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
168,241 - 168,260 of 200,369 Comments Last updated 34 min ago
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192719
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192720
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192721
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192722
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192723
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192724
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192725
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192726
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

"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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192727
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192728
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

Baltimore, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192729
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192730
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192732
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192733
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192734
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192735
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192737
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192738
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192739
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192740
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) 15 hr Tounge inside Pussie Hole 655
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards Thu Randy 5
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Thu seekers 4,900
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Pole swap 7,855
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Thu rain or snow to slow 15,928
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 28 snodder 2,252
Review: Rich's Painting Jul 23 Spectacular job 1
•••

Flash Flood Watch for Riverside County was issued at August 01 at 10:00PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
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 ]
•••