Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201881 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184096 Mar 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are not an equal relationship, just like all other relationships, every single one of which is ideally birthed solely by marriage.
Just admit it, you have no logical answer, so you spew out ad homoan attacks.
Smile.
Show me in law where marriage MUST BE based on a cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating.

Show me any jurisdiction in the country that refuses to allow marriage that is not based on a cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating.

Waiting...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184097 Mar 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, how about we put it this way... There are many "Christians" who claim to be pro-life, who are pro-capital punishment and pro-war.
And there are many people who claim to be Christian, who believe in abortion in instances of rape, incest, danger to the mother's life, and/or mental/physical defect of the fetus.
So, don't lie and say that "Christians" as a concerted group would NEVER abort a fetus they believe is going to become gay. Because we BOTH know that's not the case.
If we lived in a society where all of those people who claim to be Christians REFUSED to go to war, REFUSED to own guns, REFUSED to in any way support capital punishment, and REFUSED to abort their children; then MAYBE I would agree with you.
1.2 million abortions are performed in the U.S. annually. Many of those abortions are performed on church going, Christ believing women. They justify it for many reasons. Telling them that they're going to have a gay/transgender son or daughter will simply be another reason for them to justify it.
That's reality... And it's people like you--who claim that we are defective--that we are "sinners"--that we destroy the family, etc; people like YOU who give will be giving them the motivation to abort.
You don't get to bitch about the existence of homosexuality--wanting us to disappear from the planet--and not have blood on your hands.
I would add that there are thousands of Christian churches that support same sex marriage and want to preform them in their churches.... why are their religious rights being denied?

You are right, Christians are not one block that speak with one voice, that has not been the case ever, and particularly not since the ending of the dark ages.

Not to mention that they are NOT the only religon in this country.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184098 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to not... I have actually flipped on that issue a couple of times. So I respect your opinion, it isn’t mine, but I can certainly understand someone with the position you support.
I had to ask myself if I could kill someone before I entered the military, because if I could not, my superiors should certainly know that, I decided that I could.
Later after having a family, it stuck me that there are people out there that we as a society are better off without.
Although I support the death penalty, I am certainly opposed to states that have used it too easily and often, and I am not all that upset that it is not currently used in my state.
Yours is an opinion that I can respect on that subject
I too have flipped. But since they don't carry out the death sentence and we spend millions housing them in a certain way and with all the appeals. It's a waste of money, make them suffer behind bars. I'd be for it if it was a faster process for those with no doubt of guilt.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#184099 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
more and more scientists are actually going the other way, you would know this if you looked at actual factual websites instead of the websites that fill you with garbage that you want to believe.
again you do not have enough information to be able to discuss this, and you are taking away from the actual topic of this forum.
We are done
Wrong

more and more scientists are actually going more towards a higher power, you would know this if you looked at actual factual websites instead of the websites that fill you with garbage that you want to believe, like the Government sites and Government sponsored studies.

again you do not have enough information to be able to discuss this, and the subject of gay marriage: what more needs to be said? we are done!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184100 Mar 22, 2013
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Big D.
Yes. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and speakers. It is a weak argument to pull up out of context quotes they may have made without reference to their overall political and religious philosophy.
Ronald
in the same token, you could say the same thing about biblical passages.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184101 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I do notice that baby changing stations do exist in men’s bathrooms now :)
Yes they do....babies can't change themselves.
It is fine to notice a difference, but justice wears a blindfold, blind to Race, creed, color, sex, religion, orientation, or national origin.
Religion? Even fundamentalist Mormons? Muslims..... hmmmmm...what do they have in common....what practice....
A goal we have not actually achieved, but always strive for.
Shoot for the moon.
You are on the wrong side of history
Perhaps..... or perhaps those who oppose redefing legal marriage will be vindicated by history. Opponent s of "no fault divorce" are one such example. Sounded great in theory, not in reality. We are paying the price today. Certain institutions are tampered with at our own peril
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184102 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I too have flipped. But since they don't carry out the death sentence and we spend millions housing them in a certain way and with all the appeals. It's a waste of money, make them suffer behind bars. I'd be for it if it was a faster process for those with no doubt of guilt.
Yeah, in a perfect world we would know innocence or guilt, and carry out the punishment without all the fuss and expense.

I suppose it boils down to, would I go for a headshot if you attacked my wife or children or grandchildren... the answer is.. yes I would, and not feel a moment of guilt over it.

You aren’t wrong there, which is why I won’t argue your stance, it is a logical and understandable one.

But there are a few that I would gladly flip the switch on myself. And I think we have tied the hands of justice a lot already.

If it came to a vote today, on re-legalizing the death penalty... I would have to think about it before I voted, and I cannot tell you now which way I would vote, because I am not sure which way I would go.

I agree wiht the death penalty in principal, but not how it is currently practiced in most states.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184103 Mar 22, 2013
commonpeeps wrote:
<quoted text>Yup you're right, it should have read moral-less liberals. As in lacking morals.
oh, i see.

wanting to the principles of feeding the poor, offering homes to the homeless, clothing those in need are all principles of "moral-less" liberals.

and the "high-morals" of the republicans include not spending any money on those less fortunate or the healing the sick or even creating a second class citizen of the tax paying homosexuals.

gotcha, nutcase.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184105 Mar 22, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
oh, i see.
wanting to the principles of feeding the poor, offering homes to the homeless, clothing those in need are all principles of "moral-less" liberals.
and the "high-morals" of the republicans include not spending any money on those less fortunate or the healing the sick or even creating a second class citizen of the tax paying homosexuals.
gotcha, nutcase.
I don’t find their stance to be "moral" to single out people based on their orientation and deny specific rights.

I consider those "low morals" and certainly un-American, however as I suspect the republicans are currently changing their stance on this issue as quickly as they can ( they can see the political and historic wind blowing ) it will only be the fringe of their party complaining.

A dwindling minority

We have "right", and "moral" on our side, that is why I do not doubt the outcome.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184106 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t find their stance to be "moral" to single out people based on their orientation and deny specific rights.
I consider those "low morals" and certainly un-American, however as I suspect the republicans are currently changing their stance on this issue as quickly as they can ( they can see the political and historic wind blowing ) it will only be the fringe of their party complaining.
A dwindling minority
We have "right", and "moral" on our side, that is why I do not doubt the outcome.
hence the quotation marks. LOL. i call those types of "christians" self-avowed because it's a little difficult for me to buy into the line of thinking that it's ok to be derisive of my fellow mankind or to think "christians" are better than any other type of human on the earth (athiest, muslim, etc) and are to be treated deferentially by the laws of this nation.

i get disgusted by these types of self avowed christians that paint an ugly face of christ for others to see and to be pushed away from that which all christians should feel, share and understand : God's grace.

i respect your choice in being an athiest. i do not desire to force my christian outlook or expectations upon you or anyone else via legislation.

i think this swing that we're seeing in numbers of christians that are falling away and the rise in polling of people that are for same sex marriage is a direct result of the verbiage of these self avowed christians - and how they treat non-christians. why would anyone want to join their 'club' if they treat people the way they do? i think, by and large, people aren't buying into the way christ is depicted and certainly aren't buying what the self avowed christians are selling.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184107 Mar 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they do....babies can't change themselves.
<quoted text>
Religion? Even fundamentalist Mormons? Muslims..... hmmmmm...what do they have in common....what practice....
<quoted text>
Shoot for the moon.
<quoted text>
Perhaps..... or perhaps those who oppose redefing legal marriage will be vindicated by history. Opponent s of "no fault divorce" are one such example. Sounded great in theory, not in reality. We are paying the price today. Certain institutions are tampered with at our own peril
My point is, noticing a difference, and designing laws to grant rights on those differences are two very different things.

No fault divorce is a fact, "irreconcilable difference" is a nice catch- all that allows any individual a divorce if desired.

What price are we paying? I agree with no-fault divorce. But then marriage is a contract, a promise, and contracts are broken, as are some promises.

we are not talking form a religious perspective here, as there are many religions here, including none at all, but from a legal perspective.

Yes there are consequences to breaking a contract, who everyone that has been through a divorce knows very well.

But as a society we are better off for it, wives of men who abuse them are no longer without an avenue of escape, those who remain married do so because it is their desire to do so.

I personally think we are much better off than before.

But before you respond, realized that I don’t consider the number of divorces a problem, the goal is NOT to keep people married, but for people who are married stay that way because they have a good marriage. I do not think wedding rings should be forged into a ball and chain
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184108 Mar 22, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
hence the quotation marks. LOL. i call those types of "christians" self-avowed because it's a little difficult for me to buy into the line of thinking that it's ok to be derisive of my fellow mankind or to think "christians" are better than any other type of human on the earth (athiest, muslim, etc) and are to be treated deferentially by the laws of this nation.
i get disgusted by these types of self avowed christians that paint an ugly face of christ for others to see and to be pushed away from that which all christians should feel, share and understand : God's grace.
i respect your choice in being an athiest. i do not desire to force my christian outlook or expectations upon you or anyone else via legislation.
i think this swing that we're seeing in numbers of christians that are falling away and the rise in polling of people that are for same sex marriage is a direct result of the verbiage of these self avowed christians - and how they treat non-christians. why would anyone want to join their 'club' if they treat people the way they do? i think, by and large, people aren't buying into the way christ is depicted and certainly aren't buying what the self avowed christians are selling.
Oh I knew...I was agreeing with you, I am disgusted by them as well.

The republican party is shifting on the subject now, I suspect 50 years from now, most Christian churches will support it as well, it will take them longer. The biggest flaw I have is believing in people, and I happen to believe that they actually want to do the right thing, they are having difficulty seeing past the dogma beat into them to see what the right thing is.

Look back not all that long ago, and they were burning people at the stake depending on of they were one sect of Christianity or another, few ( any?) of the churches would support that today.( maybe that one in Westborough Kansas )

I may be naive, but I would rather think good of people.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184109 Mar 22, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I knew...I was agreeing with you, I am disgusted by them as well.
The republican party is shifting on the subject now, I suspect 50 years from now, most Christian churches will support it as well, it will take them longer. The biggest flaw I have is believing in people, and I happen to believe that they actually want to do the right thing, they are having difficulty seeing past the dogma beat into them to see what the right thing is.
Look back not all that long ago, and they were burning people at the stake depending on of they were one sect of Christianity or another, few ( any?) of the churches would support that today.( maybe that one in Westborough Kansas )
I may be naive, but I would rather think good of people.
it's hard, for me annyway, to keep those rose colored glasses on in reading through these threads. all that hate & disgust that's expressed. the only glimmering hope is when i read the polls that are conducted regularly that more and more people disagree with the ideology expressed in these threads.

it wasn't that long ago that we saw blacks villified for stepping up and demanding the right to vote or to equal treatment in schools and laws....or women back in the teens and 20s of the 20th century. now, we see our society stand almost in total unity (granted, there are pockets of idiocy) in regards to those rights. i remember hearing older relatives back in the 60s talk about in disgust about the rulings regarding segregated schools. those relatives were in their 60s and 70s back then and are all gone now. they've all died off - and we'll most likely see the same sequence in the same sex marriage issue.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#184110 Mar 22, 2013
Proposition 8 won at the polls; that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184111 Mar 22, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it's hard, for me annyway, to keep those rose colored glasses on in reading through these threads. all that hate & disgust that's expressed. the only glimmering hope is when i read the polls that are conducted regularly that more and more people disagree with the ideology expressed in these threads.
it wasn't that long ago that we saw blacks villified for stepping up and demanding the right to vote or to equal treatment in schools and laws....or women back in the teens and 20s of the 20th century. now, we see our society stand almost in total unity (granted, there are pockets of idiocy) in regards to those rights. i remember hearing older relatives back in the 60s talk about in disgust about the rulings regarding segregated schools. those relatives were in their 60s and 70s back then and are all gone now. they've all died off - and we'll most likely see the same sequence in the same sex marriage issue.
I have to use epoxy to keep them on LOL

But I would hate to lose that, I really would, I want… desperately, to think better of people than what they show.

But look at history, you started with black people, it wasn’t 200 years before that one could be burned at the state for being a Protestant, or Catholic ( depending on where you were )

it goes back and back and back

But you could be right, we may have to wait for them to die off, my relatives were from the deep south, so you can imagine what I heard as a child, but the children of those same people, are supportive of equal rights for everyone, even same sex marrage.

What annoys me is the people that we are waiting to die off, are my age, that bothers me no end. It was my generation that was supposed to get past all this garbage, we failed, however when I look at my children ( now in their 30's and 40's ) and their friends, where we have failed we at least taught those values to the next generation, even if we could not live up to them ourselves.

I have kept young by keeping young people around me, and listening ( not waiting my turn to talk ) to what they are saying, and thinking about why they are saying that. Sometimes that takes some effort on my part… my opinions are pretty ingrained.

If you look at the polls,( by young I mean 35 and younger ) they have overwhelming support for same sex marriage.

It helps, I may be an old man ( well older anyway ) but I have kept an open mind.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#184112 Mar 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Proposition 8 won at the polls; that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
If that vote were held today it would fail in a landslide, and on the outside chance that the supreme court surprises me and chooses the wrong way, you will get to see that, as the removal of that will be on the next ballot.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#184113 Mar 22, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>yaYaya, we all evolved from a puddle of crud. lol. If you knew anything about science and the odds of that happening you would change your tune.
A fundie talking about science...LOL.

I pass gas that knows more about odds than you do.
You are talking about odds after the fact.
That's like asking what are the odds Lou Gehrig would have died of Lou Gehrig's disease.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#184114 Mar 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Proposition 8 won at the polls; that proves same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
No, dear, it just showed that people can vote against the constitution - and have it recinded and declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch of the government. that's their job, by the way.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#184115 Mar 22, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
I almost feel bad making fun of you Rose, I feel like I shouldn't pile on to what the rest of the world already does to you.
You don't have the 'nads to admit you made a mistake.
That's one thing that is pathetic about you.
Another is you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how little you think I matter.
And you searched through tens of thousands of posts to find a specific post I made.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#184116 Mar 22, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't very bright are you?
The point was that you can have restrictive laws while not having an equal right's violation under the Constitution.
In the instance of the POTUS, the example used, not every US Citizen is eligible to hold said office. In the example, a naturalized US Citizen, whom is a citizen, is not treated as an equal to the Natural Born Citizen, as such they cannot hold the office of the President.
Apply the same logic as is applied by the likes of you an Rose
Can you make a post that doesn't mention me?
akpilot wrote:
among others to the same sex marriage issue, the previous example would be a violation of the equal rights provisions of the 14th Amendment, and as such Article II Sec 1 of the US Constitution is itself Unconstitutional.
What an interesting quandary?
Only to a simpleton like you.

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.

Redwood City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Senior Helpers (Mar '16) Sep 23 John A 3
Re-Elect Judge Aaron Persky! Sep 7 Big Lumber 8
james dobbs ex rialto police officer moves back... (Aug '10) Jul '16 Bobcobb 16
Floating comes to Redwood City near Bed, Bath a... May '16 Michelle2m 1
News Redwood City approves highway undercrossing: Pa... May '16 Lives in Redwood ... 2
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Mar '16 Lue1981 122
Which cheap and legit site to buy fifa 15 coins? (Nov '14) Mar '16 Novialee 4

Redwood City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Redwood City Mortgages