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 (Page 8,350)

Showing posts 166,981 - 167,000 of200,244
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191200
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191201
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191202
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191203
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191204
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191205
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191206
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191207
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191208
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

El Monte, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191209
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191210
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191211
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191212
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191213
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191214
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191215
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191216
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191218
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191219
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191220
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 166,981 - 167,000 of200,244
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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

Search the Palm Springs Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 13 hr PMS will get yeah 7,821
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 18 hr all doned in 4,864
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Sat Big Juciey Pussie 630
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sat The right is wrong 2,225
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 11 This topics peaked 15,911
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Jul 6 Sandy 118
US: Afghan vote step forward on 'democratic path' Jul 4 Rho 9
•••
•••
•••
Palm Springs Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••