Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,188

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
MetKey

Covina, CA

#191189 May 7, 2013
Someone take the can key away from Rizzio's, they keep getting out of the SPAM CAN.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191190 May 7, 2013
MetKey wrote:
Someone take the can key away from Rizzio's, they keep getting out of the SPAM CAN.
We kept trying to get him back on his meds, but have given up.

Best to just not encourage him
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191192 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
We kept trying to get him back on his meds, but have given up.
Best to just not encourage him
Get him back on his meds ha ha so funny.

Great new buddy you have there. What's his name?
Mathew629

Crested Butte, CO

#191193 May 7, 2013
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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191194 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
Not "A judge" but nearly every judge that has looked at the case so far agrees it is not constitutional, and a growing number of voters now agree, into the majority of voters now. Even if the Supreme Court does not make the right decision, it is now a simple matter to put it back on the ballot and Prop 8 will fall like a brick.

Religion is an abomination, but we put up with you

You are free to make all the rules you want for whatever sect of religion you belong to, but you are not going to set the rules for people not of your religion, just as we will not let some other religion set rules for you.

There are literally thousands of churches out there that want to preform same sex marriage, where is your outrage for their religious freedom?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191195 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
By the way,, I have been to court on a Jury lately, they don’t have you swear to any God or put your hand on any religious book, they just have you affirm you will tell the truth.

No mention of anyone’s god or goddesses or volcanos or whatever deity you want to believe in
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191196 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
Why not?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191197 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "A judge" but nearly every judge that has looked at the case so far agrees it is not constitutional, and a growing number of voters now agree, into the majority of voters now. Even if the Supreme Court does not make the right decision, it is now a simple matter to put it back on the ballot and Prop 8 will fall like a brick.
How many are "nearly"?
Religion is an abomination, but we put up with you
You are free to make all the rules you want for whatever sect of religion you belong to, but you are not going to set the rules for people not of your religion, just as we will not let some other religion set rules for you.
So u won't be taking Christmas as a day off from work?
There are literally thousands of churches out there that want to preform same sex marriage, where is your outrage for their religious freedom?
"Thousands"? Really? So who is stopping them from performing a religious wedding ceremony?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191198 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Good God, where are your reasoning skills? Did you ever take a basic philosophy class? Have you had any exposure to scientific reasoning?
The author of the piece that you cited gave several possible explanations for the presence of homosexuality in our society. None of them are conclusive.
Try to find out why it is that some people have blonde hair while others don't. Scientists aren't sure. They believe that fair skin and hair colors developed fairly recently--within the past 50,000 years. But they are not sure as to why this occurred.
Since scientists aren't certain of the purpose of hair color, should we assume that anyone with blonde or red hair is a defective aberration?
You cannot arrive at this conclusion.
2.) Gays have been identified in over 130 Native American and Canadian First Nations communities. They were called "berdaches" by some. We know them today as "Two Spirits". Their roles included:
--healers or medicine persons
--conveyors of oral traditions and songs (Yuki)
--foretellers of the future (Winnebago, Oglala Lakota)
--conferrers of lucky names on children or adults (Oglala Lakota, Tohono O'odham)
--nurses during war expeditions
--potters (Zuni, Navajo, Tohono O'odham)
--matchmakers (Cheyenne, Omaha, Oglala Lakota)
--makers of feather regalia for dances (Maidu)
--special role players in the Sun Dance (Crow, Hidatsa, Oglala Lakota)
"In the ancient Assyrian society, if a man were to have sex with another man of equal status or a cult prostitute, it was thought that trouble will leave him and he will have good fortune. Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships. Freely pictured art of anal intercourse, practiced as part of a religious ritual, dated from the 3rd millennium B.C and onwards. Homosexuality was an integral part of temple life in parts of Mesopotamia."
"Homosexuality in China, known as the passions of the cut peach and various other euphemisms has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. Homosexuality was mentioned in many famous works of Chinese literature.
Homosexuality has been acknowledged in China since ancient times. Scholar Pan Guangdan came to the conclusion that nearly every emperor in the Han Dynasty had one or more male sex partners."
"According to Aristotle, although most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers."
"In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were, until the middle of the last century, an integral part of the culture. The Etoro and Marind-anim for example, even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead."
-------
And don't get me started on homosexuality in modern culture. Obviously homosexuality is considered by scientists to be a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexual expression.
Finally, your link is broken... I attempted to read whatever article you placed in your post, but I reached an "error page".
Try again...
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?
ITs A blast

Covina, CA

#191199 May 7, 2013
News reporters from Persian reporter:

Local residents heard blasts in Iranian capital in an area where Iran carries out missile research and storage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191200 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How many are "nearly"?
<quoted text>
So u won't be taking Christmas as a day off from work?
<quoted text>
"Thousands"? Really? So who is stopping them from performing a religious wedding ceremony?
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.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#191201 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a wrote;
2. A ss couple ALWAYS deprives a child of one parental role. To do so deliberately should be criminal. It is narcissistically diabolical.
Stocking wrote:
I would say most couples having children has some basis in narcissism.
<quoted text>
In other words, you assert every couple having children does so with a narcissistic intent, therefore justifying a narcissistic ss couple depriving a child of one parent. Really?
How do you think the child will feel about that?
I hoped to find a reasoned response with you, but the denial and avoidance is so disappointing again.
'Every couple... with a narcissistic intent' makes it sound malicious. No. But I do think there is a certain amount (however much that may be will be vastly variable) involved. People often express having children in ways which suggest it for what it is - reproduction. To want to reproduce yourselves is a just a touch narcissistic; as is wanting a part of yourself to live on in the future as an abstract way of immortality. No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and wanting to do so is a natural instinct and being enough narcissistic to think of oneself as alright enough to contribute to another is very psychologically healthy. It's merely a suggestion of one (one of many) reasons people wish to have children.
There are many ways of 'depriving' a child of a parent not just SS and not just the physical absence from that child's life. It isn't a perfect world and relationships aren't perfect. With any perceived disadvantage to that child there are always (often unanticipated) advantages within the uniqueness of each persons upbringing. To say it's wrong per-se is to over generalise, I think. Sometimes unidealised conditions (within a limited reasonable amount, ie, not talking about abuse/neglect) is character building and makes for uniqueness. And no I don't see a SSM producing abuse/neglect as you seem to. I really don't imagine the two can be comparable. Like I said before, may be one of the problems of adjustment a child has with two SS parents is society's attitude to it.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191202 May 7, 2013
Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
'Every couple... with a narcissistic intent' makes it sound malicious. No. But I do think there is a certain amount (however much that may be will be vastly variable) involved. People often express having children in ways which suggest it for what it is - reproduction. To want to reproduce yourselves is a just a touch narcissistic; as is wanting a part of yourself to live on in the future as an abstract way of immortality. No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and wanting to do so is a natural instinct and being enough narcissistic to think of oneself as alright enough to contribute to another is very psychologically healthy. It's merely a suggestion of one (one of many) reasons people wish to have children.
There are many ways of 'depriving' a child of a parent not just SS and not just the physical absence from that child's life. It isn't a perfect world and relationships aren't perfect. With any perceived disadvantage to that child there are always (often unanticipated) advantages within the uniqueness of each persons upbringing. To say it's wrong per-se is to over generalise, I think. Sometimes unidealised conditions (within a limited reasonable amount, ie, not talking about abuse/neglect) is character building and makes for uniqueness. And no I don't see a SSM producing abuse/neglect as you seem to. I really don't imagine the two can be comparable. Like I said before, may be one of the problems of adjustment a child has with two SS parents is society's attitude to it.
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.
MetKey

Los Angeles, CA

#191203 May 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
You ask too many questions, phagg-oid. Just fellate and shut the F up.

“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...

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
Review: Law Office Of Geoffrey M. Yaryan Sat gmyaryan 1
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Oct 15 Ramya 151
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Oct 8 Terry 126
Riverside County DA, let's two bad guys go free. Oct 4 Bill H 1
child molester at large in dhs Sep 25 Karen Wood 1
Review: Soho Sep 24 Mrs Matthew Olson 1
Perrotte gains support for early release (Jun '07) Sep 20 ET SNELL 26
Palm Springs Dating
Find my Match

Palm Springs Jobs

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 ]