

United States

#191209 May 7, 2013
Your still Quackin on the same LAME Subject ? Why ? Its against GODS will, Fear the Lord. Althought he loves everyone,He cant tolerate sick SIN as this. DUDE Your going to HELL ! 4 Real. REPENT, NOW...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191210 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, not all were deemed "marriage", however, "gay marriage" is a modern western invention. Also same sex sexual behavior is not new. Why was there no sustained, with deep historical roots, cross cultural, cross time practice of same sex marriage, at least in Western Civilization?
You guys always want to base this issue on history.

Here's the thing... We participate in many social activities and have created new social institutions that do not have a firm basis in history.

Most modern, First World societies on the planet have some kind of compulsory education program for kids and teens. Though, looking back you'll find only scattered instances of compulsory education throughout the history of mankind. And the vast majority of those examples were closely tied to religion--not the sciences, math, language, etc.

Look at how women are treated in today's First World nations. Equality of the sexes has never been more pervasive than it is today.

Human rights and equality are also fairly modern concepts. Our current societies don't keep slaves. We strive to treat one another humanely. Folks are encouraged to explore new ideas. Freedom of speech, the freedom to travel, the freedom to own property, the freedom to worship (or not worship), the freedom from unjust laws and treatments are just a few of the widespread values that most modern day, Western cultures embrace.

Our economy is new. Cultures in the past relied heavily on agriculture and trade. Today, however, we buy and sell abstract ideas and technologies.

The bottom line is that our society today looks VERY different than societies of the past.

So why should we base the notion of marriage on the past? Why can't we embrace a new notion of marriage? It's not like marriage has remained static over the eons. There have been marriages between one man and one woman; one man and many women, arranged marriages, marriages based on love, marriages based on wealth. And has been pointed out numerous times, there have been same-sex marriage and various times in mankind's history.

Our ability to alter the current man-woman marriage arrangement SHOULD NOT be based on history.

History, in and of itself, SHOULD NOT define our current society, nor should it define our future society.

Fear of change is a bona-fide fear. But it does not mean that we should halt in our tracks. It does not mean that we should cling to the past.

If we allow the fear of change to overtake us, then our future is going to be pretty bleak.

Same-sex marriage will not impact anyone other than those same-sex couples who enter into marriage.

Stop being afraid of it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191211 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Narcissistic intent? LOL ( I will have to remember that one )
My children are not me, nor are or were they ever my property, nor my wife for that matter, if my intent was to create a duplicate of myself it was a dismal failure, or better, a fantastic success that they are not me.
Of course all my children support same sex marriage, because we taught them proper values, freedom, equality and justice, they are patriots, and support those values like all patriots do.
You are truly insufferable.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191212 May 7, 2013
MetKey wrote:
<quoted text>
You ask too many questions, phagg-oid. Just fellate and shut the F up.
That's what your daddy told you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191213 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to decent all you want...
I am decent. Thank you. You, not so much.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191214 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to decent all you want, there are a lot of people living in this country that do not agree with our nations values.
I am not the one that used that word
What I object to is your desire to remove freedom and justice from others. We have 2 classes of homosexual people now, those that are legally married, and those that wish to be legally married and cannot.
That wrong is about to be resolved.
And those that don't wish to be married. Wait, that's three...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191215 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
so I was close, one out of 4 judges ( including the original judge ) agrees with you, and the other 3 agree with me.
We will have a better count when the Supremes weigh in
They just weighed in!

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191216 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.
Imagine Big D's wrath if he voted for something and then a judge declared his vote null and void!

Big D would go into the nearest phone booth (Modesto still has them probably) and come out as Mighty D! The patriot! Fighting for truth justice and his way!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191218 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys always want to base this issue on history.
Here's the thing... We participate in many social activities and have created new social institutions that do not have a firm basis in history.
Most modern, First World societies on the planet have some kind of compulsory education program for kids and teens. Though, looking back you'll find only scattered instances of compulsory education throughout the history of mankind. And the vast majority of those examples were closely tied to religion--not the sciences, math, language, etc.
Look at how women are treated in today's First World nations. Equality of the sexes has never been more pervasive than it is today.
Human rights and equality are also fairly modern concepts. Our current societies don't keep slaves. We strive to treat one another humanely. Folks are encouraged to explore new ideas. Freedom of speech, the freedom to travel, the freedom to own property, the freedom to worship (or not worship), the freedom from unjust laws and treatments are just a few of the widespread values that most modern day, Western cultures embrace.
Our economy is new. Cultures in the past relied heavily on agriculture and trade. Today, however, we buy and sell abstract ideas and technologies.
The bottom line is that our society today looks VERY different than societies of the past.
So why should we base the notion of marriage on the past? Why can't we embrace a new notion of marriage? It's not like marriage has remained static over the eons. There have been marriages between one man and one woman; one man and many women, arranged marriages, marriages based on love, marriages based on wealth. And has been pointed out numerous times, there have been same-sex marriage and various times in mankind's history.
Our ability to alter the current man-woman marriage arrangement SHOULD NOT be based on history.
History, in and of itself, SHOULD NOT define our current society, nor should it define our future society.
Fear of change is a bona-fide fear. But it does not mean that we should halt in our tracks. It does not mean that we should cling to the past.
If we allow the fear of change to overtake us, then our future is going to be pretty bleak.
Same-sex marriage will not impact anyone other than those same-sex couples who enter into marriage.
Stop being afraid of it.
Way too wordy! Chop out 80% and repost. You can do it. It's crying out for heavy editing, don't make me do it!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191219 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.
Why do I keep having to explain to you that we are not an Athenian style democracy, we are a republic as well, a nation of law

A majority of brown eyes people could vote to deny the right to vote for the minority of blue eyed people and that too would be found unconstitutional

Don’t worry if the Supreme court gets it wrong, they will vote again, and Prop 8 will fall like a brick

But I don’t expect them to get it wrong

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191220 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I keep having to explain to you that we are not an Athenian style democracy, we are a republic as well, a nation of law
A majority of brown eyes people could vote to deny the right to vote for the minority of blue eyed people and that too would be found unconstitutional
Don’t worry if the Supreme court gets it wrong, they will vote again, and Prop 8 will fall like a brick
But I don’t expect them to get it wrong
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#191221 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.
What's radical is the belief that the majority thinks it gets to deny rights to the minority.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191222 May 7, 2013
Mathew629 wrote:
I think it's a sad day when a "Judge" can over take a majority vote, but still have swear before GOD to tell the truth. Are they not trying to be on both sides of the fence. Maybe there the ones in closet? Why does are money say in GOD we trust? Why is it every court room? HMMMMMM Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Steve? But it does say that Homosexual activity is an ABOMINATION. Just word up for you confused people out there that want have sex with your brother or sister...I know, how about we make it legal to have 20 wives, marry my mother and sleep with Dad...just as stupid
It's called judicial review, dumbass. That's the way our country works. Your Buybull is irrelevant to this discussion, or did you not learn about separation of church and State either?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191223 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.
Can you say Delaware?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191224 May 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are truly insufferable.
Tell us again how you are FOR gay marriage..........

We believe you..... sure we do....

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
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Dec 23 Mike 132
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
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 6:37 pm PST