Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#199282 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

I could go on..
you do go on. On and on and on and on and on...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#199283 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting that you are schooling me on law when you INSISTED that same-sex couples don't have the right to have their marriages validated by federal law?
YOu are dumb as a rock. I never "insisted" any such thing you moron. In fact I made the case MANY times that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional as the Federal Government lacked enumeration of such power.

So no, it really isn't interesting at all that I am "schooling" you, it happens quite often as you are ignorant as f$$$ on the issue.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess it's fair to say that you were a tad off the mark on how the Constitution would be interpreted by the justices.
I wasn't off at all you tool, I was dead on.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm willing to bet that the following phrases will utilized to push states to legalize same-sex marriage:
--"DOMA’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law"
and
--"makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives"
The justices clearly believe that same-sex couples are being treated like second-class citizens. And they clearly believe that DOMA laws negatively impact the children of same-sex couples.
Since I was right about how this would turn out, I think I'll keep my opinions about how I understand the law and you can keep yours.
While you may have been "right", you are still confused as to the implications. You seem to think that this ruling effects how States enact marriage law, it does nothing of the kind.

And you were only "right" because it was the outcome you desired, you still have no clue as to how the justices arrived at said decision. That is painfully obvious by your determination that now ALL states will be required to accept same sex marriages.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199284 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said or indicated any such idea about 'better', I said they were different, and that ss couples cannot be married. You know that, yet you diabolically distort the issue, and then talk about God.
I have repeatedly ask you to prove the facts I stated as untrue. All you have given is your opinion. Then you make the claim that speaking the truth is wrong, as if your denial is good.
In conclusion you justify debauchery by the claim of numbers. Do you know how many acts of evil are involved far more people?
Pure reprobate.
Obviously you believe that opposite-sex couples are better. You believe they make better parents. You believe that same-sex couples are "defective". You say too-may-toe and then say too-mah-toe, but you're really saying the same thing; namely that opposite-sex couples are superior.

I've proven numerous times that your "facts" are untrue. I just don't have the interest or energy to do it again.

And with regards to your final comment, the way I see it, you've justified your own rot by claiming over and over that marriage can only be defined as a cross-cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Anything else just doesn't cut the mustard for you.

You don't own--never will own--the definition of marriage. Marriage is what happens when two people decide to marry. Marriage means many different things to different people.

Finally, I think a perfect example of reprobate would be the millions upon millions of so-called Christians who have attacked gays and lesbians (physical and verbally) over the centuries in the name of God.

You insist that we change orientation or become celibate. You demand that only YOU can define marriage--claiming it should be only available to heterosexuals.

Every time a gay person wants to move a little closer to happiness and personal fulfillment, there you are, trying to knock us back "in our place".

I'll submit again... This is not Christianity. This is not what Christ commanded you to do. It isn't how He commanded you to interact with society.

Call our gatherings "debauchery". I don't give a damn what you call it. It was a wonderful day. And millions of gays and straights reveled in Pride Celebrations around the globe.

Just as when blacks began to finally taste freedom and women began to taste equality, gays and lesbians are enjoying both.

Not a bad time to be living in...
Just sayin

Norwalk, CA

#199291 Jun 30, 2013
I'm not sure that any of us has the "right" to marry or why would we need a license to do so? As I understand it; marriage is a "privilege" granted by the state and thus requires a marriage license. On the other hand; we have the right to fall in love with anyone we choose. We can devote ourselves and spend our life with anyone (of age of course) and this is our "right"...no license required. Maybe I've over simplified it but that is my simple understanding of the difference between rights and privileges.
laughing man

UK

#199293 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Call our gatherings "debauchery". I don't give a damn what you call it. It was a wonderful day. And millions of gays and straights reveled in Pride Celebrations around the globe.
"millions", Caligula? Did you pull those figures out of your brain crack? Or did the activist Media invent it?
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199297 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's cut through your little temper tantrum and get to the bottom line- I support marriage equality and you do not.
P.S. Love your bigotry against a form of marriage you hate- "..it's all about greed." Nice!
Thank you too.
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199299 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I was flattered the moron thought you were me. Don't ruin it for him (and me) so soon.
LOL...Nice try, though.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199303 Jun 30, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...
Molly Vorwerck, June 28, 2013
Polygamists view the Supreme Court's repeal of DOMA and Prop 8 as a step towards wider social -- and in turn, legal -- acceptance of polygamy.
There are roughly 30,000 to 50,000 Americans in polygamist unions
Wednesday's landmark Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage have ushered in optimism for more than just the gay and lesbian community: Polygamists are also reading hope into the fine print.
In his majority opinion for U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy argued that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it pegs homosexuals as second class citizens. Minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts struck down Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
While these rulings only directly affect states that have legalized same-sex marriage, those in support of plural unions view the repeals as progress for their cause because it broadens the definition of marriage.
Polygamy has received popular exposure due to hit shows like TLC's "Sister Wives" and HBO's "Big Love," and experts estimate that there are roughly 30,000 to 50,000 people in polygamist unions nationally. Although polygamists reside throughout the country, the largest enclaves are found in Utah, Arizona and other Southwestern states due to the large Mormon fundamentalist populations living there.
Anne Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist and founder of the polygamist rights organization, Principle Rights Coalition, is hopeful that these decisions represent movement towards the decriminalization of polygamy.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," she says. "As consenting adults, we have a right to form our families as we see fit as long as there are no other crimes involved."
Despite their contrasting opinions on other issues, advocates both for and against polygamy view these two rulings as instrumental in opening the floodgates for plural marriages.
Tim Wildmon, president of the Christian-values centered American Family Association, says that striking down the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman delegitimizes the moral argument against polygamy.
"It opens up Pandora's Box in how you define marriage in this country," he says."Why not have three men and two women marry if they love each other? Why limit it to two people?"
But the trajectory towards legalizing polygamy is not so simple, legal scholars say.
David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University who specializes in family law, says that the lack of mainstream acceptance for polygamy does not bode well for its legalization.
"There is no political movement in this country that is anywhere near making the same gains for polygamy that have been made for gay marriage," he says.
Judith Areen, law professor at Georgetown University, says that the outcomes of these two cases are more telling of state's rights than the potential for polygamy. Thus, only state­-wide support for the practice would bring about this change.
"If you're in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, that state will not recognize the Windsor ruling," she says. "These cases suggest that states have the authority. So while states are divided on gay marriage, they are uniform on polygamy."
Unlike others in his field, Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University, thinks that the two rulings had significant impact on the future of polygamy in the United States. Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law and religion, says that the courts will need to find other justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.
"It's one hundred percent likely that these polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer turn on whether a relationship is immoral," Goldfeder says. "The court will look at whether these relationships cause third party harm."

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199304 Jun 30, 2013
laughing man wrote:
<quoted text>
"millions", Caligula? Did you pull those figures out of your brain crack? Or did the activist Media invent it?
I guess I'm just foolish enough to believe the "activist media". I'm sure they photo-shopped all of those people that I saw in various pictures.

If I listen to you I probably shouldn't believe anything I see, read, or hear.

Wait... I just read your post didn't I. Am I supposed to believe you? Is this some kind of a test?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199305 Jun 30, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu are dumb as a rock. I never "insisted" any such thing you moron. In fact I made the case MANY times that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional as the Federal Government lacked enumeration of such power.
So no, it really isn't interesting at all that I am "schooling" you, it happens quite often as you are ignorant as f$$$ on the issue.
<quoted text>
I wasn't off at all you tool, I was dead on.
<quoted text>
While you may have been "right", you are still confused as to the implications. You seem to think that this ruling effects how States enact marriage law, it does nothing of the kind.
And you were only "right" because it was the outcome you desired, you still have no clue as to how the justices arrived at said decision. That is painfully obvious by your determination that now ALL states will be required to accept same sex marriages.
I don't think the decision impacts the way states enacts marriage law--for now.

I think that people will individually begin to appeal each state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. It will be a gradual process. Some federal districts will refuse hear these appeals, while others will. And once they're at a federal level, I think courts will have a different take on same-sex marriage based on the decisions--specifically the wording--reached earlier this week by the Supreme Court.

How can a state continue to justify their individual DOMA statutes when the Supreme Court has said that such laws have a negative impact on the children of same-sex couples and that such laws treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens?

I think they've set the bar to a level where federal district courts will be able to rule in favor of some individuals--overturning state DOMA laws.

The way I see it, it's like the Supreme Court has just let go of a huge bowling ball that is racing down the lane toward a bunch of states that are intent on keeping DOMA on their books.

Maybe the next step will be when a federal district court decides in favor of a same-sex couple, the state appeals, and then the Supreme Court will be forced to issue a direct, nationwide ruling; instead of side-stepping it with the Prop. 8 decision by simply saying that the supporters of the Prop. 8 lawsuit had no standing.

You can't deny that there is a clear trajectory. It's going to happen one way or the other.
koo

Long Beach, CA

#199307 Jun 30, 2013
Cvgcjhb wrote:
I just know God is coming soon, read the bible
Put down the crack pipe.
Earl

Los Angeles, CA

#199308 Jun 30, 2013
Question for all: I understand that The Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 illegal and struck down the law, but is there a state law giving gays the right to marry?

What I am saying is, there was no law giving gays the right to marry before prop 8 came along. Prop 8 was meant to block any future laws that tried to give gays the right to marry.The court struck down the ban (Prop 8)on gay marriage, but there is no state law giving gays the right to marry. So can some right wing group come along and again challenge the legalities of all these marriages? Do we need to force the politicians to finally get some guts and vote in a law?

I'm just worried that there might be a loophole and we should address this as soon as possible.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199309 Jul 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting that you are schooling me on law when you INSISTED that same-sex couples don't have the right to have their marriages validated by federal law?
I guess it's fair to say that you were a tad off the mark on how the Constitution would be interpreted by the justices.
I'm willing to bet that the following phrases will utilized to push states to legalize same-sex marriage:
--"DOMA’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law"
and
--"makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives"
The justices clearly believe that same-sex couples are being treated like second-class citizens. And they clearly believe that DOMA laws negatively impact the children of same-sex couples.
Since I was right about how this would turn out, I think I'll keep my opinions about how I understand the law and you can keep yours.
While proclaiming state rights, they circumvented them using the same maneuver used for the Roe vs Wade ruling. The first deprived unborn children of their right to life, the second deprives born children of their parents and marriage of it's legitimate identity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199310 Jul 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you believe that opposite-sex couples are better. You believe they make better parents. You believe that same-sex couples are "defective". You say too-may-toe and then say too-mah-toe, but you're really saying the same thing; namely that opposite-sex couples are superior.
I've proven numerous times that your "facts" are untrue. I just don't have the interest or energy to do it again.
And with regards to your final comment, the way I see it, you've justified your own rot by claiming over and over that marriage can only be defined as a cross-cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Anything else just doesn't cut the mustard for you.
You don't own--never will own--the definition of marriage. Marriage is what happens when two people decide to marry. Marriage means many different things to different people.
Finally, I think a perfect example of reprobate would be the millions upon millions of so-called Christians who have attacked gays and lesbians (physical and verbally) over the centuries in the name of God.
You insist that we change orientation or become celibate. You demand that only YOU can define marriage--claiming it should be only available to heterosexuals.
Every time a gay person wants to move a little closer to happiness and personal fulfillment, there you are, trying to knock us back "in our place".
I'll submit again... This is not Christianity. This is not what Christ commanded you to do. It isn't how He commanded you to interact with society.
Call our gatherings "debauchery". I don't give a damn what you call it. It was a wonderful day. And millions of gays and straights reveled in Pride Celebrations around the globe.
Just as when blacks began to finally taste freedom and women began to taste equality, gays and lesbians are enjoying both.
Not a bad time to be living in...
I've simply listed the distinctions, you've judged them. You only prove what I've noted many times, that imposing a fake relationship by gays is a foolish attempt to justify insecurity.

As to the other pontification, been there, exposed the gay twirl.

Here is the bottom line;

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.'Ss marriage' is clearly an oxymoron.
Nomomo

Marina Del Rey, CA

#199311 Jul 1, 2013
MORMONS ARE FREAKING THE CLUCK OUT! All that money that they've wasted fighting this. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! !
laughing man

UK

#199312 Jul 1, 2013
koo wrote:
<quoted text>
Put down the crack pipe.
What a truly incredibly original post. Surely it's headed to the Smithsonian.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199313 Jul 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't do it for you. Wouldn't have done it for you.
You can sit down now troll.
Aww, You mad Bro?
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199314 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I've simply listed the distinctions, you've judged them. You only prove what I've noted many times, that imposing a fake relationship by gays is a foolish attempt to justify insecurity.
As to the other pontification, been there, exposed the gay twirl.
Here is the bottom line;
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.'Ss marriage' is clearly an oxymoron.
Such bigoted twirl.....Yawn

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199315 Jul 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I've simply listed the distinctions, you've judged them. You only prove what I've noted many times, that imposing a fake relationship by gays is a foolish attempt to justify insecurity.
As to the other pontification, been there, exposed the gay twirl.
Here is the bottom line;
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.'Ss marriage' is clearly an oxymoron.
If your comment was translated to sound, all I would hear is flatulence.
Ramrod

Chico, CA

#199316 Jul 1, 2013
In the last year, there have been more than a dozen hazing incidents around the country involving high school boys who have sodomized other boys with foreign objects, reports Bloomberg. Over 40 boys have been reported victims. Most have been younger students.

There’s a dearth of data concerning the size and scope of the national boy-on-boy anal hazing problem. Astonishingly, though, a study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence has claimed that nearly 10 percent of high school males report suffering some form of sexual assault including, in some cases, forced oral sex or rape.

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 Police Beat: Stroller found at Palo Alto inters... 1 hr Gohb 2
My Teen Verbally Abuses Me (Feb '09) Wed Calipoolguy 117
Police action near Monta Vista on 05/23/2015 Tue Oh No You Di-nt 2
News Palo Alto: Committee balks at restricting smoki... May 14 Ban Tobacco 2
News Surenos gang member gets new trial date (Aug '08) May 4 Anonymous 284
You can win an awesome new GenZe Electric Scoot... (Sep '14) May 1 dfd 2
News Council approves tentative minimum-wage plan Apr '15 Hmm 2
More from around the web

Palo Alto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]