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 (Page 8,544)

Showing posts 170,861 - 170,880 of200,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196003
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we've tried to hang onto rationality, but, that was torn to shreds, through the manipulation of loopholes.
Loopholes?

That we accept disabled vets that cannot have children to marry is not a loophole, that we accept people that have had surgeries that make having children an impossibility is not a loophole. That we allow elderly couples to marry that cannot have children is not a loophole

The fact is, procreation is not now nor has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.

You are hanging onto something that doesnít even exist as an argument, It is completely worthless.

It has already been trashed in court multiple times, it is not a valid argument, you need to try and find a different tack because no one of any intelligence is going to buy that one.

If that is all you have in your arguments against same sex marrage, it is no wonder you are losing so badly and so quickly

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196006
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Loopholes?
That we accept disabled vets that cannot have children to marry is not a loophole, that we accept people that have had surgeries that make having children an impossibility is not a loophole. That we allow elderly couples to marry that cannot have children is not a loophole
The fact is, procreation is not now nor has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.
You are hanging onto something that doesnít even exist as an argument, It is completely worthless.
It has already been trashed in court multiple times, it is not a valid argument, you need to try and find a different tack because no one of any intelligence is going to buy that one.
If that is all you have in your arguments against same sex marrage, it is no wonder you are losing so badly and so quickly
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.

But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.

Ss couples can never equate to that.

To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.

I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196007
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rock Hudson wrote:
The whole issues has been systematically attacked, starting with the removal of children as the primary impetus of marriage. Having removed this inconvenient validation for coupling, you are having a happy time feasting on what remains. If, however, we return to basics, it has EVERYTHING to do the price of Chinese Tea.
Can infertile heterosexual couples marry? If so, this assertion is down the tubes.
Rock Hudson wrote:
And, do you think that you need to remind us of the fact that anyone can now adopt, even though it is not in the best interests of a child to be exposed to an imbalanced couple of fruits. Children have been shoved into the background, against the best thinking in the business. Opposite gendered couples bring all of the necessary equipment to the project, thus allowing them to fulfill the basic roles of a balanced and well-adjusted couples, from which to successfully raise children.
The reality remains that the state does not have an interest in a child being raised by two biological parents, if it did, adoption and out of wedlock births would be illegal. There isnít even a state interest in a child have two opposite sex parents. The state does not intervene in cases of single parenthood, it does not refuse to divorce couples with children, and it even allows single parent adoption (in most jurisdictions even by a gay parent).
Rock Hudson wrote:
Equal protection should be extended to all, even Polygamists, not just to a mismatched pairing of mixed up people. ALL should benefit.
So, which is it? Should same sex couples be denied the right to marry, or should everybody have the right to marry? You donít seem like you can keep your argument straight.

The problem with this assertion is that polygamists seek inherently greater protection of the law for three or more people, placing an unfair burden on the state and employers who provide spousal benefits.

You do realize that three or more is greater than two right?
Rock Hudson wrote:
And, you never did give an answer to my question to you, which was: who gave anyone the right to decide that 2 was the maximum allowable number of people to receive marriage rights? This violates the 1st Amendment. You make a lot of noise about "standing behind the Constitution", but all you are is a bag of hot air, cherry-picking which parts suit you, and leaving out any parts which do not.
It is just the way the law is currently constituted. If you donít like that then stop whining on online news commenting forums and work to change the law. As it stands currently, seeking marriage for two would be equal, and seeking it for three or more would been seeking greater protection. Itís a basic counting thing.
Rock Hudson wrote:
The question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law. Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage."
Marriage has been held to be a fundamental right on 14 separate occasion by the US Supreme Court. It doesnít need to be a civil right to demand equal protection, which is exactly what is happening.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196008
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Rock Hudson wrote:
To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
Hmm, you are really reaching now. Marriage is already on the books as being between two people. However, I would like to thank you for having fully illustrated that you are a drinker of the Citizens United Kool-Aide and think businesses are people.
Once again, if you donít like the law, then work to change it, or if there are sufficient legal grounds challenge it in court.
Rock Hudson wrote:
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due. So, choke on that, dimwit. Using the law to enforce a recognition that is not deserved is demented. As are you...
Actually, the law simply needs to remove the irrational bias already in place. Unless there is a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from equal protection of the law to marry, then they should be allowed to do so.

So far I have run into no one on these forums that can offer any such interest.

Auto-clubs as churchesÖ Do you think that makes you look terribly intelligent?
FareWay

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196009
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Where is the 19th hole anyway?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196011
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
Wrong in our culture we recognize people that marry that cannot have children and have done so from the beginning, it is not any kind of requirement.... period
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196019
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. It has never been a requirement, exactly like he said in the very first sentence of his post.
Your attempt to create a straw man has failed again.
Then perhaps they should stop bringing it up as an argument.

It is no argument

but I will answer it every time they bring it up as any kind of argument, and I dont need your permision to do so.
PizzFrank

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196020
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Frank pizz off and don't come back you boo boo.
Semper Patrioticus

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196021
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Yeah, this wasn't the best ruling for human freedom because the gays are VERY militant and are actually opposed to normal marriage and normal childbearing and if they get the chance, they will mainstream gay marriage and ban normal marriage. It's in their charter. What did we learn from the mess left behind by the Communists and the Nazis? Don't give radicals a toe in the door. I can think of several other good reasons why the American people should not have given the "gays" what they wanted:

1. In a Jewish-Christian society, homosexual behavior is an abomination. The Christians will never "live and let live" and will use the law to force gays back into the closet.
2. The gays, already militant, will lash out at the community of faith and will use the Government to nullify the Bill of Rights to "protect" their interests.
3. Public Health: AIDS, Mental Illness and Narcotics use will spike, putting a dangerous strain on an already overburdened hospital system.
4. Population and Demographics: As the "gay" lifestyle becomes mainstream, more and more men will become effeminate and eventually the reproductive rate will drop to 0.0 Americans born per year.
5. Islamic Nations already have strained relations with the US and it will actually get worse if the entire population becomes "gay". Terrorism will reach an all time high with 100 suicide attacks a week on US soil because the "Ummah" will have decided that the US needs to be purged, not just changed. Radicalized Jews and some misled Christians will also join in the "purge" and a general civil war will be the result.

The States and the Federal Government needs to change all the laws back to favoring "normal" and "gay" needs to be treated like any other sex offense, with imprisonment and castration.

Historically, populations in nations under an occupation usually turn to homosexual behavior (yes, it is a lifestyle choice, you are not "born" gay) in order to protect themselves from and get favors from the occupying force. In the case of the occupying force, it is the Extreme Left, their social and political doctrine is Communist.

Finally we have to ask ourselves this? Do we grant rights to any group claiming to be a minority group? Historically the answer is a flat NO because protection of the community is paramount and is more important than the rights of the "minority".

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196024
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to march in the streets, I simply want to discuss marriage equality without fear or censorship.
Polygamy is a perfectly logical topic in any discussion of marriage equality. Your fear and attempts to censor it away speaks volumes.
Why are you a hypocrite?
I don't fear it b/c it has no effect on me at all. Not censoring....you carry on about it all the time. LOL You won't get it setting in front of a computer!
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196026
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never brought it up as an argument against SSM. You are lying again.
I have stated repeatedly that procreation is not a requirement for marriage.
I simply call bullsh!t you when you lie and say someone said it is a requirement for marriage.
I didnít say you did moron, learn to read

your friends that hate same sex marriage brought it up and I answered, none of this is about you

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196028
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong in our culture we recognize people that marry that cannot have children and have done so from the beginning, it is not any kind of requirement.... period
Read what I wrote again, real slow.

I didn't say we don't recognize childless marriages.

I simply pointed out that ss couples are in a 'class' by themselves.
TightLid

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196029
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Who said anything about pickles?
der

Clearlake, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196031
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Over time people who "think" like you get smaller in number, leaving you in a class by yourself, hateful bigot.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.

Read what I wrote again, real slow.

I didn't say we don't recognize childless marriages.

I simply pointed out that ss couples are in a 'class' by themselves.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196033
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course procreation has never been a requirement, it wasnt necessary.
But the fact remains that marriage has been the best setting for procreation IN EVERY culture.
Ss couples can never equate to that.
To call ss couples married is no different than calling a tail on a dog a leg.
I sympathize with the desperate attempt of homosexuals to be normal, but this denial simply makes you look foolish.
<quoted text>
Read what I wrote again, real slow.
I didn't say we don't recognize childless marriages.
I simply pointed out that ss couples are in a 'class' by themselves.
so you agree with me and not Rock Hudson that procreation has absolutely no place whatsoever in a discussion about gay marriage?

If so good, the courts agree with you, it has no place in the argument.

no place whatsoever

as you are more and more in a minority position opposing same sex marriage, what desperate attempts are you going to take to try to appear normal?
Bruno

Wilmington, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196035
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

FareWay wrote:
Where is the 19th hole anyway?
lol ... See Frank Rizzoto for that!! haha
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196036
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems anything unfavorable to your arguments has no place in this discussion. How convenient for you.
No as there is nothing unfavorable about the procreation argument, the procreation arguments clearly shows that we accept marriages of couples that cannot have children and have always done so.

It is sometimes annoying having to explain that over and over and overÖ but some people never seem to internalize that.
centralia

Mount Vernon, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196037
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Know what GAY stands for ? Got Aids Yet !
Ant Factory

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196038
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Best time for the busy bee ant factory to start up.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196042
Jun 14, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has said procreation is a requirement for marriage yet you lie and accuse everyone of saying it. It is annoying indeed.
Several keep implying that it does, but you ignore them, no problem as I will ignore you when I reply to them

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 170,861 - 170,880 of200,227
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Palo Alto Discussions

Search the Palo Alto Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 1 hr Sins of the Father 4,859
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 2 hr sloading 7,817
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 4 hr The right is wrong 2,225
Review: Adecco Staffing Services 7 hr Amrita Singh 1
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Fri This topics peaked 15,911
The best and cheapest authentic jerseys you hav... Thu candylee 1
Review: Vencoa Inc (Jul '12) Jul 5 jainy2 54
•••
•••

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 ]
•••