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
173,361 - 173,380 of 200,576 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#199275 Jun 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
Polygamy is the straw man the anti-gay folks pretend to argue for, when they can't think of a logical argument against gay COUPLES marrying, in the same way that straight COUPLES already marry.
I asked you, why can't the child's biological mother and father marry?

Also, you said.
For instance, can you prove that the tens of thousands of great children being raised by gay parents are better off if their parents can't legally marry?
I simply employed your reasoning to another situation related to legal marriage, and how it's defined. Please explain how children being raised by SSCs, of which only one individual is the child's biological parent, should have their personal intimate relationship called marriage by the state, so as to benefit the child, but a child raised by his/her biological mother AND father as part of a polygamous union, should not have his/her parent's personal intimate relationship called marriage.

Make up your mind, or stop using that reason for SSM.
They pretend that two, and three for and five, are the same, but, illogically, only in a same sex marriage context.
Or they point out the hypocrisy of the SSM movement as it relates to redefining marriage. That somehow, rejecting the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife, of the marital relationship, trumps, number, as in polygamous or,plural marriage, which is a valid form of marriage throughout time and place.
I have never heard you demand that straight couples argue for or against polygamy as a litmus test for their marriage rights.
For the umpteenth time, the couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex. An opposite couple could be of "mixed orientation", for example a bi woman marries a straight man.

I don't demand, anything. It's up to SSMers to explain why the concept of legal marriage as a monogamous union should be discarded in favor of one that only includes same sex relationships, and no other. If you don't want the poly people crashing The Big Fat Gay Wedding, don't advocate marriage be redefined. Otherwise, let the chips fall where they may. Kody and the Sister Wives thank you for your support. The Darger Family too.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199276 Jun 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
In internet slang, SPAM is multiple copies of the same message sent to a discussion forum in order to disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

*smirk*
Marie

Barstow, CA

#199277 Jun 30, 2013
When is the Marie is driving to Redlands, California?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199278 Jun 30, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>You Lie, anal sex is not Natural, it's filthy, it's risky. Stop comparing people to giraffes and even animals. Just because some straight people engage in it doesn't mean it's natural. How do you know how many people are doing anal sex every day? You got your marriage, now don't promote your filth!
Tell you what... You keep your nose out of my ass and I'll keep my nose out of your vag. Deal?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199279 Jun 30, 2013
Marie wrote:
When is the Marie is driving to Redlands, California?
Did the Melissa ever get there?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#199280 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what... You keep your nose out of my ass and I'll keep my nose out of your vag. Deal?
Why are you squirming out of what you posted? You justify anal sex because a giraffe does it. Here is a better deal, try to back up the garbage you post. Deal?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199281 Jun 30, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are confused about what happened aren't you?
The DOMA decision only effected federal law, it has nothing to do with State Law, in fact the decision reenforced the power of the State in regards to marriage law.
Nothing in the DOMA decision requires a state to honor another states marriage license if said license runs counter to the current laws of said state.
Stop acting like you have any idea how the law works, you are just making yourself look ignorant.
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.

“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?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199296 Jun 30, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
you do go on. On and on and on and on and on...
No, VV gets that prize.
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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199300 Jun 30, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you too.
Didn't do it for you. Wouldn't have done it for you.

You can sit down now troll.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199301 Jun 30, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sit down, and clam up...
I second that. Mona Lott, STFU and sit down you washed up old auntie freak.

Ah, that felt good.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199302 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what... You keep your nose out of my ass and I'll keep my nose out of your vag. Deal?
Shuddup and sit down.

“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?

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) 38 min Macko mono 5,000
Ron Fleishman is the World's Most Underrated Ph... 7 hr Sad to Glad 25
Neil Young files for divorce from Pegi Young 8 hr Lightning Linda 3
Will Eric Schmidt Destroy Google? 8 hr Getting Real 25
Complaints Against Google+ 8 hr Getting Real 80
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 9 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 ]
•••