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 8,004)

Showing posts 160,061 - 160,080 of199,067
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183337
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I learned working at GE...
what job did YOU have there?
GE is a law school now, eh? Mkay..... I already know you didn't go to law school.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183338
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I would take it even further than that. Marriage is a transformative process that turns a man and woman into each other's legally wedded, respective wife, or husband. It has deep seated historic, cultural, legal and religious roots. In fact the sexual union, of husband and wife, can, and often does, result in conception.
hus if the couple
<quoted text>
That is a definition, that requires the qualification of male to female and vice versa.
Not correct at all, you are dead wrong on cultural and legal roots, you best not mention religion as that has never been a legal requirement for a marriage, you can get married by a justice of the peace, I have been to many weddings with no mention of any of the thousands of human religions at all.

I know many gay couples, many of the legally married in California before Prop 8.

You are wrong in just about every aspect.
Pietro Armando

East Otis, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183340
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no, that perfectly describes religious types, they do evil and donít care, they hurt others without any remorse and they donít think the law or any morality or decency of this country of justice, equality and freedom apply to them, or to their efforts to trample on the happiness of others different from themselves.
It fits them perfectly
It works both ways. Not everyone is a secular saint on the other side.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183341
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
VV, maybe this analogy will help your foolishness;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Trees can't do things like that, idiot. Are you so dumb because your brain is made out of tissues with two different sets of tissues that don't communicate?
KiMare wrote:
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too is simply silly.
Stupid! The ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, it's pretty much the definition. The ability to have children is NOT part of the indention of marriage.
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
If our rights depend on our genes, should you be allowed to marry?
You already have both sets!
LOL!
Speaking of evolution, do you think you should have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.
Moreover, if you remove the element of procreation, you dumb down marriage to just a friendship. Hardly a cause for government interest, let alone selective discrimination.
You are welcome.
Smile.
And stupid, allowing gay marriage will not remove the element of procreation, people will still procreate.
LOL!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183343
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I clearly stated that procreation is ONE of the reasons that people get married. It, however, IS NOT the only reason that people marry.
If the only reason for marriage is procreation, then the government should ONLY be handing out licenses to fertile couples who clearly want to have children.
The government could even wait until the couple produces a child. People who feel it's wrong to have sex before marriage could have a religious ceremony before having sex.
veryvermilion wrote:
Using your stupid perspective, those who are infertile due to medical problems or age and those who are simply uninterested in having children SHOULD NOT be issued a license to marry.
These people, as you point out, are only arbitrary friends.
If you're going to refuse same-gender couples the right to marry due to their inability to "naturally" create life, then you're going to have to refuse marriage to those heterosexual couples who cannot have or do not want to have children as well.
Is that a step you're willing to take?
You won't get an answer. Well, maybe that stupid apple/walnut tree analogy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183344
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Dorn wrote:
Gay married couples who do not have their own children are helping the Plant Earth decrease population growth rate.
Some countries are doing that on their own.
Gay married couples who have the natural urge to nourish children and adopt unwanted children should be applaulded.
Absolutely. Any person who adopts a child should be applauded
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183345
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It works both ways. Not everyone is a secular saint on the other side.
In what way are same sex couples trampling the happiness of others? Unless...these others happiness is derived from denying happiness to other people?

It doesnít matter which way you look at it does it?

One side is trying to deny happiness to others, while the other side is just trying to find their own happiness with no effect on anyone else.

There are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now, didnít hurt me, or my marriage to my wife in any way at all, no one has ever explained what harm it has done to anyone, not to me, and certainly not in court.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183346
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage. Procreation isn't a requirement for marriage anymore than requiring people to eat only what they shoot would be a requirement for a hunting license.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183347
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
The Taliban has an opening for you, you would like it there. Religion is mandated, anyone not conforming to social norms is not tolerated and harshly punished.
Pietro Armando wrote about procreation and marriage, not about religion.

.
Big D wrote:
Just your style I prefer the land of the free, where equality and justice is more important, but that is just me.
Equality isn't the same as freedom, any law that enforces equality restricts someone's freedom. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183348
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Texas Senator files bill to legalize civil unions

http://dailytexanonline.com/blogs/the-update/...

Same sex couples would have access to many of the benefits and legal protections afforded to heterosexual married couples if a bill and several resolutions filed in the Texas Legislature gain approval.

The bill, filed by state Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, would partially repeal the Texas Defense of Marriage Act of 2003, which prevents Texas from recognizing same sex unions.

In a statement, Hinojosa cited a 2012 public opinion poll conducted by UT and The Texas Tribune showing that a majority of Texas voters favored some legal recognition of same-sex couples.

"Texans are now realizing the importance of providing same-gender couples the same protections that married couples receive," Hinojosa said.

The bill would provide same sex couples certain legal protections including property rights, adoption rights and worker compensation benefits.

One of the three constitutional amendments proposed last week by state Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso, state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, or state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, must pass in both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote and then approved by Texas voters in order for Hinojosaís bill to take effect in 2014.

The proposed constitutional amendment would repeal the 2005 Texas Marriage Amendment to the Texas Constitution, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prohibits recognition of civil unions.

Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, an organization that lobbies for gay and transgender rights, said in a statement that Hinojosaís legislation is the first step on a path toward recognizing rights for same-sex couples in Texas.

"We believe that every Texas family should be able to take care of those they love," Smith said.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183349
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The government could even wait until the couple produces a child. People who feel it's wrong to have sex before marriage could have a religious ceremony before having sex.
<quoted text>
You won't get an answer. Well, maybe that stupid apple/walnut tree analogy.
Oh maybe the government could say, "marriage is the union of husband and wife". That's it. Simple right? It covers it all. Men, women, sex, consummation, procreation, conception, presumption of paternity, etc. Both sexes involved.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183350
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?

Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183351
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way are same sex couples trampling the happiness of others? Unless...these others happiness is derived from denying happiness to other people?
It doesnít matter which way you look at it does it?
One side is trying to deny happiness to others, while the other side is just trying to find their own happiness with no effect on anyone else.
There are 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California right now, didnít hurt me, or my marriage to my wife in any way at all, no one has ever explained what harm it has done to anyone, not to me, and certainly not in court.
My answer was in response to:
Big D wrote:
Oh no, that perfectly describes religious types, they do evil and donít care, they hurt others without any remorse and they donít think the law or any morality or decency of this country of justice, equality and freedom apply to them, or to their efforts to trample on the happiness of others different from themselves.
It fits them perfectly.
Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183352
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

10

8

8

Brian_G wrote:
I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?
Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.
There are over 1,000 rights that legally married couples enjoy that are NOT afforded to civil unions!What you're saying therefore is that gays are not good enough to have a fully legal marriage like there is now in 10 states by the way! Just love your bumper sticker posts! Hilarious,thanks for the laughs! Next!
Forkedya

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183353
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Roll On, it's going to be fun.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183354
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage. Procreation isn't a requirement for marriage anymore than requiring people to eat only what they shoot would be a requirement for a hunting license.
Damn, you are dumb.
Look, procreation just isn't a requirement for marriage. Period.
And it's not a benefit of marriage. You don't have to be married to procreate.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183355
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
I support civil unions, that is the perfect compromise to keep marriage male/female. If the Constituion prohibits calling same sex unions "civil unions", why not call it domestic partnerships and leave out the rights that require taxpayers provide benefits for same sex partners?
Same sex marriage means more wasteful government spending on entitlements for same sex dependent beneficiaries. If you want to cut spending and keep government from intruding into marriage, keep marriage as is, one man and one woman.
LOL! Just admit you are a bigot!
Why do you homophobes talk about "taxpayers" as if gay people don't pay taxes?
And government intruding into marriage? Too late, stupid!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183357
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Hey, Brian_G, what about this idea? The government will only recognize a marriage after the couple spawns. After all, you say "Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage."
If the couple has an irrational belief that sex before marriage is wrong, they can get some sort of religious marriage that has no legal status, come on G, what do you say?

Since: Feb 13

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183358
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

In the judgment of the measures unconstitutional. Appeal process will begin, for the first time in 9 federal circuit court and then, if they decide to hear the case, the Supreme Court of the United States. this case, a vote was trying to define marriage. The voters passed the measures by 52% thinner.Now, not be decided at the Ballot box or on these forums. The Judges will decide it and we will Abide.http://iosvn.vn http://www.seoitc.com
Burnece

Saylorsburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183359
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
Hey, Brian_G, what about this idea? The government will only recognize a marriage after the couple spawns. After all, you say "Procreation is a benefit of marriage, that's why government privileges marriage."
If the couple has an irrational belief that sex before marriage is wrong, they can get some sort of religious marriage that has no legal status, come on G, what do you say?
Wow, you're one nasty a.ss queer.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 160,061 - 160,080 of199,067
|
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.

•••
•••

South Pasadena News Video

•••
•••

South Pasadena Jobs

•••
•••
•••

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••