Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,823

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.

Read more

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191674 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe it should be in the Constitution. Maybe the founding fathers didn't believe that it needed to be listed--believed that it was just a "given" that people have the right to marry.
I can think of many things that aren't in the Constitution. Compulsory education is not a right, yet there are various public systems that have created it. In fact, not only is it a "right", but it is mandatory. We have truant officers that will force kids and their parents to engage in education, whether they want to or not.
We don't have the Constitutional right to vote, but we have the constitutional right to be protected from not being allowed to vote based on race, sex, and age.
Does every action that we consider to be the bedrock of freedom have to be listed in the Constitution?
I don't think so.
You keep trying to make this a Constitutional argument. It's not. It is about basic human rights that SHOULD be available to tax-paying, law-abiding, citizens of the U.S.
Marriage describes a distinct, unique relationship.

Ss couples are not the same, and never will be.

Duh.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191675 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
If two men enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
If two women enter into a marriage, they are still are men according to the law.
And in both cases, they are still only a redumbant, sterile half of marriage.

Clearly NOT entering into a marriage.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191676 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
But you still don't clearly explain your opposition to same-sex marriage other than to say that you object to it out of traditionalism.
If only you could explain it...
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That is science, not 'traditionalism'.

Ss couples are a redumbant, sterile failure of evolutionary mating behavior. That is a fact.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191677 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
To wed someone in a religious ceremony is entirely different than to legally marry someone.
I'm sure that people who wish to have multiple partners can wed if they find a pastor willing to do this. They do so with the understanding that state and federal governments do not recognize plural marriage.
Marriage is not defined the same in all fifty states. Eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize marriage between same-gender partners.
Should same-gender partners be forced to leave the state of their residency and move to a state that allows them to legally marry?
And what of the federal benefits and protections that are afforded to legally married opposite-gender couples? Shouldn't couples who are legally married in the eleven states and D.C. also be given federal benefits and protections?
Here's something to ponder... If the U.S. were invaded next week by a serious enemy and the federal government enacted the draft in order to fight, gay and lesbian citizens of the U.S. would be required to enlist. They would be forced to defend the country--putting their lives on the line to protect you, me, and every other person living here.
Is it right that gay and lesbian service personnel be denied the federal benefits and protections of marriage, yet be called upon to defend the country?
Openly gay service personnel are doing just that--even as I type. Yet their spouses; people who they have legally married in states that have passed same-gender marriage laws, cannot live on base with their active duty spouse, cannot shop in a base exchange for groceries, clothing, cannot receive family VA treatment, etc.--all due to the Defense of Marriage Act.
How is this fair?
Is a gay person's service to this country different than a straight person's service? Do gay people die differently in combat than straight people?
Gay and lesbian people DESERVE equal rights. It's that simple.
The rights and benefits of marriage were designed to protect women and children.

Man up VV, get your own legitimate rights, and quit trying to steal from women and children!

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191678 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it would seem to me that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment SHOULD guarantee us the right to the protections and benefits of marriage throughout the country.
Obviously, people disagree with this. But from where I stand, that's what it means to me.
It does protect married people.

Ss couples cannot equate to marriage.

Simple.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191679 May 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I served with a gay man in Vietnam and if it weren't for his bravery when we were in deep deep sh!t I might not have have mustered up my own. We became friends for life I see him about once a year due only to the distance between us.
I always (even then, 45 years ago) thought excluding homosexuals from service was very stupid. We need all the help we can get. It's just plain dumb to exclude someone over sexual preference. R.I.P. DADT.
Sexual assault in the military was up over 30% last year.

Wasn't that when DADT was removed?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191680 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in 32 states. The point is men are treated like men, and women like women. Marriage, in those 32 states is a union of one man and one woman, regardless of orientation.
32 and dropping

California will drop out of that list this year making it 31, Nevada has the overturn of their ban in the works now which will make it 30, then Oregon now has a challenge to their ban

At this rate in 20 years there will be no states with such a ban
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191681 May 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's strange that you saw him yet you insist he is imaginary. Maybe you should have your head examined.
No there are a lot of guys named Jesus, I know 3 personally
Pietro Armando

Quincy, MA

#191682 May 10, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
It would seem that this issue has been flip-flopping a lot.
"From the enactment of legislation in 1971 to replace gendered pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns, until 1977, California Civil Code 4100 defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This definition was uniformly interpreted as including only opposite-sex partners, but, because of worries that the language was unclear, Assembly Bill No. 607 was proposed and later passed to "prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage." The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."[17] Since 1994, this language is found in 300 of the Family Code"
"City officials in San Francisco claimed that although the 2004 marriages were prohibited by state law, the state law was invalidated by the Equal Protection Clause. The mayor echoed this view, permitting the marriages because he believed the state law was unconstitutional. However, legislators and groups opposing same-sex marriages quickly reacted, filing a suit and requesting a court order to prevent the city from performing the ceremonies. Additionally, the California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. The legal validity of the marriages was tested in the courts, and the marriages were ultimately voided by the state Supreme Court."
"As of June 16, 2008, gay couples can get married in California.
The change in California marriage laws is due to the 5/15/08 California Supreme Court ruling that "the right to marry in California extends equally to all, gay and straight alike."
Source: Bob Egelko, "State's top court strikes down marriage ban"
From differing sources. Please, do not assume that I have not read up on the subject. It makes you look silly. It has not always been legal, hence, it was illegal, and is being bandied about. So, these rights were not always present for the gays, making my statement correct. These "rights" have been granted, then removed again. now, it is in flux.
Thanks for the clarification. Big D r u still confused?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191683 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the clarification. Big D r u still confused?
Im not confised at all, California currently does recognize 18,000 legal same sex marrages.

There seem to be some folks that lack that information, go look it up.

You can try and bring a court case to force California to stop recognizing those marrages, a case you make where the government will step into a legally married family and foce and annulment, but the tea party stil;e big governemnt is losing steam, I doubt you would even get republicans to agree with it, but Prop 8 will be toast before you would even get a hearing anyway so the question is probably moot.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191684 May 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It does protect married people.
Ss couples cannot equate to marriage.
Simple.
Smile.
Wrong there are over 120,000 legally married same sex couples in the US right now, some 18,000 are right here in California.

You cannot equate to reality is the problem, same sex marriage is not a question, it is a fact.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191685 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it would seem to me that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment SHOULD guarantee us the right to the protections and benefits of marriage throughout the country.
Obviously, people disagree with this. But from where I stand, that's what it means to me.
That already exists. The equal protection clause doesn't change men into women or vice versa. Marriage, prior to 2004, and today in 32 states, is a union of a man and a woman, valid in all fifty states.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191686 May 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual assault in the military was up over 30% last year.
Wasn't that when DADT was removed?
I fail to see the connection.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191687 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No there are a lot of guys named Jesus, I know 3 personally
Don't stat lying again, you were talking about the most famous one who you saw hiding behind your water heater and called the cops on. The one you insist is imaginary.
Fridays

Covina, CA

#191688 May 10, 2013
Just can't get enough of this BULL, the posters keeping this one going are still "brain dead"..
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191689 May 10, 2013
Fridays wrote:
Just can't get enough of this BULL, the posters keeping this one going are still "brain dead"..
Aw shuddup you silly jackass!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191690 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
To wed someone in a religious ceremony is entirely different than to legally marry someone.
True,but both are marriage ceremonies none the less.
I'm sure that people who wish to have multiple partners can wed if they find a pastor willing to do this. They do so with the understanding that state and federal governments do not recognize plural marriage.
Same as with SSM in non legal SSM states.
Marriage is not defined the same in all fifty states. Eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize marriage between same-gender partners.
True, however an OSM is recognized in all fifty states.
Should same-gender partners be forced to leave the state of their residency and move to a state that allows them to legally marry?
No one is forced to marry, nor leave,their state of residency to do so.
And what of the federal benefits and protections that are afforded to legally married opposite-gender couples? Shouldn't couples who are legally married in the eleven states and D.C. also be given federal benefits and protections?
Should the federal government be forced to recognized every and any marriage sanctioned by a state?
Here's something to ponder... If the U.S. were invaded next week by a serious enemy and the federal government enacted the draft in order to fight, gay and lesbian citizens of the U.S. would be required to enlist. They would be forced to defend the country--putting their lives on the line to protect you, me, and every other person living here.
Is it right that gay and lesbian service personnel be denied the federal benefits and protections of marriage, yet be called upon to defend the country?
A person who serves his/her country militarily either as a volunteer or draftee, doesn't get to choose which laws are fair or not simply on the basis of his/her service. It's not fair that an 18 yr old can serve, but not consume an alcoholic beverage in some states.
Openly gay service personnel are doing just that--even as I type. Yet their spouses; people who they have legally married in states that have passed same-gender marriage laws, cannot live on base with their active duty spouse, cannot shop in a base exchange for groceries, clothing, cannot receive family VA treatment, etc.--all due to the Defense of Marriage Act.
How is this fair?
Is it fair to force the federal government to recognize a relationship it does not wish to recognize?
Is a gay person's service to this country different than a straight person's service? Do gay people die differently in combat than straight people?
Do Catholics die differently than Muslims, or Jews, Mormons, or Protestants?
Gay and lesbian people DESERVE equal rights. It's that simple.
They have EQUAL rights, same as any other man or woman. No more no less.
Patterned Out

Covina, CA

#191691 May 10, 2013
Maybe those OLD BALD men on the Glendora, California city council should watch this video too;

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191693 May 10, 2013
Patterned Out wrote:
Maybe those OLD BALD men on the Glendora, California city council should watch this video too;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =WLRhN8gL1k0XX
Aw shuddup you dopey jackass.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191694 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Hi shat head, still searching for a life?
No, got a good one already. How about yourself jackass?

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.

Palo Alto Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Surenos gang member gets new trial date (Aug '08) 4 hr El chingon 282
News What you have to say about the Rolling Stones i... Mon Dave 1
News Soledad Canyon a " California Mar 25 Ravenite Coffee 2
Need a place to stay asap! Mar 25 Will 1
does anyone need a good dog walker (May '07) Mar 25 chicagodawg 46
News Suddenly, water is everywhere in solar system Mar 24 Beingreal999 2
Rogue Topix Moderators Mar 23 WTSenior 7
Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]