Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,148

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
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192943 May 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Close, but no cigar.
<quoted text>
It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?
<quoted text>
Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?
It isn’t being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.

The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192944 May 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But not the value of Americans expressing their will through the voting process, as in votes for prop 22, and prop 8. Apparently that value is not part of Big D's patriotism.
I have also noticed that Big D's patriotism tends to be very authoritarian and very selective.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#192945 May 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn’t being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.
The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.
If you make it too inclusive it will include everyone and then everyone will be married and marriage will mean absolutely nothing.
Brew Cee

Tempe, AZ

#192946 May 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in the majority of Americans that actually believe in the values of this country.
My sphincter has value!!!!
Brew Cee Hypocreete

Tempe, AZ

#192947 May 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn’t being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.
Our inclusive club allows sphincters!!!!

White right wing Christian heterosexuals who care for Life need not apply!!!!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192948 May 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make it too inclusive it will include everyone and then everyone will be married and marriage will mean absolutely nothing.
Your marriage perhaps

They did not harm mine in any way at all, I think it is odd that someones marriage is so terribly affected by others being able to marry.

In court the lawyers could not find a single couple whose marriage was harmed by others being able to marry, it was a critical flaw in their case. Not one single example was able to be given.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192950 May 23, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it really take a bought and paid for "scientist" to see what a child can see?
Children see a lot of things... Children see cooked spinach and think you're trying to poison them. They see Harry Potter and believe in magic. Children can look up at the sky and think Heaven is just beyond the clouds--that their deceased grandparents are walking around on smoke, looking lovingly down on them from above.

That's why children aren't scientists.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#192952 May 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What a slut! She pulled a train "several times each" with two guys who were probably disgusted. Nice!
Didn't they ever hear of a turkey baster? Geez.
Well, you have never heard of minding your own business.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192953 May 23, 2013
You said: Close, but no cigar.

--Other than gender, there is no difference between two same-sex people and opposite-sex people who decide to marry based on love, monogamy mutual respect, and lifelong commitment.

You said: It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?

--You say that marriage is a "distinct privileged relationship" because of the potential for children. Yet hundreds of thousands (millions?) of opposite-sex couples either do not marry even though they create a child or they break apart their marriage even though they have children together.
As I've said before, if you want to tie children so closely to marriage, then you need to radically redefine marriage as being only available to those couples who wish to have children.
Sterile couples, older couples, and couples who do not wish to have children for whatever reason SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to marry for any reason.
You realize the ridiculousness of this, yet you continue to yammer on about how closely bound children are to marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract between two people--not between two people and their children.
If children were a part of the legal contract between their parents, then if their parents divorce, then they too would be divorced from one or both parents.

You said: Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?

--Marriage would not be fundamentally redefined. Marriage at its most basic level is a legal contract between two unrelated, consenting, adult people--two human beings. That is why 15 countries and 12 states and the District of Columbia have taken gender away from their marriage certificates.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#192954 May 23, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
Since all you have are slogans, you won't mind if I do nothing more than mock you for the rest of your miserable existence?
Thank you.
Since mocking people is all you have you must sit home every Friday night, alone, by yourself.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192955 May 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn’t being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.
By claiming the husband or the wife is expendable? There's only two sexes. Marriage is already inclusive, both sexes are included.
The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.
Well as long as Big D's marriage is not "re-define"d it must be okay. Let's not stop there. Bring 'em all in.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192956 May 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make it too inclusive it will include everyone and then everyone will be married and marriage will mean absolutely nothing.
You guys want to keep marriage an exclusive action; a club for opposite gender people only.

That is the very definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If you and others are so afraid of your particular marriages losing their "meaning", all because some same-sex partners being allowed to marry, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#192957 May 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
By claiming the husband or the wife is expendable? There's only two sexes. Marriage is already inclusive, both sexes are included.
<quoted text>
Well as long as Big D's marriage is not "re-define"d it must be okay. Let's not stop there. Bring 'em all in.
Yeah, Pietro... I think you're finally seeing the light.

Will your own marriage be impacted by gays getting married? Please make us a list of all the ways it will change.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192958 May 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
By claiming the husband or the wife is expendable? There's only two sexes. Marriage is already inclusive, both sexes are included.
<quoted text>
Well as long as Big D's marriage is not "re-define"d it must be okay. Let's not stop there. Bring 'em all in.
No I am not expendable in my marriage, my wife is not expendable in our marriage, as a non-religious person I may be unfamiliar with your terms of people as “expendable” in a marrage.

What I am saying is I am married, and my wife and I have not had to redefine our marriage in any way at all because same sex couples could marry, furthermore the court cases have been lost twice now by the supporters of Prop 8 and one of the many reasons for the loss is because they could not find a single married couple whose marriage was harmed by same sex couples being able to marry

Not one

Why don’t you tell us.... in what way was your marriage harmed by same sex couples being able to marry?
Hypocrite Watch

Tempe, AZ

#192959 May 23, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Your post has to rank in the top ten most retarded posts that has ever been written on all of topix
So much for Tolerance and Diversity, right, Brucie?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192960 May 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys want to keep marriage an exclusive action; a club for opposite gender people only.
Actually a club for men and women, as husband and wives. You are not barred from the club. The membership is very simple.
That is the very definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
How so? Does any state require a statement or orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license?
If you and others are so afraid of your particular marriages losing their "meaning", all because some same-sex partners being allowed to marry, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.
The point is not our "particular marriages", but marriage as a whole, a matter of public policy, a shared understanding of its purpose and function. By your reasoning, there'd be no reason to bar any consenting adult relationship. In which case what is the point, why license it at all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192961 May 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not expendable in my marriage, my wife is not expendable in our marriage, as a non-religious person I may be unfamiliar with your terms of people as “expendable” in a marrage.
Exactly, both the wife AND husband are needed in the marriage.
What I am saying is I am married, and my wife and I have not had to redefine our marriage in any way at all because same sex couples could marry, furthermore the court cases have been lost twice now by the supporters of Prop 8 and one of the many reasons for the loss is because they could not find a single married couple whose marriage was harmed by same sex couples being able to marry
The voters, twice, voted, for,this:

The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

Obviously the voters were concerned by attempts to redefine the legal meaning of marriage. If your argument is what harm will come of allowing same sex intimate personal sexual relationships to be designated marriage, then by that same reasoning, polygamy should also be allowed. If the sole argument is what harm will it cause individual marriages, then there is no reason to bar polygamy, or even siblings from marrying.
Why don’t you tell us.... in what way was your marriage harmed by same sex couples being able to marry?
Why not tell me what benefit did my marriage, or your marriage, or any other marriage, enjoy, by allowing SSM? Did it strengthen our collective commitment to marriage, the conjugal, husband and wife version? Di it foster the belief that men and women, and the products of their union, children, are important, and government recognizes this by privileging the union of man and woman as husband and wife? Or does it promote the idea at marriage is simply a way a person's personal intimate adult relationship is granted a governemnt's benefits package?

Please tell us Big D, where is the line drawn if at all? Why bother licensing marriage at all?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192962 May 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Pietro... I think you're finally seeing the light.
Will your own marriage be impacted by gays getting married? Please make us a list of all the ways it will change.
Gays can marry now, have been able to marry, throughout time and place, long before a rainbow flag was waved.

Will your own marriage be impacted by (_________ getting married? Please make us a list all the ways it will change. See, that works for all sorts of relationships.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#192963 May 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
You said: Close, but no cigar.
--Other than gender, there is no difference between two same-sex people and opposite-sex people who decide to marry based on love, monogamy mutual respect, and lifelong commitment.
You said: It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?
--You say that marriage is a "distinct privileged relationship" because of the potential for children. Yet hundreds of thousands (millions?) of opposite-sex couples either do not marry even though they create a child or they break apart their marriage even though they have children together.
As I've said before, if you want to tie children so closely to marriage, then you need to radically redefine marriage as being only available to those couples who wish to have children.
Sterile couples, older couples, and couples who do not wish to have children for whatever reason SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to marry for any reason.
You realize the ridiculousness of this, yet you continue to yammer on about how closely bound children are to marriage.
Marriage is a legal contract between two people--not between two people and their children.
If children were a part of the legal contract between their parents, then if their parents divorce, then they too would be divorced from one or both parents.
You said: Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?
--Marriage would not be fundamentally redefined. Marriage at its most basic level is a legal contract between two unrelated, consenting, adult people--two human beings. That is why 15 countries and 12 states and the District of Columbia have taken gender away from their marriage certificates.
Marriage recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife. That's it! That's why men and women, who are sterile, or have no desire to have children, can still marry. Some couples who thought they couldn't have children, find out, surprise, that two go to bed, but three get up. Scientists have figured out that sex between men and women makes babies. Society benefits when both making love, and making babies, take place within the marital relationship. That's why there's no compelling reason to call a same sex relationship marriage. That's why, despite a few scattered historical examples, SSM never took root, never sustained itself.

One thing that puzzles me. First cousins can marry in several states, SSM is legal in some of those states. Why should same sex siblings be denied the right to marry. The whole "already kin" argument does't make sense here.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#192964 May 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, both the wife AND husband are needed in the marriage.
<quoted text>
The voters, twice, voted, for,this:
The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
Obviously the voters were concerned by attempts to redefine the legal meaning of marriage. If your argument is what harm will come of allowing same sex intimate personal sexual relationships to be designated marriage, then by that same reasoning, polygamy should also be allowed. If the sole argument is what harm will it cause individual marriages, then there is no reason to bar polygamy, or even siblings from marrying.
<quoted text>
Why not tell me what benefit did my marriage, or your marriage, or any other marriage, enjoy, by allowing SSM? Did it strengthen our collective commitment to marriage, the conjugal, husband and wife version? Di it foster the belief that men and women, and the products of their union, children, are important, and government recognizes this by privileging the union of man and woman as husband and wife? Or does it promote the idea at marriage is simply a way a person's personal intimate adult relationship is granted a governemnt's benefits package?
Please tell us Big D, where is the line drawn if at all? Why bother licensing marriage at all?
Before we get into all that, we have asked how same sex couples being able to marry has harmed your marriage.

You have been asked this by a couple of people now... still waiting for an answer, or we can dispense with the entire "Same sex couples harm marriage" argument, as we have dispensed with the entire “marriage is all about procreation” arguments which have already been shown to be garbage.

The lawyers could not bring a single example, but you seem to claim to know more than the lawyers that have failed to defend prop 8 so tell us... how was your marriage harmed?

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
US stocks start lower 16 hr Anthony V 104
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 16 hr Anthony V 27
annoying helicopter flying near fremont st and ... (Sep '08) Mon Zombie Corpse Rental 14
pune india Dec 13 sudhir1984 2
For Google's self-driving cars, learning to dea... Dec 12 Truth 6
24 7 emergency locksmith (Dec '11) Dec 12 Dom Boyd 18
Daly City Officer Charged With Excessive Force (Aug '06) Dec 11 KROSE 375

Palo Alto News Video

Palo Alto Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:37 pm PST

NBC Sports12:37PM
49ers cut Ray McDonald amid rape investigation
NFL12:38 PM
San Francisco 49ers release Ray McDonald
Bleacher Report12:53 PM
If Not Harbaugh, Who Will Be Next HC of Raiders?
Bleacher Report12:59 PM
49ers Cut DL McDonald Amid Rape Investigation
NBC Sports 2:00 PM
Rivers doesn't practice, expects to play vs 49ers - NBC Sports