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
167,401 - 167,420 of 200,580 Comments Last updated 12 min ago
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?

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#191695 May 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The question isn't what harm, it is, does it equate.
No, that wasn't the question. It's your bias.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

A piece of paper equating a fake relationship to marriage isn't going to fix the lack of commitment..
Presumptive and Kunty.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
..or the deprivation of a child's parent.
In spite of your best spin, marriage (or Holy Matrimony, for those of us who marry in places like the UCC) isn't about children. I've participated in hundreds of weddings, and only one had the couple's children involved in the ceremony.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

This isn't rocket science...
Snicker.
No, it isn't rocket science, so why do you try to complicate it with your own biases? When you boil it down to what it really is, it's really quite simple. Why must you over-think it. Oh, that's right, you're merely trolling.

Troll on, Kuntmary.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191696 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

They have EQUAL rights, same as any other man or woman. No more no less.
No some same sex couples marriages are recognized legally, while others are not, they do not have equal rights.

That is in the process of changing so that they do have equal rights.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191697 May 10, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that wasn't the question. It's your bias.
<quoted text>
Presumptive and Kunty.
<quoted text>
In spite of your best spin, marriage (or Holy Matrimony, for those of us who marry in places like the UCC) isn't about children. I've participated in hundreds of weddings, and only one had the couple's children involved in the ceremony.
<quoted text>
No, it isn't rocket science, so why do you try to complicate it with your own biases? When you boil it down to what it really is, it's really quite simple. Why must you over-think it. Oh, that's right, you're merely trolling.
Troll on, Kuntmary.
"You're a troll" Said the cyber-stalking troll creep.
Fridays

Covina, CA

#191698 May 10, 2013
Just can't get enough of this BULL, the posters keeping this one going are still "brain dead" PackOderms..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191699 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But different. A sterile duplicate half of real marriage.

Kind of like calling liberals patriots.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#191700 May 10, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I fail to see the connection.
I think you do.

Especially since homosexuals are not segregated and heterosexuals are with regard to sleeping quarters. Common sense would tell you sexual assault would be greater.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191701 May 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But different. A sterile duplicate half of real marriage.
Kind of like calling liberals patriots.
Snicker.
No it isnt different, the fact that I consider your marriage a sham and the fact that you consider their marriage a sham is meaningless.

Legally they ( and you ) are married.. period

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#191702 May 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But different. A sterile duplicate half of real marriage.
Kind of like calling liberals patriots.
Snicker.
Both clever, and funny.

Not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191704 May 10, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you do.
Especially since homosexuals are not segregated and heterosexuals are with regard to sleeping quarters. Common sense would tell you sexual assault would be greater.
I think excluding homosexuals from fighting for us was very stupid. From my experience they make fine soldiers and sailors. Who cares if someone peeks at your little winky dink anyway?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 5 hr Macko mono 5,000
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 12 hr Sad to Glad 25
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young 12 hr Lightning Linda 3
Will Eric Schmidt Destroy Google? 13 hr Getting Real 25
Complaints Against Google+ 13 hr Getting Real 80
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 14 hr Tank ever 7,926
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Aug 26 matches lighters 15,961
•••

Palo Alto News Video

•••
•••

Palo Alto Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palo Alto News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palo Alto
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••