Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

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

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#183558 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not all courts agree that banning SSM is unconstitutional. We both know that.
Is Judge Walker gay?
Yes, Judge Walker is gay. Do you think that made him more likely to decide in favor of same-gender marriage? Judge Alan C. Kay is straight. If you're going to argue that Judge Walker's orientation impacted his decision to legalize same-gender marriage, I will argue Judge Kay's orientation impacted his decision to "protect" marriage. Oh, and Judge Kay is divorced and remarried. Would that make him less objective about hearing divorce cases or child custody cases or any cases involving marriage?

And just so you know, a three (heterosexual, male) judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the Proposition 8 case because he is gay.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#183559 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights. If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
So skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage--except, of course, throughout most of American history. I mean over 400 years of anti-miscegenation laws certainly say something about how marriage was defined in the U.S.
That you find no problem with it now is simply a matter of you being born during a period when minority races were fighting for equality.
Future generations will see same-gender marriage much the same way that you see interracial marriages now.
Your argument about "dumbing down" marriage by allowing same-gender marriage is not all that different than those who believed mixed-race marriage would "dumb down" purity found in same-race marriages of the past.
I guess what I'm saying is that the world has heard your arguments in the past and it eventually decided it was a crock of shit. Mixed-race marriages were made legal and nothing happened. People didn't suddenly want to marry their dogs. Bigamists didn't suddenly get laws passed to make their relationships legal. No incestuous marriages were performed.
Your scare tactics are stupid and have been overruled in the past.
Oh knock off the gay twirl hissy fit masquerading as logic!

Inter-racial marriages conflict in no way with the basic essence of marriage. They have been present throughout history in every culture.

Duplicate gendered couples fail at every level with marriage. They have never been accepted from start of finish in a single culture in all of human history.

Nor are the arguments the same, as much as you'd like to gay twirl it.

Moreover, it is common sense and simple logic, not scare tactics, that it would be prejudicial to allow only certain types of committed relationships and limit those to just two people. Unless of course, you could come up with a legit reason???

As to the message of the past, the only one I am aware of is that when an attempt to call gay couples married, it never survived for any length of time. Anywhere.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#183560 Mar 16, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Judge Walker is gay. Do you think that made him more likely to decide in favor of same-gender marriage? Judge Alan C. Kay is straight. If you're going to argue that Judge Walker's orientation impacted his decision to legalize same-gender marriage, I will argue Judge Kay's orientation impacted his decision to "protect" marriage. Oh, and Judge Kay is divorced and remarried. Would that make him less objective about hearing divorce cases or child custody cases or any cases involving marriage?
Considering the voters of California voted to define marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the previous efforts to preserve that definition of marriage, I would say his orientation influenced his decision.
And just so you know, a three (heterosexual, male) judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the Proposition 8 case because he is gay.
Did the panel identify themselves as "heterosexual"?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183561 Mar 16, 2013
Gender segregation marriage is bad because men and women differ; the facts of life are reflected in our marriage laws.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183562 Mar 16, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're sure right there, no-one is forcing me to marry someone of the same sex. And, yes sir, gays pay taxes, although it is a minority proportion. Right again, bub. And protection is one thing, but wrongful declarations are something else. The rights that are protected are the ones guaranteeing protection from the government overstepping its bounds, not any that are imagined. Like making everyone accept SSM. Or having the government override the will of the people.
Bigfoot, fk the "will of the people" if it goes against equal protection. Why do you think we have a Constitution, three branches of government and checks and balances and don't just vote on everything?
You won't accept gay marriage, no matter what. That's a non issue.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183563 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gender segregation marriage is bad because men and women differ; the facts of life are reflected in our marriage laws.
Intelligent people and fundies differ. But they should still have equal rights.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183564 Mar 16, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Skin color had no conflict with the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Our rights should depend on our chromosomes?
Should you have the same rights a shrimp does?
KiMare wrote:
Duplicate gendered couples are not just an obvious distinction from diverse gendered couples, they are a direct defective conflict with the very basic purpose of evolution.
You have no argument for 'equal' rights.

A man can marry a woman, a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, a man should have that same right.
KiMare wrote:
If you dumb down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship', you immediately discriminate against other friendships and the number involved.
Smile.
<quoted text>
Oh knock off the gay twirl hissy fit masquerading as logic!
Inter-racial marriages conflict in no way with the basic essence of marriage. They have been present throughout history in every culture.
Even if true, so what?
KiMare wrote:
Duplicate gendered couples fail at every level with marriage.
You are dual gendered at the cellular level. Do you fail at every level? Should you have been aborted?
KiMare wrote:
They have never been accepted from start of finish in a single culture in all of human history.
Nor are the arguments the same, as much as you'd like to gay twirl it.
Moreover, it is common sense and simple logic, not scare tactics, that it would be prejudicial to allow only certain types of committed relationships and limit those to just two people. Unless of course, you could come up with a legit reason???
As to the message of the past, the only one I am aware of is that when an attempt to call gay couples married, it never survived for any length of time. Anywhere.
Smile.
Shrimp have 92 chromosomes, not humans!
:)
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183565 Mar 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent people and fundies differ. But they should still have equal rights.
Rose_NoHo.

Exactly. White "Liberals" who advocate legalizing the "marriage" of two African and non-Africans of the same sex should be entitled to no more constitutional rights than are we decent dog lovers.

Ronald
jamest

Glendale, CA

#183566 Mar 16, 2013
look these gays have paid a lot of money trying to have their way if you are gay then be gay you don't have the sme right as a man and wmen i don't care how many people you bribe the only right you shoul have is puting your head in the sand come on folk to man having sex 2 chick having sex licking each other balls or pussy his sweaty balls saying i love you man nasty shit man plane and simple puting his penis were you shit your waste come on now folk that not love that just nasty

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#183567 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good points! A gay judge dismissed the lawful vote of a majority of Californians, now they cry about their 'rights'. There is no right to gender equality.
Men and women are different, vive le difference. Reason number two for keeping marriage one man and one woman; sexual differentiation. Isn't it cool how law reflects nature?
One more person that doesn't understand how America works. We're not a democratic nation. Go back and take a look at the reasons for his ruling and the subsequent judicial responses that followed his decision.

Oh, BTW, same sex marriage is gaining ground. 1 out of 4 republicans now approve of it. Democrats favor it by majority and so do libertarians.
BeeWax

Covina, CA

#183569 Mar 16, 2013
I knew bees wax could build up in your ears, but never over your eye holes?
Robsan5

United States

#183571 Mar 16, 2013
How mamy of you queers want a d!ck up your a.ss?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#183572 Mar 16, 2013
jamest wrote:
look these gays have paid a lot of money trying to have their way if you are gay then be gay you don't have the sme right as a man and wmen i don't care how many people you bribe the only right you shoul have is puting your head in the sand come on folk to man having sex 2 chick having sex licking each other balls or pussy his sweaty balls saying i love you man nasty shit man plane and simple puting his penis were you shit your waste come on now folk that not love that just nasty
wow you are vile and vulgar and very nasty. Get some help, sounds like u might be a sex addict, what a waste of time that is.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#183574 Mar 16, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU you HOMO... you suck
Hey, Bruno, he merely pointed out how you blew more men ever before, and you got all red about.....LOL.....Eat shyte, you blo-hard...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#183575 Mar 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not all courts agree that banning SSM is unconstitutional. We both know that.
Is Judge Walker gay?
None of the appellate judges that agreed with his decision were gay, nor are any of the supreme court justices that will also uphold the overturning of Prop 8

lame argument, and already past it, Judges that are not gay are already agreeing

So lets see

Procreation is a lost argument
Same sex marriages leads to marrying your sister is a lost ( and particularly laughable ) argument
Judge was gay is a lost argument

What else you got? Other than hatred?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#183576 Mar 16, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
... We're not a democratic nation....
^^^Same sex marriage is antidemocratic, and they know it.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#183577 Mar 16, 2013
Rose's "equality" Law: Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the decent women and men who are dog lovers!?"

Ronald
drinK The Hive

New York, NY

#183578 Mar 16, 2013
A Lot Of Those People Are Probably Plagued With Self-Doubt From Their Queer Desires - But If Getting A Sex Change Or Dressing In Drag Make' Them Feel More Comfortable 4 The Ride - They Should Go 4 It...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llqi3xNetO1...

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#183579 Mar 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Same sex marriage is antidemocratic, and they know it.
So is inter-racial marriage. So what? People are granted equal protection under the law, even when that's not popular.
Get over it

Jackson, MO

#183580 Mar 16, 2013
Some dudes like other dudes

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.

Westlake Village Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Earthquake could imperil L.A.'s water supply Sat squeezers 4
Bishop Charles Edward will be exposed in 2012/s... (Feb '12) Jan 29 The Evangelist 5
Disneyland Measles Outbreak Highlights Controve... Jan 27 Mata Faka 5
Famous Southern California white cobra gets nam... Jan 4 Action Jackson 3
Redondo Beach ranked 20th on list of best South... Dec '14 mossy seaman 2
Review: Capstone Coatings & Windows (Oct '09) Dec '14 Annoyed 7
Memorials in Los Angeles, Thousand Oaks to hono... (May '14) May '14 moderate 4
Thousand Oaks Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Westlake Village People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:47 pm PST