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
167,421 - 167,440 of 200,584 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191706 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True,but both are marriage ceremonies none the less.
<quoted text>
Same as with SSM in non legal SSM states.
<quoted text>
True, however an OSM is recognized in all fifty states.
<quoted text>
No one is forced to marry, nor leave,their state of residency to do so.
<quoted text>
Should the federal government be forced to recognized every and any marriage sanctioned by a state?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Is it fair to force the federal government to recognize a relationship it does not wish to recognize?
<quoted text>
Do Catholics die differently than Muslims, or Jews, Mormons, or Protestants?
<quoted text>
They have EQUAL rights, same as any other man or woman. No more no less.
I know all of these issues have been presented before, but try to follow my logic...

1.) Homosexuality is not a disorder. It hasn't been considered a disorder in this country for 40 years.

2.) Homosexual intercourse is not illegal.

3.) Since homosexuality is considered to be a normal, legal expression of the physical and emotional attraction that millions of tax-paying, law-abiding, U.S. Citizens engage in, why would the government be interested in keeping them from legitimizing their relationships by way of legalized marriage? Exactly what argument can be made to deny these people the right to marry the consenting, unrelated, adult partner of their choice?

4.) And don't respond flippantly by saying, "Well that's the law in 50 states." I'm not talking about what IS the law. I'm talking about WHY is it the law?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191707 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I did a bit of digging on the subject. You might want to look a bit deeper, as you are a complete dumbazz. The rise is attributed to heterosexuals, its in print.
Yeah yeah, blame it on us heteros Jizzy.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#191708 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.
Yeah, because a man who looks like Bruce Willis's ass (you) is so completely irresistible.

Please don't try to use common sense; it eludes you.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#191709 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.
Afraid your mangina would attract the boys like flies to a turd?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191710 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I did a bit of digging on the subject. You might want to look a bit deeper, as you are a complete dumbazz. The rise is attributed to heterosexuals, its in print.
That is a fact, a majority of American voters now approve of same sex marriage in the US. That could not be the case without a tremendous number of heterosexuals ( you and I ) supporting same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191711 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>I did a bit of digging on the subject. You might want to look a bit deeper, as you are a complete dumbazz. The rise is attributed to heterosexuals, its in print.
So is your post about how you were a war hero. It's in print but that doesn't make it true.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191712 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a fact, a majority of American voters now approve of same sex marriage in the US. That could not be the case without a tremendous number of heterosexuals ( you and I ) supporting same sex marriage.
Wow! Really? How astute.

What a dopey jackass!

P.S. Love your new sidekick the Jiz. He'll take you to dizzying new heights of dopiness.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191713 May 10, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid your mangina would attract the boys like flies to a turd?
Does yours?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191715 May 10, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I know all of these issues have been presented before, but try to follow my logic...
Ohhhhh KAY! Ready.....GO!
1.) Homosexuality is not a disorder. It hasn't been considered a disorder in this country for 40 years.
Uhhhh...huh...okay
2.) Homosexual intercourse is not illegal.
Okay...it is what it is.....not illegal...gotcha...next
3.) Since homosexuality is considered to be a normal, legal expression of the physical and emotional attraction that millions of tax-paying, law-abiding, U.S. Citizens engage in, why would the government be interested in keeping them from legitimizing their relationships by way of legalized marriage?
Hmmmm this is where things get murky. So far its "normal"....and "homosexual intercourse" is legal....although the latter is somewhat ambiguous as to what constitutes "homosexual intercourse". So what does that mean?

"Legitimize"? So marriage is a self esteem program? Simply because "....expression of the physical and emotional attraction that millions of tax-paying, law-abiding, U.S. Citizens engage in....", doesn't mean the state has to scrap the standard of marriage as a mongamous union of husband and wife. We don't call a veggie patty a "burger" to boost the self esteem, of vegetarians, or so as not to hurt their feelings.
Exactly what argument can be made to deny these people the right to marry the consenting, unrelated, adult partner of their choice?
Suppose some of "these people" wanted to marry their first cousin, which is legal in several states? By your definition, they could not do so? Why does it matter, if the two individuals are of the same sex, and related by blood, that they be barred from marrying? You wish to change the definition of marriage to suit your needs/wants/desires, but are, apparently unable or unwilling, to change the definition for anyone else?
4.) And don't respond flippantly by saying, "Well that's the law in 50 states." I'm not talking about what IS the law. I'm talking about WHY is it the law?
Marriage is a union of husband and wife, period. Its the means by which society connects men and women, and what ever children they produce. Its about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex produces, children. Seriously, VV, if sex didn't produce children, would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who? At what point does it become pointless? If its nothing more than a means by which consenting adults organize their intimate personal relationships complete with a government beneifits package, then there's no rational reason to deny all sorts of combinations. I cannot fathom why society cannot continue to honor, recognize, and/or privilege marriage as a unique mongamous union of husband and wife. WHY? What is the issue? So society says, "we"ll recognize same sex relationships via 'civil union'....but the gay folks, some not all, say,'oh no....you have to call it marriage'! WHY?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191716 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a fact, a majority of American voters now approve of same sex marriage in the US. That could not be the case without a tremendous number of heterosexuals ( you and I ) supporting same sex marriage.
How many voters now approve of plural marriage? Have the approval numbers increased in the past ten years? What about sibling marriage? Does every adult have the right to have his/her intimate personal sexual relationship with another consenting adult be designated marriage by the state? If so where does it end? Why legally recognize marriage at all?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191717 May 10, 2013
Wow this thread is boring, anyone know any good jokes? Let me start us out-

A man was on trial for selling drugs and a neighbor, Little Frankie, was called as a witness. The defense attorney asked,
"Did you ever get any cocaine or other drugs from the defendant?"
"No, sir," answered Little Frankie.
"Did you ever get any from his wife?"
"No, sir."
"Did you ever get any from his daughters?"
"Uh, excuse me, sir," Little Frankie said, "but we're still talking about drugs here, right?"

HAR!HAR!HAR! Jizzy? Got any good ones you silly jackass? Big D, don't bother, you have no sense of humor.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191718 May 10, 2013
How about this one, it's racy so Jizzy don't read it.

How do you get your new girlfriend to scream twice? Do her in the a** and wipe your d!ck on the curtains!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191722 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>War hero? Frank did you take to much thorazine today??? Hey stick to the instructions on the bottle. The Doctor knows best
Yeah, that pack of lies about when you were a colonel in the Army. When you were a great big war hero!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

P.S. Good advice your doctor gave you about thorazine, I heard that's some heavy stuff. Be careful!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#191723 May 10, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Yeppers
Extra dopey post! What does it mean dummy?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191728 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm this is where things get murky. So far its "normal"....and "homosexual intercourse" is legal....although the latter is somewhat ambiguous as to what constitutes "homosexual intercourse". So what does that mean?
"Legitimize"? So marriage is a self esteem program? Simply because "....expression of the physical and emotional attraction that millions of tax-paying, law-abiding, U.S. Citizens engage in....", doesn't mean the state has to scrap the standard of marriage as a mongamous union of husband and wife. We don't call a veggie patty a "burger" to boost the self esteem, of vegetarians, or so as not to hurt their feelings.
<quoted text>
Suppose some of "these people" wanted to marry their first cousin, which is legal in several states? By your definition, they could not do so? Why does it matter, if the two individuals are of the same sex, and related by blood, that they be barred from marrying? You wish to change the definition of marriage to suit your needs/wants/desires, but are, apparently unable or unwilling, to change the definition for anyone else?
<quoted text>
Marriage is a union of husband and wife, period. Its the means by which society connects men and women, and what ever children they produce. Its about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex produces, children. Seriously, VV, if sex didn't produce children, would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who? At what point does it become pointless? If its nothing more than a means by which consenting adults organize their intimate personal relationships complete with a government beneifits package, then there's no rational reason to deny all sorts of combinations. I cannot fathom why society cannot continue to honor, recognize, and/or privilege marriage as a unique mongamous union of husband and wife. WHY? What is the issue? So society says, "we"ll recognize same sex relationships via 'civil union'....but the gay folks, some not all, say,'oh no....you have to call it marriage'! WHY?
1.) Same-gender couples do not want to legitimize their relationships through legal marriage to boost their self esteem. As you very well know, there are many protections and benefits that come along with marriage. Many of these benefits and protections have nothing to do with children. Do you agree?

2.) Regarding marriage between certain relatives... I didn't think that I had to spell it out for you. I am obviously talking about a marriage between siblings or a marriage between parent and child or between a grandparent and grandchild. You know exactly what I mean when I say "unrelated".
I don't know that I need to explain why it is that same-gender marriage is completely different than incestuous marriage. If you seriously do not understand that there is a vast difference between a someone developing an emotional/physical relationship with a non-relative and someone developing an emotional/physical relationship with a relative, then I don't know that I can help you.
Suffice it to say that we are not here to discuss incestuous marriages. Any attempts to lead this discussion away from the primary topic--i.e.: same-gender marriage--is nothing more than a distraction. I won't entertain it.

3.) A marriage is a contract between two consenting, adult, unrelated people. It is not a contract between two people and their offspring. That is why there aren't two separate definitions set aside for people who intend to have children and those who do not intend to have children.
And with regards to term "civil union"; there are no other identical contracts that provides identical protections and benefits but have different names.
If legally joined same-gender couples would enjoy all of the benefits and protections as legally joined opposite-gender couples, then why should there be different terminology?
If you have a red rose and a pink rose, they are BOTH roses with only subtle differences.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191729 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How many voters now approve of plural marriage? Have the approval numbers increased in the past ten years? What about sibling marriage? Does every adult have the right to have his/her intimate personal sexual relationship with another consenting adult be designated marriage by the state? If so where does it end? Why legally recognize marriage at all?
Donít know actually those would be interesting figures, I see no reason not to support Poly, you could consider it a full employment effort for our nationís lawyers ( can you imagine a divorce of one person out of 4?):P

I donít have those figures, I do have the ones on same sex marriage however.

None of those issues are in the court cases in front of the courts right now, go get your case and bring it to the courts and we can weigh in on it.

But you are not going to frighten anyone with that crap that isnít already frightened by same sex marriage, the slippery slope argument is not going to work on anyone that is not already scared half to death... that isnít me

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#191730 May 10, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a fact, a majority of American voters now approve of same sex marriage in the US. That could not be the case without a tremendous number of heterosexuals ( you and I ) supporting same sex marriage.
Yaaaaaaay Big D and just the facts are "a tremendous number of heterosexuals". Is there no end to his power?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191731 May 10, 2013
LawandOrder_ wrote:
<quoted text>Fact, that is a lie. Perhaps you should consuklt real polls, instead ogf gay polls.
Topx poll: 63% of pollers oppose same sex marriages
Newslife poll: 74% of pollers opposes same sex marriages.
The only reason any heterosexuals support it all is because you are stupid. You do not know that the APA president has come out and said that it is a choice, gays are cured and denial of a gay's right to pursues causes gay suicide.
I bet you also do not know that they never found any studies to deny that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Most psychiatrists still call it a character or gender disorder.
Also, the APA onl presents less than 40% of the medical profession of psychiatrists and psychologists in the US and less than 1% worldwide. The APA also went up for senate review when they supported a study saying that paedophilia was not harmful to children.
are you in for some sad times ahead LOL, you donít even realize what is going on.

States are approving Same sex marriage with voter support right and left, states that had banned same sex marriage are starting to reverse those bans ( see Nevada )
Equality Now

Cupertino, CA

#191732 May 10, 2013
Love is the greatest emotion humans can offer one another. Why restrict a couple's love for one another? It's time that most of the archaic puritan "values" be put to rest.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191733 May 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yaaaaaaay Big D and just the facts are "a tremendous number of heterosexuals". Is there no end to his power?
LOL

I donít have any power at all, I am just laughing at folks that are so frightened of a word.

Marriage from a legal standpoint is a legal contract, that is all it is. There are believers in one religion that feel one way about it, there are believers of other religions that feel another way about it, and none of them agree, there are thousands of Christian and Jewish churches that want to preform same sex marriage.

No one speaks for all of them, and no single religion owns the word "marriage"

The only actual distinction is from the governments perspective, which is a legal contract.

I donít care if it is between opposite sex couples or same sex couples or groups of people ( adults ), heck I donít care if it is non-romantic couples ( elderly ladies that depend on one another )

It makes no difference to me, and does not affect me or my marriage in any way whatsoever.

But I do find it humorous how frightened some people are, by others being given the same rights as they have themselves.

It is just funny to me

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
Apple, Google antitrust hiring accord rejected 2 hr Hawks Rock 9
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 2 hr Hawks Rock 27
Beam me up Scottie 2 hr guest 123
Complaints Against Google+ 2 hr Family Man 81
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 10 hr Macko mono 5,000
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young 17 hr Lightning Linda 3
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 19 hr Tank ever 7,926
•••

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 ]
•••