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
171,501 - 171,520 of 200,330 Comments Last updated 52 min ago
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196861
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I do wish there was a more mature topic forum, maybe I should look around for one.
A fly has angst over a turd.

Will wonders never cease?
Common peeps

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196862
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Accusations Leveled Against Citrus College. Glendora, California Trustee Ed Ortell.

Part-time faculty say the college board trustee used his status to secure jobs for family members at the college.

This type of activity is common for the City Of Glendora, California it's self.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196863
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have freedom already.
However, ss couples will only ever be a mutually sterile
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.

Waiting....

Waiting....

waiting....
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196864
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.
Waiting....
Waiting....
waiting....
No that argument is reserved for same sex marriage only, they wonít apply that "rule" to anyone else.

It was a bogus argument from day one, but they donít have anything else they can cling to, so they cling to a sinking ship
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196865
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Is there a point to your statement? Have there been people denied the opportunity to marry because they are mutually sterile? Please provide some examples.
Waiting....
Waiting....
waiting....
Homosexuals = blight on Society

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196866
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
<quoted text>
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.
Here is a brief but thorough explanation;
http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
So marriage IS a constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

In other words, it's not natural.

The survival of the species, it would seem, would be more likely if there were no marriage contract to tie these men to one woman. The man--especially the successful, most powerful man, would be able to spread his genetic traits to more women; leading to greater numbers of smarter, faster, stronger, genetically superior offspring.

Your notion that pairing a man with a woman for life in order to make sure that she is capable of being cared for--that their offspring will be better cared for--assumes that women can't provide for their own offspring sufficiently.

In the animal kingdom, there are many species in which the female raises her offspring to maturity on her own.

Using your own definition of marriage, maybe mankind needs to establish a situation where men are able to impregnate as many women and offspring as he can support. Once the offspring have been raised to maturity, the husband should divorce his wife and start anew.

But that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is that you have found a single article written by a "Yahoo contributor" on which you base your definition of marriage.

Oh, and by the way, the author of the article that you steal from (you steal from her by not identifying her as the source for your findings), also wrote an interesting piece about how she supports that LGBT movement.

Emmy Diers says, "The fact that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are even open for discussion is a testament to the fact that progress is still being made. These discussions were not openly taking place even thirty years ago. Eventually it will happen; until then we must continue to advocate and to educate the public. We must also continue to be optimistic and above all else, we must remain patient."

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196868
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Bwah ha ha ha haha!! People can and do mate without marriage. They were able to do so for eons before the institution was even invented. And they continue to do so to this day. The institution of marriage has NO requirements related to mating. NONE.

At the most basic essence, marriage is about maintaining property and inheritance. Period.
KiMare wrote:
http://voices.yahoo.com/
analyzing-human-mating-behavio r-1020545.html
Thank you for your ridiculous link. But since mating is not a requirement of marriage I'll skip it as being as completely irrelevant as your posts.
KiMare wrote:
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
strategy;
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
You seem to be under the impression this string is about mating. It isn't.
KiMare wrote:
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
What needs to be countered? Your view of mating habits? LOL! The subject of this string is marriage, not mating. Mating habits are completely irrelevant to the topic.

What else you got?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196872
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
Regarding the former Exodus International leader's apology;
While I agree with his transition from a belief that orientation is a choice, here is where his change becomes a pendulum swing too far;
"I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with Godís command to love my neighbor as I love myself."
Truth and love are not in conflict. His decision to restrict truth because of love in fact fractures love. The Biblical command is to speak the truth in love.
I think you'll find that the Biblical command is to not judge another person--that you do not have the supernatural ability that God possesses to pass judgment on another human being.

You do not know truth. You may think you do, but you don't. None of us know truth. We have FAITH that we believe guides us to truth.

But to actually determine another person's truth is dangerously arrogant.

You are not God. You cannot know what He has called me to be or to do.

You can only carry on in your own personal journey, doing those things that you BELIEVE He has called you to do.

And don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe that He brought you into this world to judge others. Maybe you were meant to teach others about Him. Maybe you were meant to help bring others to Him. But to be His judge--telling others what His truth is? I don't think so.
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196873
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This Jonah1 clown is an extremely angry little piece of work. Big fun!
They all appear as haters this fine morning.

Oooooh, I used a slogan!

LAFF!!!!
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196874
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in California half the year. I live on both coasts. I can afford two houses because I made enough money to live very comfortably. You could have too, but instead you decided to be a high school dropout and a failure. And now it's too late for you.
Your racism is noted.
Wow, a cardboard box on each coast.What racism?
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196875
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No what I said was fact
Prop 8 has been overturned, but a stay was put on the decision for appeals
Prop 8 lost its appeal in the appellate court, but a stay was put on that confirmation that Prop 8 is overturned as it was appealed to the supreme court
Every poll, even ones owned by Faux news shows that the support in California is now very much in favor of same sex marriage.
That is the reality
Prop 8 is doomed no matter what the supreme court decides either this week or next, it will just take a little longer ( a year ) if they overturn the appeal, which is unlikely.
The most likely outcome is that they will dismiss the appeal as improvidently granted as the supporters of Prop 8 have no standing to defend it. Which will push it back to the state of California which has already overturned Prop 8
I know what you said. But you refuse to admit to what I said, it is reality, as in SSM is not allowed in California today, even if it is in a state of appeal no pun intended lol ... it's been like this for years but your cult keeps saying it will win tomorrow!!!! if it is such a good idea it would have passed by now open your eyes. The Feds don't agree with it, to bad what the people think.
MeltingPot

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196878
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

The conclusion is that government makes far more from gas sales than all of the oil companies put together.

ExxonMobil, for instance, earned just 8 cents on each gallon of gasoline and refined products sold in the U.S..

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196879
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals = blight on Society
Really?

Please provide some examples of how homosexuality has negatively affected society. I'll wait anxiously for your well supported examples.
Zoro

Cambridge, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196880
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: I can't rebutt Rizzo.
Did you get a new butt? Great I have a new platter
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196881
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it wont affect me, I donít happen to be gay, but as a patriot our freedoms are important to me.
I personally believe they will make the right decision, however I also personally think the supreme court will chicken out ( not make a grand statement ) and just kick it back to the state which has already overturned it. Perhaps I should give them a break, maybe it isnít chickening out, but more of a "let the states sort this out themselves" gesture.
DOMA is the more important decision, if they strike down section 3 ( which is a good bet that they will ) that means federal recognition of Same sex marriage... that is a huge step.
Or, Nv, and now Az are all three on the path with California to overturn their bans as well.
I am a believe in freedom too, I faught for it. but we need to draw a line some where. SSM will affect you in some way or another down the road, exdample I don't agree with it so I don't think I should have to pay into it by supporting the teaching of gay rights or gay history in the public school system, just that alone will affect me and others who don't support SSM. I don't care what gays do in their own home but keep it out of public affairs.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196882
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you'll find that the Biblical command is to not judge another person--that you do not have the supernatural ability that God possesses to pass judgment on another human being.
You do not know truth. You may think you do, but you don't. None of us know truth. We have FAITH that we believe guides us to truth.
But to actually determine another person's truth is dangerously arrogant.
You are not God. You cannot know what He has called me to be or to do.
You can only carry on in your own personal journey, doing those things that you BELIEVE He has called you to do.
And don't take this the wrong way, but I don't believe that He brought you into this world to judge others. Maybe you were meant to teach others about Him. Maybe you were meant to help bring others to Him. But to be His judge--telling others what His truth is? I don't think so.
By the way, if they donít announce it today,( which I donít expect them to ) I wonít be here to celebrate and watch the losers here squirm and cry.

I will be on the road for the next couple of weeks and these forums are hard to navigate from a cell phone ( not taking my I-Pad, if I have my I-Pad my job will expect me to work through vacation )

Enjoy, and keep your head high, let the whiners whine, history is on your side.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196883
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
This Jonah1 clown is an extremely angry little piece of work. Big fun!
Feel free to demonstrate this "anger" you keep referring to. Exactly what statements in my posts demonstrate this supposed "anger"?

Just another example of fundie 101 talking points. Since you can't dispute the message, you try and malign the poster! Such a tired routine.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196884
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Equality doesn't mean everything is the same? What the heck does that mean? Of course it means that everything is the same.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/19/equality-...
Equality demands that we treat in the same ways things that are the same. But a same-sex relationship is fundamentally different from a marriage. No same-sex union can produce a child. And no same-sex relationship can provide a child with a mother and a father.

While respecting everyone's civil rights, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing. Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn't challenge this historical understanding.
2.) Gays do not have the right to marry the consenting, unrelated, adult of their CHOICE--of their own gender.
Two flaws in that statement. First, Gays can marry a "related" adult, thier first cousin. Second, to marry means to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. So, one cannot marry someone of the same sex, contradiction interns, at least in 32 states.
We cannot marry the person who we love
Legally, no, but you can find whatever house of worship u like and have them marry you.
who we want to spend the rest of our lives with.
You don't need government permission to do that.
Opposite-gender couples do have that right
There is no couple's right. Men, that includes u, and women, have the same right to marry.
3.) Don't try to mix things up. Heterosexuals weren't a political sexual identity at the foundation of our country either
True.
. It's not about being a political group. I am a gay man, not a political issue.
Explain the rainbow flags, T-shirts, and bumper stickers, not to mention the numerous political action organizations?
And gay people DID exist during the foundation of this country. If we were found to be engaging in homosexual activity, punishments were usually harsh. In fact, most were executed.
SSSB is not new. Creating an identity out of it is.
4.) Who cares who marries the most, who divorces the most?
So u agree then with my assertions?
We SHOULD have the RIGHT to enter into marriage REGARDLESS of how our marriages turn out in the long-
run.
You do have the right. Even in states where SSM is legal, it's not a big seller. Why is that?
Heck, if heterosexual marriages were scrutinized based on their divorce rates, I guarantee you that the government would establish some kind of pre-marital evaluation to determine which couples would stay together and which would not. Then they would hand out licenses to those couples who "passed the test".
It's OPPOSITE SEX, or, CONJUGAL as in husband and wife, NOT heterosexual marriage. As for the test.....hmmmmm....ya know...that might not be a bad idea....at least premarital counseling. If we have to pass a test for a driver's license......
But that's not how marriage works in this country (or any other country that I am aware). So why hold same-sex couples to a different standard?
Uhhhhhhhh.......helllllloooooo oo.....SSCs are different....in function and form.
6.) We are fighting for the right to marry. You know damn good and well that heterosexuals would still be able to marry one another. Same-sex marriage would have NO impact on opposite-sex marriage.
Oh Madone! Would u at least be intellectually honest. U are arguing for SSRs to be legally called marriage, not the right to marry, which u ALREADY HAVE. As to the word, if u truly want it, then marry according to how it's culturally, historically, socially, legally, and yes, even religiously, defined.
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196885
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>He is a woman dumbazz. If you had clicked the link, you would not be so stupid.
haha ... even if he did click on it he would still be a dumbazz, that's just Rizzoto doing what he does best, being a dumbazz.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196886
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you said. But you refuse to admit to what I said, it is reality, as in SSM is not allowed in California today, even if it is in a state of appeal no pun intended lol ... it's been like this for years but your cult keeps saying it will win tomorrow!!!! if it is such a good idea it would have passed by now open your eyes. The Feds don't agree with it, to bad what the people think.
Because there is a stay on the already overturned Prop 8, that stay should be lifted shortly.

There are currently 18,000 legally married same sex couples recognized that were married in California before this unconstitutional proposition was put into effect.

You are correct that currently no new couples can join the 18,000 that are currently legally married, but they will be able to soon.

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
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 53 min drying out 7,839
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 14 hr Mis kites 15,915
Review: Rich's Painting Wed Spectacular job 1
desert hot springs, ca. unkept yards Wed Alice 2
Costco readies for new opening (Dec '06) Wed AMan 149
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Wed Shellys Husband is Strong 635
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Jul 22 Ronald 2,251
•••
•••
•••
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 ]
•••