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 8,370)

Showing posts 167,381 - 167,400 of200,231
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Clay

El Centro, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191655
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Excellent point and good observation on your part.It seems these sodomite judges think we cannot vote something up or down, the Judge has to step in and nullify the wishes of the majority of the citizens of California. So that's 1 man equals 38,041,430 citizen votes. A very valid question too, Why should I vote, when 1 man is going to take it away. A wasted vote on a very important issue in this state of sodomites.
WHY VOTE wrote:
Ok, I don't really care if same sex people get married or are together in any capacity. I am for equal rights BUT.......... I am very annoyed that peoples votes don't mean anything anymore. What happened to a majority vote rules? What happened to the peoples voice?
My stance on this has nothing to do with same sex couples. This is just the latest thing a court has overturned or blocked that THE PEOPLE voted for. Look at AZ., look back at prop. 187 which would have saved is billions in illegal immigrant funding. The people of the USA are trying to make changes to better our country and the few judges are effectively disenfranchising us.
Again this is not directed at same sex couples it is major frustration over the majority loosing there voice.
WHY VOTE????

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191656
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If two men enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
If two women enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
Not in 32 states. The point is men are treated like men, and women like women. Marriage, in those 32 states is a union of one man and one woman, regardless of orientation.
Rock Hudson

Wooster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191657
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.
I can think of many things that aren't in the Constitution. Compulsory education is not a right, yet there are various public systems that have created it. In fact, not only is it a "right", but it is mandatory. We have truant officers that will force kids and their parents to engage in education, whether they want to or not.
We don't have the Constitutional right to vote, but we have the constitutional right to be protected from not being allowed to vote based on race, sex, and age.
Does every action that we consider to be the bedrock of freedom have to be listed in the Constitution?
I don't think so.
You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
This "Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry." is weak, IMHO. They did not list marriage. No "should've's" about it. But, they did leave it up to the states to determine marriage laws. There are a lot of things that we take for granted that are not in the Constitution.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191658
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I haven't seen where you've talked about how same-sex marriage would be harmful. You've only said that you're a "traditionalist", which implies a fear of change.
Can you admit that same-sex marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their families?
What benefits do you speak of, please be specific? Would such benefits provide justification for legal plural marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191659
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.
Does the "right to marry" only exist if the state legally recognizes marriage? If people marry according to the dictates of their religion, but seek, nor receive state recognition, did they still exercise their right to marry?
You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
It is, in all fifty states.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191660
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
But then, these words, right here: "But right now, they do," grant validity to these words, right here: "So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.". It's all about the context of the timeline. Not always means that they had to have been granted, at a time when it was not legal. Making me correct. No "rights" have been denied, they were wrongly bestowed. That is the only wrong going on, here. The 18,000 need to be annulled. Then, we'll be back on track. Where we belong.
Yes, they do, and have since they were married here, and still will be even if prop 8 is upheld, I know you canít comprehend that part... takes a little education.

No they will not force the annulment of 18,000 marriages... that will not happen. I can imagine the lawsuits

Did you want to make a wager?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191661
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they do, and have since they were married here, and still will be even if prop 8 is upheld, I know you canít comprehend that part... takes a little education.
No they will not force the annulment of 18,000 marriages... that will not happen. I can imagine the lawsuits
Did you want to make a wager?
So what does your wife do while you cruise the gay threads Big D?
Rusty Angina

Schenectady, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191662
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Men and women are equally allowed to select a marriage partner of the opposite sex. No discrimination there. Should be easy, even for you, to grasp.
Amen!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191663
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
...bla bla bla...I know you canít comprehend that part... takes a little education....bla bla bla...Did you want to make a wager?
You are truly insufferable.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191664
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. But I'd also point out that granting amnesty to the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens would benefit them, and their families, too. Doesn't make it right, however.
But you still don't clearly explain your opposition to same-sex marriage other than to say that you object to it out of traditionalism.

If only you could explain it...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191665
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the "right to marry" only exist if the state legally recognizes marriage? If people marry according to the dictates of their religion, but seek, nor receive state recognition, did they still exercise their right to marry?
<quoted text>
It is, in all fifty states.
To wed someone in a religious ceremony is entirely different than to legally marry someone.

I'm sure that people who wish to have multiple partners can wed if they find a pastor willing to do this. They do so with the understanding that state and federal governments do not recognize plural marriage.

Marriage is not defined the same in all fifty states. Eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize marriage between same-gender partners.

Should same-gender partners be forced to leave the state of their residency and move to a state that allows them to legally marry?

And what of the federal benefits and protections that are afforded to legally married opposite-gender couples? Shouldn't couples who are legally married in the eleven states and D.C. also be given federal benefits and protections?

Here's something to ponder... If the U.S. were invaded next week by a serious enemy and the federal government enacted the draft in order to fight, gay and lesbian citizens of the U.S. would be required to enlist. They would be forced to defend the country--putting their lives on the line to protect you, me, and every other person living here.

Is it right that gay and lesbian service personnel be denied the federal benefits and protections of marriage, yet be called upon to defend the country?

Openly gay service personnel are doing just that--even as I type. Yet their spouses; people who they have legally married in states that have passed same-gender marriage laws, cannot live on base with their active duty spouse, cannot shop in a base exchange for groceries, clothing, cannot receive family VA treatment, etc.--all due to the Defense of Marriage Act.

How is this fair?

Is a gay person's service to this country different than a straight person's service? Do gay people die differently in combat than straight people?

Gay and lesbian people DESERVE equal rights. It's that simple.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191666
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in 32 states. The point is men are treated like men, and women like women. Marriage, in those 32 states is a union of one man and one woman, regardless of orientation.
Well, it would seem to me that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment SHOULD guarantee us the right to the protections and benefits of marriage throughout the country.

Obviously, people disagree with this. But from where I stand, that's what it means to me.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191667
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
To wed someone in a religious ceremony is entirely different than to legally marry someone.
I'm sure that people who wish to have multiple partners can wed if they find a pastor willing to do this. They do so with the understanding that state and federal governments do not recognize plural marriage.
Marriage is not defined the same in all fifty states. Eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize marriage between same-gender partners.
Should same-gender partners be forced to leave the state of their residency and move to a state that allows them to legally marry?
And what of the federal benefits and protections that are afforded to legally married opposite-gender couples? Shouldn't couples who are legally married in the eleven states and D.C. also be given federal benefits and protections?
Here's something to ponder... If the U.S. were invaded next week by a serious enemy and the federal government enacted the draft in order to fight, gay and lesbian citizens of the U.S. would be required to enlist. They would be forced to defend the country--putting their lives on the line to protect you, me, and every other person living here.
Is it right that gay and lesbian service personnel be denied the federal benefits and protections of marriage, yet be called upon to defend the country?
Openly gay service personnel are doing just that--even as I type. Yet their spouses; people who they have legally married in states that have passed same-gender marriage laws, cannot live on base with their active duty spouse, cannot shop in a base exchange for groceries, clothing, cannot receive family VA treatment, etc.--all due to the Defense of Marriage Act.
How is this fair?
Is a gay person's service to this country different than a straight person's service? Do gay people die differently in combat than straight people?
Gay and lesbian people DESERVE equal rights. It's that simple.
I served with a gay man in Vietnam and if it weren't for his bravery when we were in deep deep sh!t I might not have have mustered up my own. We became friends for life I see him about once a year due only to the distance between us.

I always (even then, 45 years ago) thought excluding homosexuals from service was very stupid. We need all the help we can get. It's just plain dumb to exclude someone over sexual preference. R.I.P. DADT.
Griff

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191668
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I served with a gay man in Vietnam and if it weren't for his bravery when we were in deep deep sh!t I might not have have mustered up my own. We became friends for life I see him about once a year due only to the distance between us.
I always (even then, 45 years ago) thought excluding homosexuals from service was very stupid. We need all the help we can get. It's just plain dumb to exclude someone over sexual preference. R.I.P. DADT.
C'mon... YOU were that gay man. AND you never served in Vietnam.
You were turning tricks in the Little Saigon section of your town... that's as close as you got to 'Nam.
lilith_Satans_Wh _ore

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191669
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Griff wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon... YOU were that gay man. AND you never served in Vietnam.
You were turning tricks in the Little Saigon section of your town... that's as close as you got to 'Nam.
you were born stupid weren't you

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191672
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You can take your argument up with the state of California that currently legally recognizes 18,000 same sex marriages. But I expect prop 8 will be overturned before you can get a hearing to challenge them, which will make your effort to have them not recognize those marriages moot.
But right now, they do,
California 18,000
Rock Hudson zip
But they are only a redumbant sterile half of marriage.

If you call the tail on a dog a leg, what is it?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191673
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I haven't seen where you've talked about how same-sex marriage would be harmful. You've only said that you're a "traditionalist", which implies a fear of change.
Can you admit that same-sex marriage would benefit same-sex couples and their families?
The question isn't what harm, it is, does it equate.

A piece of paper equating a fake relationship to marriage isn't going to fix the lack of commitment, or the deprivation of a child's parent.

This isn't rocket science...

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191674
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.
I can think of many things that aren't in the Constitution. Compulsory education is not a right, yet there are various public systems that have created it. In fact, not only is it a "right", but it is mandatory. We have truant officers that will force kids and their parents to engage in education, whether they want to or not.
We don't have the Constitutional right to vote, but we have the constitutional right to be protected from not being allowed to vote based on race, sex, and age.
Does every action that we consider to be the bedrock of freedom have to be listed in the Constitution?
I don't think so.
You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
Marriage describes a distinct, unique relationship.

Ss couples are not the same, and never will be.

Duh.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191675
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If two men enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
If two women enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
And in both cases, they are still only a redumbant, sterile half of marriage.

Clearly NOT entering into a marriage.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191676
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
But you still don't clearly explain your opposition to same-sex marriage other than to say that you object to it out of traditionalism.
If only you could explain it...
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That is science, not 'traditionalism'.

Ss couples are a redumbant, sterile failure of evolutionary mating behavior. That is a fact.

Smile.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 167,381 - 167,400 of200,231
|
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 California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 57 min summons 4,861
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 10 hr Big Juciey Pussie 630
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 15 hr sloading 7,817
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 17 hr The right is wrong 2,225
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Fri 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 ]
•••