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

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

Covina, 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

Union City, 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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192728 May 20, 2013
Prop8ers wrote:
Nothings changed other that you Mormon's lost, twice and maybe now 3 times.
Prop 8
Mitt Romney
Boy Scouts
Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should.

Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as some states high courts have rightly ruled.

Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
sheesh

Washington, DC

#192729 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem isn't that you don't read much, it is that you don't comprehend much.
That coupled with your hatred and bigotry would give my crazy person a run for his money...
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
You took Queen VV's knowingly untrue post and added your own distortion.
It simply exposed your hatred of those who disagree with imposing an imposter relationship on marriage.
Now you add denial to your bigotry and hatred.
Smile.
I'm not sure if it is your active imagination or your inability to read and comprehend...

What I said earlier was that I had been away for a few days and hadn't bothered reading all the material between my last visit and the point where I picked up. This dropped me into the middle of your conversation with VV about you living in Hawaii and relocating. I had no way of knowing whether his post was true or untrue. All that I did was point out how traumatic it can be to a child to be moved. Apparently, you compounded that by exposing your kid(s) to a person you claim is crazy. I didn't know what portion of the tale was true or untrue and apparently you're not willing to expand on the matter so all I've got are those few details. Details that don't sound like your kid(s) were in a stable environment. Unless you consider fleeing from crazy people normal.

What exactly about VV's post was untrue? Did you live in Hawaii? Did you have a problem with an insane person there that forced you to move? That was the crux of the comment that got my attention on this little side discussion.

You failed to show where I've displayed any bigotry and hatred too.

It is your opinion that same sex marriage is an imposter relationship. There are those who would agree with you and those who don't. Try not to let yourself get confused by the difference between fact and opinion. Honestly, why is it necessary for me to point this out to you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192730 May 20, 2013
Looks like the judge-it rigging fairie is out! Heavily rigging the judge-its like it matters or something.

Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192732 May 20, 2013
It seems the judge-it fairie considers me very "Racy" today. You know, I do feel kind of "Racy" today.

Too funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192733 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
Really Big D? Aren't you fibbing again?

Please refer us to the "several" posts where he has "stated" this.

We won't wait.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192734 May 20, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nicely said. As Christianity continues to lose members, ignorance and hatred will contine to as well.
History has recorded that claim many times before.

Idiot.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192735 May 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Big D? Aren't you fibbing again?
Please refer us to the "several" posts where he has "stated" this.
We won't wait.
Dont worry

Others have the ability to look back and have not lost thier memory.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192737 May 20, 2013
sheesh wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure if it is your active imagination or your inability to read and comprehend...
What I said earlier was that I had been away for a few days and hadn't bothered reading all the material between my last visit and the point where I picked up. This dropped me into the middle of your conversation with VV about you living in Hawaii and relocating. I had no way of knowing whether his post was true or untrue. All that I did was point out how traumatic it can be to a child to be moved. Apparently, you compounded that by exposing your kid(s) to a person you claim is crazy. I didn't know what portion of the tale was true or untrue and apparently you're not willing to expand on the matter so all I've got are those few details. Details that don't sound like your kid(s) were in a stable environment. Unless you consider fleeing from crazy people normal.
What exactly about VV's post was untrue? Did you live in Hawaii? Did you have a problem with an insane person there that forced you to move? That was the crux of the comment that got my attention on this little side discussion.
You failed to show where I've displayed any bigotry and hatred too.
It is your opinion that same sex marriage is an imposter relationship. There are those who would agree with you and those who don't. Try not to let yourself get confused by the difference between fact and opinion. Honestly, why is it necessary for me to point this out to you?
I gave VV the facts a while ago. He chooses to continue the slander. His deceit is pointed out virtually every day. You know that. Now you are trying to go Obama innocent/dumb about it.

At the most, his words are hear-say. You took them and formed your own 'conclusions'. I simply point out that lack of character and accurately term it as rooted in bigotry and hatred.

But hey, if you want to keep exposing yourself, it's your reputation.

Sheesh.

I mean Smile.
The Real Rev Al

Albany, NY

#192738 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.
He must be so proud of his Mama.....Mother's Day and Father's day gotta be confusin'.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192739 May 20, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont worry
Others have the ability to look back and have not lost thier memory.
But you don't. Because he never "stated" that. You get all emotional then you start fibbing.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192740 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave VV the facts a while ago. He chooses to continue the slander. His deceit is pointed out virtually every day. You know that. Now you are trying to go Obama innocent/dumb about it.
At the most, his words are hear-say. You took them and formed your own 'conclusions'. I simply point out that lack of character and accurately term it as rooted in bigotry and hatred.
But hey, if you want to keep exposing yourself, it's your reputation.
Sheesh.
I mean Smile.
LMAO! "Go Obama". That could (and should) catch on.

I think the people of tolerance and diversity are feeling very defensive lately about their choice for president. Makes 'em even more mean and nasty than usual. They'll deny deny deny just like Obama.

"Transparency" indeed.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192741 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue isn't what marriage 'requires', it is, are ss couple equal to marriage. If so, then yes, they deserve equal rights.
I simply point out the numerous distinctions where they clearly are not equal to marriage.
ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. They simply don't measure up.
SMile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Marriage is a legal contract that legally joins two people's lives together.
2.) The legal marriage of two people is not predicated on their ability or plans to have children.
3.) The vast majority of marriages in this country are based on the love and long term commitment of two individuals; whether they are opposite-gender or same-gender couples.
4.) Sterility is a term given to people who cannot have children.
5.) Straight and gay individuals are capable of having children, either through adoption or through in vitro processes.
6.) You continue to lie, distort, and bore others when you say that "ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage".
7.) If you want to argue against same-gender marriage, you're going to have to come up with something that is believable and based in reality.
Nothing you distorted has anything to do with proving that ss couples equate to marriage.

1. Marriage is much more than a legal contract.

2. Children are a natural product of marriage. In fact, the lack of children indicates either a problem or an effort to prevent it.

3. All marriages are between diverse gendered couples.

4. I clearly stated that ss couples (not homosexuals) are mutually sterile. That is accurate.

5. We are not talking about default options for children. We are talking about natural child birth in a relationship with the mother and father of the child. SS couples always deprive a child of one gender and at least one parent.

6. The is no lie or distortion. Ss couples will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. That is simple pure reality.

7. If you are going to demand equal rights, you are going to have to first equate ss couples. Good luck.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#192742 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.
Unbelievable.

The 'old fashioned way'??? Are you serious.

Two gays screw a woman to impregnate her, she abandons her child to two guys who withhold not just the child's mother, but his real father too. No decent parent would do that to a child!

A perfect example of why ss couples should never be allowed around children. Despicable and depraved.
just wondering

Tempe, AZ

#192743 May 20, 2013
Are people who repetitively shout "racist" and "bigot" and "homophobe" self righteous bigots themselves? Are they just another pious cult of believers of a certain dogma?

Why are they "right" and others "wrong"?
laughing man

Tempe, AZ

#192744 May 20, 2013
You can almost smell the enraged tuna as Rosie furiously mashes the smilies.

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) Tue 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 3:38 am PST