Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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.

hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185354 Mar 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And another thing, there are Christian polygamists, again diversity of opinion, thought, practice, etc.
you need to work on your acceptance of diversity..

your dogma is right in the way of your karma.

esp if you want the world to accept YOUR situation.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185355 Mar 29, 2013
"...the country is changing and you better get with it and understand it. The genie is not getting put back in the bottle. I donít care what this court does with this particular ruling, Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.Ē

Isn't that what we've been saying all along?
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185356 Mar 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And another thing, there are Christian polygamists, again diversity of opinion, thought, practice, etc.
so MEN shouldnt be allowed to marry a women unless she is fertile?

women over 55 cant get married??

i know you dont want to hear it? the state requires NOTHING from anyones marriage.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185357 Mar 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
"...the country is changing and you better get with it and understand it. The genie is not getting put back in the bottle. I donít care what this court does with this particular ruling, Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.Ē
Isn't that what we've been saying all along?
that is just the point VV

all they(scotus) have to DO is NOT hear it.....

and prop HATE is a goner.

DOMA's constitutionality is ALREADY on the ropes..

if those court proceedings were any indication..

it will likely be stuck down

the attourney defendng DOMA admitted it was a document based on prejudice and politics.....(what a s&&ty attourney, right?)

I love hearing those law makers speeches, on the senate and house floor, in 1996, argueing against DOMA
being enacted.....

it was heart warming!

now we can see clearly, those lawmakers were on the loving and tolerant side of history(for once)

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185358 Mar 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not at all. There is diversity of thought, opinion, practice, etc wthin Christianity. Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you could answer mine, opine please.
The only gay guy who I've heard who has come out against same-gender marriage is a man who I have some respect and pity for.

Doug Mainwaring calls himself a "gay man who is against same-sex marriage".

His story is complicated.

As a young man in college he began to experiment with his attractions toward other guys. But like so many young gay men, he couldn't commit to accept his homosexuality.

Instead he married a woman who he sang in the choir with. They attempted to have children, but learned that they were physically unable. So, they ended up adopting 2 kids.

A few years later, they decided to get a divorce. It apparently had nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

While he was divorced, he dated men and even had a couple of significant relationships. But he longed to be in a relationship with his wife because he didn't like the fact that his kids were growing up between two households.

After some work, he and his wife ended up remarrying. They set up a relationship in which there would be no sexual activity between the two of them. Rather, they would be "friends". They also agreed that neither of them would pursue sexual relationships outside of their marriage. Their sole focus would be on raising their children.

Doug claims that it is impossible for two men to have the kind of deep relationship that is possible between a man and a woman. He says that same-gender relationships are "one dimensional". He says that they're largely based on sex; that two men who are in a sexual relationship tend to forgo the deep friendship that can only come from opposite gender relationships.

So, there you have it... He's the "Gay man who is against same-gender marriage".

But more accurately, he is the non-sexual gay man who decided to remarry his wife for the purposes of giving his children an intact home.

That he has "opinions" that I don't agree with, doesn't faze me in the least. His situation is complicated. And that he wasn't able to find a fulfilling relationship with another man in no way indicates that there are no deeply loving same-gender relationships.

If he wants to live in a sexless relationship with a woman for the purposes of raising his kids, it's a free country.

Though, I'm sure you're going to insist that they consummate their marriage, otherwise it isn't legally binding.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185360 Mar 29, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
that is just the point VV
all they(scotus) have to DO is NOT hear it.....
and prop HATE is a goner.
DOMA's constitutionality is ALREADY on the ropes..
if those court proceedings were any indication..
it will likely be stuck down
the attourney defendng DOMA admitted it was a document based on prejudice and politics.....(what a s&&ty attourney, right?)
I love hearing those law makers speeches, on the senate and house floor, in 1996, argueing against DOMA
being enacted.....
it was heart warming!
now we can see clearly, those lawmakers were on the loving and tolerant side of history(for once)
You know what's going to floor them is when they learn that the person who spoke so eloquently about same-sex marriage being an inevitability was none other than Rush Limbaugh.
Morning Joe

La Puente, CA

#185361 Mar 29, 2013
Not a chance in h i c ups.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185362 Mar 29, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Which means it's legal. A sore thumb gets you a card.
I guess since youve run out of arguements against gay marriage??

you are now turning to MMJ?

I liken those two struggles with each other, as acceptance on both issues, has grown exponetionally during my 44 years.

dont be a pot bigot, it isnt anymore flattereing than being bigot, when it comes to gay rights...

patient rights are big struggle too!!

holding on to the sacred instittuion of privacy, is paramount.

weve experienced OUR share of harrasment over what type of medicine we choose to use.

not quite as degrading and personal as when GAY people are attacked//

but is still ignorance on display...

especially with you and MMJ.

because weve gone OVER AND OVER that you dont like to venture out of the reich wing info bubble to study the issue without as much bigoted bias.

back in the good ole days of racism???

weed was used to reinforce stereo types..

and racism was used to villify pot use as well.

youve no doubt seen "reefer madness"

ill say no more.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#185364 Mar 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
"...the country is changing and you better get with it and understand it. The genie is not getting put back in the bottle. I donít care what this court does with this particular ruling, Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.Ē
Isn't that what we've been saying all along?
veryvermilion

Yes. You express the Christian viewpoint perfectly. According Christian belief, God created, and he saw that it was good. Then, sin crept in and man fell. According to that point of view, as time progresses man has been entrapped in a downward spiral because of the choices that he himself makes. As a result, he becomes ever more degenerate and estranged from his maker. Do you have any solution that might solve this long standing vexatious dilemma?

Ronald

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185365 Mar 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The only gay guy who I've heard who has come out against same-gender marriage is a man who I have some respect and pity for.
Doug Mainwaring calls himself a "gay man who is against same-sex marriage".
His story is complicated.
As a young man in college he began to experiment with his attractions toward other guys. But like so many young gay men, he couldn't commit to accept his homosexuality.
Instead he married a woman who he sang in the choir with. They attempted to have children, but learned that they were physically unable. So, they ended up adopting 2 kids.
A few years later, they decided to get a divorce. It apparently had nothing to do with his sexual orientation.
While he was divorced, he dated men and even had a couple of significant relationships. But he longed to be in a relationship with his wife because he didn't like the fact that his kids were growing up between two households.
After some work, he and his wife ended up remarrying. They set up a relationship in which there would be no sexual activity between the two of them. Rather, they would be "friends". They also agreed that neither of them would pursue sexual relationships outside of their marriage. Their sole focus would be on raising their children.
Doug claims that it is impossible for two men to have the kind of deep relationship that is possible between a man and a woman. He says that same-gender relationships are "one dimensional". He says that they're largely based on sex; that two men who are in a sexual relationship tend to forgo the deep friendship that can only come from opposite gender relationships.
So, there you have it... He's the "Gay man who is against same-gender marriage".
But more accurately, he is the non-sexual gay man who decided to remarry his wife for the purposes of giving his children an intact home.
That he has "opinions" that I don't agree with, doesn't faze me in the least. His situation is complicated. And that he wasn't able to find a fulfilling relationship with another man in no way indicates that there are no deeply loving same-gender relationships.
If he wants to live in a sexless relationship with a woman for the purposes of raising his kids, it's a free country.
Though, I'm sure you're going to insist that they consummate their marriage, otherwise it isn't legally binding.
There are others. Even in the protests against SSM in France, there was gay opposition to redefining marriage. So what is your opinion of those gay folks oppose SSM for the same reason some straight folks do? Are they traitors, self loathers, self haters?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185366 Mar 29, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess since youve run out of arguements against gay marriage??
you are now turning to MMJ?
I liken those two struggles with each other, as acceptance on both issues, has grown exponetionally during my 44 years.
You brought up pot, look at your name....lol...You are the fool that got a slip disk and waited for pot to cure it for the last 29 years. By doing that, it's most likely messed up for life, nice decision. I'm in favor of pot being legal for everyone, not just medical where the Gov. knows who and what. But with that said, pot can be over used like any drug, like in your case. Good luck.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185367 Mar 29, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
that is just the point VV
all they(scotus) have to DO is NOT hear it.....
and prop HATE is a goner.
DOMA's constitutionality is ALREADY on the ropes..
if those court proceedings were any indication..
it will likely be stuck down
the attourney defendng DOMA admitted it was a document based on prejudice and politics.....(what a s&&ty attourney, right?)
I love hearing those law makers speeches, on the senate and house floor, in 1996, argueing against DOMA
being enacted.....
it was heart warming!
now we can see clearly, those lawmakers were on the loving and tolerant side of history(for once)
I'm in my late 40s. If I'm lucky enough to make it to my 70s or 80s, it will be nice to look back on the comments made by those opposing same-gender marriage and watch them squirm as they have to continuously eat their words as they try so hard to prove they're no longer bigots.

Strom Thurmond eventually abandoned his segregationists views, but he was never able to shake his image of being a racist. Well, it was kind of shaken when it became widely known that he had fathered a biracial daughter.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185368 Mar 29, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>You brought up pot, look at your name....lol...You are the fool that got a slip disk and waited for pot to cure it for the last 29 years. By doing that, it's most likely messed up for life, nice decision. I'm in favor of pot being legal for everyone, not just medical where the Gov. knows who and what. But with that said, pot can be over used like any drug, like in your case. Good luck.
so let me get this straight...

you are a small government conservative??

YET you want all MMJ patients registered with the government??

but you are against background checks(which is essentially a registry as well) kinda hypocritical huh??

doesnt that rub up against patient privacy?? legally speaking??

or are people who use MMJ not afforded the same rights as "Normal patients".??

it is a pretty simple concept....

and you keep jumping the rails of accountability when it comes to consistency.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185369 Mar 29, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess since youve run out of arguements against gay marriage??
you are now turning to MMJ?
I liken those two struggles with each other, as acceptance on both issues, has grown exponetionally during my 44 years.
dont be a pot bigot, it isnt anymore flattereing than being bigot, when it comes to gay rights...
"...dont be a pot bigot...? The inmates have clearly taken over the asylum. What's next from the left coast? So any left wing cause that others disagree with automatically garners them the "bigot" label. That same reasoning doesn't apply to the left coasties, because only their causes are secularly sacred and not open to dissent, all other causes that are not appoved by the People's Republic, are not to be tolerated.
patient rights are big struggle too!!
holding on to the sacred instittuion of privacy, is paramount.
weve experienced OUR share of harrasment over what type of medicine we choose to use.
not quite as degrading and personal as when GAY people are attacked//
but is still ignorance on display...
especially with you and MMJ.
because weve gone OVER AND OVER that you dont like to venture out of the reich wing info bubble to study the issue without as much bigoted bias.
And of course all those on the left are full of tolerance, virtue, and free of bigotry.
back in the good ole days of racism???
weed was used to reinforce stereo types..
and racism was used to villify pot use as well.
youve no doubt seen "reefer madness"
ill say no more.
Peace out.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185370 Mar 29, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, if the right wing was SERIOUS about protecting marriage, they would be working to outlaw divorce.
Reduce the number of divorces, yes, outlaw it no. If it were outlawed, who would legally marry?
They are NOT, because 'protecting marriage' is NOT their goal. Excluding gays is their goal.
The kicker here is gays aren't excluded. The bottom line is how marriage is legally defined. Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. How can there be marriage if you exclude one sex? In essence what is being asked is to legally recognize three institutions, so to speak. One, conjugal marriage of husband and wife. One gay marriage of two men, and one lesbian marriage of two women. SSM is an attempt to graft onto the the existing institution two seperate relationships with out any opposite sex language, dynamics, sexual aspect/union, culture, traditions, etc. Seriously XBox, is there a deep seated SSM culture male or female? Why does the nice lesbian couple down the street appear in their wedding photos in a tuxedo and a wedding dress? Is there some subconscious heterosexual yearning there? Do gay men who marry wear wedding dresses?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185371 Mar 29, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>That's what I thought, why did you bring up your injury and bash old people? What is wrong with you?
Ageist bigotry. Empty to a bigot who hate senior citizens.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185372 Mar 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in my late 40s. If I'm lucky enough to make it to my 70s or 80s, it will be nice to look back on the comments made by those opposing same-gender marriage and watch them squirm as they have to continuously eat their words as they try so hard to prove they're no longer bigots.
Swap out same gendered marriage for plural marriage, still the same. Bigotry against polygamy is still bigotry.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#185373 Mar 29, 2013
hemp for telelgraphs wrote:
<quoted text>
so let me get this straight...
you are a small government conservative??
YET you want all MMJ patients registered with the government??
but you are against background checks(which is essentially a registry as well) kinda hypocritical huh??
doesnt that rub up against patient privacy?? legally speaking??
or are people who use MMJ not afforded the same rights as "Normal patients".??
it is a pretty simple concept....
and you keep jumping the rails of accountability when it comes to consistency.
Your problem is that you can't read. It always has been. I don't want MMJ patients registered with the Government, that is why I want it legal like beer. So if you could read, it would save your time from all the unnecessary rants. Sad you are just a few years younger then I am and can't read.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185374 Mar 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"...dont be a pot bigot...? The inmates have clearly taken over the asylum. What's next from the left coast? So any left wing cause that others disagree with automatically garners them the "bigot" label. That same reasoning doesn't apply to the left coasties, because only their causes are secularly sacred and not open to dissent, all other causes that are not appoved by the People's Republic, are not to be tolerated.
<quoted text>
And of course all those on the left are full of tolerance, virtue, and free of bigotry.
<quoted text>
Peace out.
serioulsy you dont know bigotry until youve experienced it.

like when people dont understand your polygamy..??

so mabey you DO have a taste.

I do understand your situaltion, but am waiting for the rest of america to come along, like you....(at least from a purley legal standpoint) as i dont like to bring my personal values to the "fight".

that is what you folks on the FAR right do..

you, who cant think of any REAL good reason gays shouldnt have ALL the rights you and i enjoy.

the procreation arguement is laughable(from both a moral and legal standpoint)....I notice you havnt come up with a reply to why people OVER 55 shouldnt marry??? because their union can produce children.....how ridiculous can ya get??

the fact is that the state requires NOTHING from ANY marraige.

not even that it succeed.

like i said before, Karmically, you need to get out in front on issues like this, if you want full rights and acceptance in society for your own special EXTRA marritial situation.

cheers

ps; when just veiwing the law, anyone can see DOMA is bigoted..

the lawyer defending it said so himself..

He even said

"strike it down"

( your side hired a great lawyer, huh?)

keep your personal values at home, out of the present discussion.
hemp for telelgraphs

Anderson, CA

#185375 Mar 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ageist bigotry. Empty to a bigot who hate senior citizens.
it is clear that since 83% of young people support marriage eqaulity??

GAY marraige will be fully accepted in a certain amount of time.

approval of gay marraige has gone from 23% in 96', to 58%, today.

WHILE the country got older....

demographically speaking.

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.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Around the Valley (Oct '07) 1 hr newcomer 37
Pacheco and Mousavi back again 13 hr Stop Pacheco 11
Pacheco going overboard on Conference Budget (Jul '14) 13 hr Stop Pacheco 3
Pacheco Changes Name for Montebello Housing NO ... (Oct '14) 13 hr Stop Pacheco 7
Pacheco Tries to Bring in Sarah Withers for Cit... (May '14) 13 hr Stop Pacheco 9
Tribune Learns Scams of Pacheco and Taylor (Jun '14) 13 hr Stupid Twins 3
Pacheco: Public Enemy #1 (Feb '14) 13 hr Pacheco Finished 20
More from around the web

Rowland Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]