Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,421

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191213 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to decent all you want...
I am decent. Thank you. You, not so much.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191214 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You are free to decent all you want, there are a lot of people living in this country that do not agree with our nations values.
I am not the one that used that word
What I object to is your desire to remove freedom and justice from others. We have 2 classes of homosexual people now, those that are legally married, and those that wish to be legally married and cannot.
That wrong is about to be resolved.
And those that don't wish to be married. Wait, that's three...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191215 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
so I was close, one out of 4 judges ( including the original judge ) agrees with you, and the other 3 agree with me.
We will have a better count when the Supremes weigh in
They just weighed in!

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191216 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.
Imagine Big D's wrath if he voted for something and then a judge declared his vote null and void!

Big D would go into the nearest phone booth (Modesto still has them probably) and come out as Mighty D! The patriot! Fighting for truth justice and his way!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191218 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys always want to base this issue on history.
Here's the thing... We participate in many social activities and have created new social institutions that do not have a firm basis in history.
Most modern, First World societies on the planet have some kind of compulsory education program for kids and teens. Though, looking back you'll find only scattered instances of compulsory education throughout the history of mankind. And the vast majority of those examples were closely tied to religion--not the sciences, math, language, etc.
Look at how women are treated in today's First World nations. Equality of the sexes has never been more pervasive than it is today.
Human rights and equality are also fairly modern concepts. Our current societies don't keep slaves. We strive to treat one another humanely. Folks are encouraged to explore new ideas. Freedom of speech, the freedom to travel, the freedom to own property, the freedom to worship (or not worship), the freedom from unjust laws and treatments are just a few of the widespread values that most modern day, Western cultures embrace.
Our economy is new. Cultures in the past relied heavily on agriculture and trade. Today, however, we buy and sell abstract ideas and technologies.
The bottom line is that our society today looks VERY different than societies of the past.
So why should we base the notion of marriage on the past? Why can't we embrace a new notion of marriage? It's not like marriage has remained static over the eons. There have been marriages between one man and one woman; one man and many women, arranged marriages, marriages based on love, marriages based on wealth. And has been pointed out numerous times, there have been same-sex marriage and various times in mankind's history.
Our ability to alter the current man-woman marriage arrangement SHOULD NOT be based on history.
History, in and of itself, SHOULD NOT define our current society, nor should it define our future society.
Fear of change is a bona-fide fear. But it does not mean that we should halt in our tracks. It does not mean that we should cling to the past.
If we allow the fear of change to overtake us, then our future is going to be pretty bleak.
Same-sex marriage will not impact anyone other than those same-sex couples who enter into marriage.
Stop being afraid of it.
Way too wordy! Chop out 80% and repost. You can do it. It's crying out for heavy editing, don't make me do it!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191219 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.
Why do I keep having to explain to you that we are not an Athenian style democracy, we are a republic as well, a nation of law

A majority of brown eyes people could vote to deny the right to vote for the minority of blue eyed people and that too would be found unconstitutional

Donít worry if the Supreme court gets it wrong, they will vote again, and Prop 8 will fall like a brick

But I donít expect them to get it wrong

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191220 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I keep having to explain to you that we are not an Athenian style democracy, we are a republic as well, a nation of law
A majority of brown eyes people could vote to deny the right to vote for the minority of blue eyed people and that too would be found unconstitutional
Donít worry if the Supreme court gets it wrong, they will vote again, and Prop 8 will fall like a brick
But I donít expect them to get it wrong
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#191221 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.
What's radical is the belief that the majority thinks it gets to deny rights to the minority.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191222 May 7, 2013
Mathew629 wrote:
I think it's a sad day when a "Judge" can over take a majority vote, but still have swear before GOD to tell the truth. Are they not trying to be on both sides of the fence. Maybe there the ones in closet? Why does are money say in GOD we trust? Why is it every court room? HMMMMMM Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Steve? But it does say that Homosexual activity is an ABOMINATION. Just word up for you confused people out there that want have sex with your brother or sister...I know, how about we make it legal to have 20 wives, marry my mother and sleep with Dad...just as stupid
It's called judicial review, dumbass. That's the way our country works. Your Buybull is irrelevant to this discussion, or did you not learn about separation of church and State either?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191223 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.
Can you say Delaware?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191224 May 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are truly insufferable.
Tell us again how you are FOR gay marriage..........

We believe you..... sure we do....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191225 May 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
What's radical is the belief that the majority thinks it gets to deny rights to the minority.
TESTIFY! Is there a whole new generation of people that are completely clueless as to how our system works? Ah..... the consequences of hom skooling.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#191226 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there was one out of the 5 so far that didnt agree... but I am not keeping count
I take holidays off, Saturnalia is one of my favorite holidays, you know the holiday they took over when they moved the birthdate because they could not stop people from decorating trees in their house and giving gifts for saturnalia. If you canít beat em, join em I suppose.
Yes thousands, they do preform the ceremonies, but want them as legally valid as the other marriages they perform.
Ministers/rabbis/pastors/pries ts can ONLY marry with the blessings of the State. They can't pronounce you "married" unless you have a license/certificate from the State. That is one reason why the word 'marriage' is important. Marriage is a LEGAL contract. A so-called 'religious marriage' is just a ceremony.... and they aren't called marriages. They're called "commitment ceremonies" or "spiritual unions." Besides, in the eyes of the 'God of the buybull,' if you have sex with someone, you are then married to them.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191227 May 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us again how you are FOR gay marriage..........
We believe you..... sure we do....
As if I care what an angry dope such as yourself believes!

Too funny! That's why I love you clowns.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191228 May 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Ministers/rabbis/pastors/pries ts can ONLY marry with the blessings of the State. They can't pronounce you "married" unless you have a license/certificate from the State. That is one reason why the word 'marriage' is important. Marriage is a LEGAL contract. A so-called 'religious marriage' is just a ceremony.... and they aren't called marriages. They're called "commitment ceremonies" or "spiritual unions." Besides, in the eyes of the 'God of the buybull,' if you have sex with someone, you are then married to them.
Really? WOW!

What a silly jackass.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191229 May 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>TESTIFY! Is there a whole new generation of people that are completely clueless as to how our system works? Ah..... the consequences of hom skooling.
Agree. They can't even spell "home schooling".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191230 May 7, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
What's radical is the belief that the majority thinks it gets to deny rights to the minority.
Relax Musty Old China. The people voted, not once , but twice to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. That's it. Not really that difficult. Every man, as well as every woman, posses the same right to marry in accordance with the definition the people voted on.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191231 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Good God, where are your reasoning skills? Did you ever take a basic philosophy class? Have you had any exposure to scientific reasoning?
The author of the piece that you cited gave several possible explanations for the presence of homosexuality in our society. None of them are conclusive.
Try to find out why it is that some people have blonde hair while others ...rtain of the purpose of hair color, should we assume that anyone with blonde or red hair is a defective aberration?
You cannot arrive at this conclusion.
2.) Gays have been identified in over 130 Native American and Canadian First Nations communities. They were called "berdaches" by some. We know them today as "Two Spirits". Their roles included:
--healers or medicine persons
--conveyors of oral traditions and songs (Yuki)
--foretellers of the future (Winnebago, Oglala Lakota)
--conferrers of lucky names on children or adults (Oglala Lakota, Tohono O'odham)
--nurses during war expeditions
--potters (Zuni, Navajo, Tohono O'odham)
--matchmakers (Cheyenne, Omaha, Oglala Lakota)
--makers of feather regalia for dances (Maidu)
--special role players in the Sun Dance (Crow, Hidatsa, Oglala Lakota)
"In the ancient Assyrian society, if a man were to have sex with another man of equal status or a cult prostitute, it was thought that trouble will leave him and he will have good fortune. Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships. Freely pictured art of anal intercourse, practiced as part of a religious ritual, dated from the 3rd millennium B.C and onwards. Homosexuality was an integral part of temple life in parts of Mesopotamia."
"Homosexuality in China, known as the passions of the cut peach and various other euphemisms has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. Homosexuality was mentioned in many famous works of Chinese literature.
Homosexuality has been acknowledged in China since ancient times. Scholar Pan Guangdan came to the conclusion that nearly every emperor in the Han Dynasty had one or more male sex partners."
"According to Aristotle, although most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers."
"In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were, until the middle of the last century, an integral part of the culture. The Etoro and Marind-anim for example, even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead."
-------
And don't get me started on homosexuality in modern culture. Obviously homosexuality is considered by scientists to be a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexual expression.
Finally, your link is broken... I attempted to read whatever article you placed in your post, but I reached an "error page".
Try again...
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.

2. We've been down this road before. I've posted the earliest records of berdaches and read them. Aside from roles you listed that have no roots in history, the others are one time notes or rumors that history records. However, the most often role of Indian transvestites is as the term denotes, male prostitutes. They were most often passed around, abused and mocked. You only confirm what I noted. Societal rejection of homosexuality is cross cultural.

3. The assertion you made was that gay marriage was prevalent. You simply noted the presence of homosexuality. Again, the actual record of gay 'marriages' can be counted on one hand.

Smile.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#191232 May 7, 2013
We'll know in less than 52 days.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191233 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! They voted on a definition of marriage as a union of one MAN AND one WOMAN. That's it. Where is your patriotism on that? So the voters of California who voted TWICE to define marriage as it was understood in the state, and you argue "we are not an Athenian style democracy"? Patriotic Americans went to the polls and declared legal marriage to be a....... are you ready for this radical idea? A union of husband and wife! Where the heck did they get such a crazy idea. Before ya know it some tofu eating tree hugger will claim sex between men and women makes babies.
And again if the majority of brown eyed people voted to deny rights to blue eyed people that too would be tossed out for being unconstitutional, and if the vote happens again, you donít have the votes to keep it in place anymore anyway

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.

Rancho Cucamonga Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Chosen Swallower 29,078
Pastor charged with bigamy (Apr '10) 10 hr Tamela Lynn 24
Agents target industry helping Chinese women ha... Tue Who Guessed It 9
my. baldy Tue lee 2
Lesbian snapchat users? Tue calynnc83 43
Claims filed against Ontario, police after offi... (Aug '08) Tue ImNotWeTarDidButU... 21
Demolition of Sunkist site marks the end of an era (Apr '10) Mar 2 ditto 21

Rancho Cucamonga News Video

More from around the web

Rancho Cucamonga People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:58 am PST