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 8,671)

Showing posts 173,401 - 173,420 of200,242
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199320
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not going to hear anything because of the activist Media and also because the AMA and APA, etc, has been totally compromised by the Perverts.
The straight kids who try to dominate, demean and bully the gay kids (or weaker kids perceived as gay) in this horrible manner are indeed mentally ill, and when they are caught, they are punished/treated.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199321
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Ramrod wrote:
In the last year, there have been more than a dozen hazing incidents around the country involving high school boys who have ...
And gay kids (or kids perceived as gay) are more often the victims, than the perpetrators. What do you propose to so to change this? Stop teaching bullies that it's okay to brutalize others?
Bruno

Harbor City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199322
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Joanah 1 is one pissed off little Biach!!
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199324
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The straight kids who try to dominate, demean and bully the gay kids (or weaker kids perceived as gay) in this horrible manner are indeed mentally ill, and when they are caught, they are punished/treated.
Yeah, let's start another day with an imbecile reading from the GLAAD and GLSEN script, the "safety" propaganda.

No mention of the lesbian gangs, shillboi?
Dorn

Ridgecrest, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199325
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

veryvermilion

Since: Dec 09

3,670

That is the best post of the poll! It really says it al.

God AKA the Creator has ways of solving the problems of the Creation. We humans have been overpopulating, and gay marriage will slow that down and give the Earth a chance to recover from our folly. The numbers of gays waiting to get married is staggering. All these good people coming out of the closet is really surprising.
Green an Black

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199326
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

No need to try and figure out who the nation will be saying about the event that unfolded in AZ, June 30, 2013..

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199327
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as the interracial marriage is the same form, one man and one woman, it is the same, form and function, as everybody else's.
What "function" are you referring to KiMMy? Is this "function" mandated? Or simply more of your pseudo psycho babble?!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199328
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Sorry, I addressed that to KiMMy. IT was so stupid I just assumed it was her post. Pietro,
please provide information on this "function" of marriage that you refer to and whether or not that "function" is mandated?

Are their more than one "function" of marriage Pietro? Or only just one? Please provide the state or federal rulings that acknowledge this "function" and that express the participants are under mandate once they enter into marriage to fulfill this "function".

We'll all anxiously await your well supported response!!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199329
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

KiMare wrote:
Naw, I'm just going to keep pointing out reality to your bogus legal ruling.
The ruling was bogus? Really? According to whom? You?!!! LOL!

The ruling stands. Not a damned thing you can do about it.

Smile!
KiMare wrote:
Sure annoys you for something you think is untrue...
You don't annoy us cur. You exemplify the reason we don't accept 2nd status handouts. It's because of the efforts of bigots like yourself that we smile as we continue our civil journey. Watching as you bitch and moan every time we advance is hilarious!!

It started with one country, now we have 15. It started with one state, now we have 13 and DC. And what do your ilk do? They piss and moan about how its not real!!!! They quote the losers!!! They try and intentionally agitate and sow discord. Know why? Cause they got NOTHING!!!

But you keep trying to convince yourself that you are annoying us!!! Your need for self importance is hilarious!!!
BTW, acknowledging that you think you are annoying us verifies the intent of your "stating facts". The intent is to sow discord. Your god HATES your behavior. Enjoy hell KiMMy!!

Smile!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199330
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Earl wrote:
Question for all: I understand that The Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 illegal and struck down the law, but is there a state law giving gays the right to marry?
Same law that allows any other man and women to marry.
What I am saying is, there was no law giving gays the right to marry before prop 8 came along
Gays, had, and have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No different than anyone else.
. Prop 8 was meant to block any future laws that tried to give gays the right to marry.The court struck down the ban (Prop 8)on gay marriage, but there is no state law giving gays the right to marry. So can some right wing group come along and again challenge the legalities of all these marriages? Do we need to force the politicians to finally get some guts and vote in a law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to restrict marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.
The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by the state senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61% in favor to 39% against.[1] This large margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at only 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided.[2]
The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15, 2008 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry.[3] This 4–3 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.
Despite the brevity of Proposition 22 (it added only fourteen words to the Family Code) its effect provoked debate long after its passage. In November 2008 California voters overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision by approving an amendment of the state constitution called Proposition 8. On June 2010, Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by U.S district judge Vaughn Walker based on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[4] On June 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry ruled that the Intervenor-Defendants had no Article III standing to appeal Walker's ruling, keeping Proposition 8 unforceable throughout California and enabling same-sex marriage to resume just two days after the decision.[5]

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
I'm just worried that there might be a loophole and we should address this as soon as possible.
Worry about the consequences of redefining marriage for the next generation.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199331
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the state of Connecticut declare you, and your partner, "husband and wife"?
No you stupid moron, they declared us legally married. You see Pietro, with a marriage of same gender couples, there won't be both a "husband and wife". Anyone past the age of 9 would know this already. They also didn't declare us "right handed and left handed". They also didn't declare us "Caucasion and Hispanic". The only thing the state declared is that we are now legally married.

Are there any other completely ridiculous questions you'd like to ask dear, in order to continue showing off what a complete idiot you are?

Do let me know.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199332
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the state of Connecticut declare you, and your partner, "husband and wife"?
No dear, they didn't. Were they required to in order to declare us married?

Let me help you with the answer. It's "NO".

Carry on f*cktard!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199333
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What "function" are you referring to KiMMy? Is this "function" mandated? Or simply more of your pseudo psycho babble?!
Really Joh-née? Is biology mandated? Is conception mandated, or does it happen when men AND women have sex. You really should work on fretting your G.E.D. Let's keep this simple. Sex makes babies, even ones who grow up and post on Internet forum sites under the name "Jonah1". Human societies throughout history have understood this. Marriage developed as a means of regulating that. Are you with me so far? Good. You are smarter than u seem. This would also explain why there's never been a cross time cross cultural, with a sustained deep historical foundation of SSM, male or female, certainly not in western civilization, if not around the world. Granted there are scattered historical examples of various societies recognizing same sex relationships in some form, although most of those seem to be male only.

The bottom line is, at its core, marriage serves a vital function within society. It links mean and women to each other, and by extension to the products of their union, children. We tamper with marriage at are own peril.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199334
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it does.....what the state did was change the concept of marriage...its meaning and function.
No, actually it's meaning and function are exactly the same. The gender make up of the couple entering into marriage doesn't alter that in anyway. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Please present the mandated "function" of marriage that gays are not capable of fulfilling?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The state could declare any consenting adult personal intimate relationship "marriage".
Complete lie. The state has no power to declare anyone's intimate relationships to be ANYTHING. The state most certainly does not have that power. Damn you are stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the legal, cutural, social, hisorical, and/or teligious foundation of a "husband and husband", or a "wife and wife", union?
The legal foundation is being established as we speak. See recent rulings from SCOTUS if you need to know more. Or you could simply read the Constitution of the United States.

Cultural foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
Religious foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
Historical foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.

Culture, religion and history don't trump civil liberties. Sorry you can't seem to grasp that. Now run along, it must be about time for recess. I'm sure the other children are looking forward to your presence.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199335
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you stupid moron, they declared us legally married.
And that pronouncement was based on a deep seated historical, cultural, legal, social, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of......? What exactly? What is the understanding and/or expectation of the pronouncement "....you are now legally married" uttered to tow men, or women?
You see Pietro, with a marriage of same gender couples, there won't be both a "husband and wife". Anyone past the age of 9 would know this already. They also didn't declare us "right handed and left handed". They also didn't declare us "Caucasion and Hispanic". The only thing the state declared is that we are now legally married.
In other words they acknowledged the union is different, not the same, as a union of husband and wife. Hmmmmmmm.......
Are there any other completely ridiculous questions you'd like to ask dear, in order to continue showing off what a complete idiot you are?
Do let me know.
Are you the male wife, the "mife", or is it called something else?:)
Green an Black zone

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199336
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

No need to try and figure out who the nation will be saying about the event that unfolded in AZ, June 30, 2013.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199337
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect example of your responses.
I know. Which is why you don't address them, instead you just repeat the same nonsense over and over.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
When denying the truth doesn't work, then the truth doesn't matter.
What truths would those be KiMMy? That procreation is a requirement of marriage? LOL!! That the sole definition of mating is about procreation? LOL!!!!

You talking about "truth" is hilarious!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the SCOTUS ruling, your opinion is having the same effect on reality.
Another moronic statement from the agitator! Oh, and btw, I'm not the one that thinks their opinions affect reality. That would be you. Here, let me demonstrate......
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a partnership, you do not have a marriage.
An example of you thinking your opinion affects reality!! I don't care that you don't accept my marriage KiMMy! Your acceptance means absolutely nothing. The state, and now the federal government DO accept the reality of my marriage. Not a damn thing you can do about it!! Smile!! The state's and the federal government's acknowledgement of my marriage will ensure that I, and my spouse, receive every single benefit of the institution that slugs like you do. Smirk!!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Even you admitted two key differences out of many.
Yes, I admitted to differences. I also demonstrated how those differences are completely irrelevant. Don't forget that part dear!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, parents produce children.
Some do, some don't. Not all parents actually produce children KiMMy. Call Brad and Angelina if you need more information on this!!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ss couples mutually don't. Ever.
So what? They aren't required to. EVER.

Smile dear!
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And if children have a choice between the two, they choose parents.
Smile.
Another half baked piece of rhetoric that you didn't even get out right. Stupid cow!! Children are choosing to have parents now?!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199338
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Where did I say they were a requirement?
Oh, dear, you never stated that. you simply "imply" it ad nausea. That's why all your posts are so easily dismissed.
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Why would they need to be required when they are a natural result of mating behavior and the marriage union?
Um, no, not always. They most certainly are NOT always the result of mating behavior.

But since you brought it up, what mating behaviors are mandated for those that marry?

Please, do present more of your fundie twirling!!
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Clearly the idiot is you.
Smirk.
Nope, the idiot has been exposed as YOU.

Let us know when mating behaviors and procreation are mandated. Until then, we'll just sit back and laugh hysterically every time you insinuate they are!!!!

BTW, Betty White would be so please to know that you don't accept her marriage as real!! Oh, let's face facts. Betty White doesn't give a horse's patoot about your opinion of her marriage!! Just like everyone else doesn't!!!

Smile!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199339
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is further evidenced by the fact that a near senile, old jack ass with simple common sense has a bunch of girls in a hissy fit.
Sowing discord.

Enjoy hell you hypocritical POS!!!

Smile!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199340
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually it's meaning and function are exactly the same.
I think you need to take off the rainbow colored glasses, or stop drinking the spiked rainbow punch.
The gender make up of the couple entering into marriage doesn't alter that in anyway. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Please present the mandated "function" of marriage that gays are not capable of fulfilling?
Ohhhhhhh Joh-née you are so clever. There's no "mandated" function, but rather the collective social, legal, historical, cultural, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Is your argument that two men/women will function the same way based on that? Interesting...waitaminit! Did you get pregnant on your wedding night? So that's it! You're a mother to be. Congratulations. That would explain the irrational moments.
Complete lie. The state has no power to declare anyone's intimate relationships to be ANYTHING. The state most certainly does not have that power. Damn you are stupid.
What do u think it does with marriage?
The legal foundation is being established as we speak.
What pray tell, is the legal foundation of gay, and lesbian, marriage?
See recent rulings from SCOTUS if you need to know more.
Which one? The one where they imposed SSM nationwide? Or the one where the power to regulate still resides with the states?
Or you could simply read the Constitution of the United States.
I checked my copy, and no mention of marriage at all. Maybe the rainbow edition mentions it.
Cultural foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Religious foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Historical foundations are completely irrelevant to civil rights.
You already have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Culture, religion and history don't trump civil liberties.
No, but they do provide the foundation to the right you, ALREADY HAVE. You simply don''t want to exercise it the same way as any other man.

Sorry you can't seem to grasp that. Now run along, it must be about time for recess. I'm sure the other children are looking forward to your presence

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 173,401 - 173,420 of200,242
|
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 CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 6 hr PMS will get yeah 7,821
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 11 hr all doned in 4,864
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Sat Big Juciey Pussie 630
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sat The right is wrong 2,225
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 11 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 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 ]
•••