Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201878 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Big D

Modesto, CA

#192708 May 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at leaf in 32 states.
32 and dropping

California will likely drop off this year, if not it will drop off in the next election cycle.

Nevada is now in play to drop off your list in the next election cycle

Oregon has made the first moves to remove thier ban also

There are probably others I am not aware of yet.

Used to be 50 states that did not recognize same sex marriage, now 32 and dropping.

I suspect before the next presidential election it will be half or less

Justice, freedom and equality are winning, ignorance, hatred and tynary are losing.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192709 May 20, 2013
kindergarten cop wrote:
<quoted text>
In my truth, my reality, I'm smarter than you!!!!
And don't you forget it!!!!
You hit it right on the point... thanks :)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192710 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
32 and dropping
California will likely drop off this year, if not it will drop off in the next election cycle.
Nevada is now in play to drop off your list in the next election cycle
Oregon has made the first moves to remove thier ban also
There are probably others I am not aware of yet.
Used to be 50 states that did not recognize same sex marriage, now 32 and dropping.
I suspect before the next presidential election it will be half or less
Justice, freedom and equality are winning, ignorance, hatred and tynary are losing.
My balls dropped many years ago.
kindergarten cop

Tempe, AZ

#192711 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit it right on the point... thanks :)
Yeah, your reality begins and ends at the sphincter. Literally.
The sphincter will lift Civilization to the next level!!!!
a real intellectual

Tempe, AZ

#192712 May 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
2.) The legal marriage of two people is not predicated on their ability or plans to have children.
People are denied the "right" to marry their mother or their niece or (in many states) their cousin precisely because of the chance, and inherent risks, of procreation.

Disingenuous homosexists will twist any fact in order to propagandize the general populace into giving torn and bleeding sphincters a special status.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192713 May 20, 2013
kindergarten cop wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, your reality begins and ends at the sphincter. Literally.
The sphincter will lift Civilization to the next level!!!!
LMAO!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#192714 May 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you call me one?
You and Rev Ken are one and the same? I didn't know that.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#192715 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice, freedom and equality are winning, ignorance, hatred and tynary are losing.
Nicely said. As Christianity continues to lose members, ignorance and hatred will contine to as well.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#192716 May 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
5.) Straight and gay individuals are capable of having children, either through adoption or through in vitro processes.
My gay cousin and his boy friend have a son and they did it the old fashioned way with a close female friend of theirs. They do not want to know which one of them is the father having taken turns several times each it could be either of them; they wish it to remain a mystery, however it is obvious which one it is just by looking at the son.
just wondering

Tempe, AZ

#192717 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text> ignorance
Prove that you're actually "enlightened". Give scientific data, unencumbered by dogma and "consensus" which is bought and paid for via the United Nations and/or various corrupt individual governments who smells the Crisco and legislates acordingly.

"A certain segment of the population agrees with me!" will not be acceptable.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192718 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nicely said. As Christianity continues to lose members, ignorance and hatred will contine to as well.
Hate just isnt selling as well as it used to
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192719 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
My gay cousin and his boy friend have a son and they did it the old fashioned way with a close female friend of theirs. They do not want to know which one of them is the father having taken turns several times each it could be either of them; they wish it to remain a mystery, however it is obvious which one it is just by looking at the son.
What a slut! She pulled a train "several times each" with two guys who were probably disgusted. Nice!

Didn't they ever hear of a turkey baster? Geez.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192720 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate just isnt selling as well as it used to
You must be broke.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192721 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You and Rev Ken are one and the same? I didn't know that.
What's a "Rev Ken"? Sounds like a fast Barby doll or something.
in the know

Tempe, AZ

#192722 May 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a "Rev Ken"? Sounds like a fast Barby doll or something.
You can bet your last money that it's anatomically correct.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192723 May 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 states."

--You and I both know that it is only a matter of time before same-gender marriage becomes legal throughout this country. I honestly cannot imagine anything standing in the way of the momentum we have seen in the past decade. Can you?

You said: "That is true, however the law recognizes the sexual nature of the male female relationship, and its procreative potential."

--The law does recognize the sexual nature of male/female relationships and its procreative potential, however marriage IS NOT based solely on that potential. There isn't a marriage license in the country that deals with procreation. Children aren't even mentioned in traditional wedding vows. Laws that deal with parental issues are separate from laws that deal with marriage.

You said: "The motivations as to why people marry does not change the state's recognition of marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife, and it's potential to procreate. The state has a vested interest in privileging that relationship above all others for that reason."

--As you pointed out earlier, this is only the case in 32 states. And I firmly disagree that the state has a vested interest in privileging a male/female relationship above all others. If states had a vested interest in protecting a male/female relationship based on its ability to procreate, then states would MANDATE that parents be married before having children. We both know that states do not mandate that a child's biological parents must be married in order to have children. You don't even have to be married to adopt children.

You said: "A couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex. Couples can be of mixed orientation. A man cannot "have" a child, he can father a child, or adopt a child. A woman who uses ART, still must involve the opposite sex."

--But what does this have to do with marriage? Even your comment above doesn't indicate that couples MUST be married in order to do these things. In fact, states have set up very specific processes for those couples who have children (by accident or intention) who do not wish to become married. They set up visitation schedules, child support schedules, insurance coverage, education issues, etc.--all for unmarried parents.

--Marriage IS NOT necessary for the procreation or rearing of children. This cannot be emphasized enough. If states believed that only married couples should have children--if states believed that children were of such great importance to marriage--then unmarried couples would be wholeheartedly discouraged from having children. States would require that unmarried parents be married as soon as possible, even if they did not wish to be married. That's not how things work.

--Finally, you must know that your "consummation argument" is very flimsy. Firstly, not all states or jurisdiction have a "consummation law". Secondly, "consummation" does not mean penile/vaginal penetration--any type of sexual activity (oral, tactile, etc.) can be defined as "sex". And finally, it is EXTREMELY rare to see a case where a marriage has been annulled due to lack of "consummation". Same-gender couples are capable of consummation. I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you attempted to argue that same-gender couples cannot marry simply because they do not engage in an activity that you would define as "consummation". I don't even think it was an argument used before the Supreme Court.
Prop8ers

San Dimas, CA

#192724 May 20, 2013
Nothings changed other that you Mormon's lost, twice and maybe now 3 times.

Prop 8

Mitt Romney

Boy Scouts
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#192725 May 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 states."
--You and I both know that it is only a matter of time before same-gender marriage becomes legal throughout this country. I honestly cannot imagine anything standing in the way of the momentum we have seen in the past decade. Can you?
You said: "That is true, however the law recognizes the sexual nature of the male female relationship, and its procreative potential."
--The law does recognize the sexual nature of male/female relationships and its procreative potential, however marriage IS NOT based solely on that potential. There isn't a marriage license in the country that deals with procreation. Children aren't even mentioned in traditional wedding vows. Laws that deal with parental issues are separate from laws that deal with marriage.
You said: "The motivations as to why people marry does not change the state's recognition of marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife, and it's potential to procreate. The state has a vested interest in privileging that relationship above all others for that reason."
--As you pointed out earlier, this is only the case in 32 states. And I firmly disagree that the state has a vested interest in privileging a male/female relationship above all others. If states had a vested interest in protecting a male/female relationship based on its ability to procreate, then states would MANDATE that parents be married before having children. We both know that states do not mandate that a child's biological parents must be married in order to have children. You don't even have to be married to adopt children.
You said: "A couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex. Couples can be of mixed orientation. A man cannot "have" a child, he can father a child, or adopt a child. A woman who uses ART, still must involve the opposite sex."
--But what does this have to do with marriage? Even your comment above doesn't indicate that couples MUST be married in order to do these things. In fact, states have set up very specific processes for those couples who have children (by accident or intention) who do not wish to become married. They set up visitation schedules, child support schedules, insurance coverage, education issues, etc.--all for unmarried parents.
--Marriage IS NOT necessary for the procreation or rearing of children. This cannot be emphasized enough. If states believed that only married couples should have children--if states believed that children were of such great importance to marriage--then unmarried couples would be wholeheartedly discouraged from having children. States would require that unmarried parents be married as soon as possible, even if they did not wish to be married. That's not how things work.
--Finally, you must know that your "consummation argument" is very flimsy. Firstly, not all states or jurisdiction have a "consummation law". Secondly, "consummation" does not mean penile/vaginal penetration--any type of sexual activity (oral, tactile, etc.) can be defined as "sex". And finally, it is EXTREMELY rare to see a case where a marriage has been annulled due to lack of "consummation". Same-gender couples are capable of consummation. I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you attempted to argue that same-gender couples cannot marry simply because they do not engage in an activity that you would define as "consummation". I don't even think it was an argument used before the Supreme Court.
If I say "too wordy" you and others will call me an idiot, a learning disabled retard and a hater. But it's too wordy. I drifted off quickly.

Let the insults fly! Whoopee! Big D? Any input? Too funny.
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#192726 May 20, 2013
"Children aren't even mentioned in traditional wedding vows."

Vows are historical. Vows are traditional. Vows aren't legislated.

Issuances of legal marriage licenses are, however.

There's nothing that homosexists won't say or do in order to rope in the common man.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192727 May 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 states."
--You and I both know that it is only a matter of time before same-gender marriage becomes legal throughout this country. I honestly cannot imagine anything standing in the way of the momentum we have seen in the past decade. Can you?.
Actually he has stated several times now that he is totally clueless about the massive support for same sex marriage in the US, he honestly has no idea what is going on.

It is like he only watches Faux news or something, he is in the same boat as people that honestly believed Mitt would win in a landslide

He has no idea

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
strange stuff maybe bring more storms and turn ... 16 hr people whats next 1
mexican landscapers dump in the desert (Nov '14) Fri sandy skat 59
Scary, Saw Russian Soldier in Palm Desert 3 wee... (Apr '14) Mar 23 Wow 4
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Mar 20 masshole3456 34
News Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Mar 8 Pamela_e 159
oh no trump got tap wire Mar 5 trumpneeds tap in... 1
well people trump has lied before Mar 4 trump likes atten... 1

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages