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 8,024)

Showing posts 160,461 - 160,480 of200,242
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183810
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Another fair-weather friend:

The question of marriage is one that historically has been left to the states....
I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal...
Hillary Clinton
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM42_benhrc.pdf

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183811
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 

March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.

I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183812
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Dr. Lamb was cited by the district court for the broad and unqualified conclusions that the “gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment” and that “having both a male and female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.” At trial, however, Dr. Lamb had conceded that his own published research concluded that growing up without fathers had significant negative effects on boys, and that there is data indicating that there are significant differences between men and women in their parental behavior.

At trial, he also conceded that there is considerable research indicating that traditional opposite-sex biological parents appear in general to produce better outcomes for their children than other family structures do.

http://theacru.org/Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry...
Keep marriage as is, one an and one woman; keep it simple. Don't risk harming children for imaginary acceptance. Demand acceptance because you are a human being, not for other political reasons.

Reason 21 for keeping marriage as is: KISS, keep it simple.
Dorn

Ridgecrest, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183813
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Brian_G wrote:
Another fair-weather friend:
The question of marriage is one that historically has been left to the states....
I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal...
Hillary Clinton
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM42_benhrc.pdf
I applaud Hillary for realizing that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and be accepted into a society that has been very unfair and brutal to themm. I used to believe that civil unions were the answer, but homosexuals want to be married in order to escape redicule and not be treated as second class citizens.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183814
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 
March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
No one is bound by your religion or traditions other than the people that choose your region or traditions, they are NOT the law of the land, this is the land of the free, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, orientation or national origin.

It isn’t a characterization, the polls show clearly who is opposed and it is mostly upon religious grounds.

Marriage remains marriage, a commitment by a couple to one another, to pledge their lives, their love and fortunes together, to be partners in this life.

That is certainly what my marriage is about, my wife is my partner, not my property, she means much more to me than merely a child bearing appliance.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183815
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon XBox, use your head for something other than a hat rack. Remove the sexual procreative aspect of the marital relationship, and what else is there to generate a compelling state interest? Why prohibit blood relatives from marrying? Its because they might have sex, and make a baby, named Xavier Breath....just kidding.
<quoted text>
That reason was made long before you, or I were born. Do you think its a fluke that SSM never, other than a few scattered historical examples, existed before in the West, or around the globe for that matter?
<quoted text>
Scientifically proven on untold numerous studies conducted on husbands AND wives. There's not sufficient numbers or studies to conclusively prove such studies are applicable to SSM, male or female. If a study shows that married men live longer because of their wife, would that study be applicable to a female SSC? Male SSC? What about plural marriage? If what you are saying is true, there's no reason not to allow that. It would benefit plural marriage practioners too.
You are incorrigible. How many fucking times do we have to go over these points before it sinks into your head? There are other State interests in marriage than just procreation. Longer life, better health, stability, financial independence.... Argue against it all you like.... it's about the same as a creationist arguing that evolution isn't scientific.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183816
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
within Marriagehttp://www.thepublicdi scourse.com/2013/03/9432/ 
March 8th, 2013
 
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
Avoid using appeals to tradition?????????? hellooooooooooooooooooo
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183817
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoid using appeals to tradition?????????? hellooooooooooooooooooo
Yeah that had me laughing too, tradition is all they have to stand on, but tradition is a choice, not a law.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183818
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
Here's a newsflash for ya! The state doesn't care, from a legal standpoint, about your hallmark card version of marriage. "Love", "respect", "commitment", etc., are neither legally defined, nor a requirement for issuance of a license. If you're going to rant on about procreation is not a legal requiremnt, ya better throw in the all the rest as well.
That is true, just as being able to bear a child is not a requirement. Soon another barrier will fall across all 50 states, so far it is only fallen in 11 with one district, California soon to regain its rights and freedoms as well.

From the government standpoint all marriages are a legal contract between 2 people, nothing more. Some states limit it further, others do not.

Your personal church can still have its ceremony " Do you take this women to be your child bearing appliance" or whatever words you use.

Fortunately we don’t all have to belong to your church, we live in the land of the free.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183820
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
I applaud Hillary for realizing that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and be accepted into a society that has been very unfair and brutal to themm. I used to believe that civil unions were the answer, but homosexuals want to be married in order to escape redicule and not be treated as second class citizens.
If homosexuals wish to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband wife, at least in 32 states, that is what they should do.

Seriously, "second class citizens"? So if a gay person marries, of their own free will, some one of the opposite sex, are they a first class, or second class citizen?
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183821
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If homosexuals wish to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband wife, at least in 32 states, that is what they should do.
Seriously, "second class citizens"? So if a gay person marries, of their own free will, some one of the opposite sex, are they a first class, or second class citizen?
Or they can marry in the 10 states and one district ( more to follow ) that has entered the 21st century, or the 17 nations that also recognize them ( and more to follow ), California is on the verge of regaining its rights and freedoms.

In the next couple of months Prop 8 will be struck down quickly followed by DOMA

The wording that is now expected will may almost any challenge to the states that have altered their constitution against equality to swiftly succeed in overturning it.

Not a sure thing yet, but the writing is on the wall, 58% of Americans now support gay marriage, the white house advocate general has been allotted time in the arguments, and the republican leadership is swiftly jumping on the bandwagon.

One would have to be blind to not see where this is going.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183822
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is bound by your religion or traditions other than the people that choose your region or traditions, they are NOT the law of the land, this is the land of the free, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, orientation or national origin.
Let me guess, the "D" is the letter grade you received in school for reading comprehension. The author of that piece, a gay man, stated he avoided using tradition and religion in forming his stance on same sex marriage.
It isn’t a characterization, the polls show clearly who is opposed and it is mostly upon religious grounds.
Not all who oppose legalizing SSM do so on religious grounds.
Marriage remains marriage, a commitment by a couple to one another, to pledge their lives, their love and fortunes together, to be partners in this life.
Sounds like you're trying to define marriage for everyone else. Marriage remains a legally recognized union of husband and wife. At least in 32 U.S. states, and most societies around the globe. All there other items you mentioned, ARE NOT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

Also, polygamy is a valid form of marriage practiced in far more place than SSM, even in this country, albeit without legal recognition. Amazing how you omit that.
That is certainly what my marriage is about, my wife is my partner, not my property, she means much more to me than merely a child bearing appliance.
What your marriage is beyond a legally recognized union of husband and wife, is up to YOU AND YOUR wife. The law does not care if you call her your partner, mother of your children,, honey pie, or shnookems.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183823
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Or they can marry in the 10 states and one district ( more to follow ) that has entered the 21st century, or the 17 nations that also recognize them ( and more to follow ), California is on the verge of regaining its rights and freedoms.
"Freedom"? So submitting one's personal intimate relationship to government regulation is freedom?

By the way, so when will "freedom" be extended to consensual plural marriages?
In the next couple of months Prop 8 will be struck down quickly followed by DOMA
The wording that is now expected will may almost any challenge to the states that have altered their constitution against equality to swiftly succeed in overturning it.
Those states with constitutional amendments,simply recognized men and women are different, each is one half of the marital relationship. They felt no need to turn a man into a woman, or vice versa.
Not a sure thing yet, but the writing is on the wall, 58% of Americans now support gay marriage, the white house advocate general has been allotted time in the arguments, and the republican leadership is swiftly jumping on the bandwagon.
Yet we still have 32 plus states where the voters have said otherwise. Time will tell.
One would have to be blind to not see where this is going.
It's "going" to further devalue marriage, a process that began long before gay marriage came about, it is the reason why it's legal, and Americans as a whole are not marrying at rates they did just thirty years ago. Who knows SSM might become legal nation wide, and it might not. Plural marriage might become legal, thanks in part to legal SSM. The more the merrier.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183824
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess, the "D" is the letter grade you received in school for reading comprehension. The author of that piece, a gay man, stated he avoided using tradition and religion in forming his stance on same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
Not all who oppose legalizing SSM do so on religious grounds.
<quoted text>
Sounds like you're trying to define marriage for everyone else. Marriage remains a legally recognized union of husband and wife. At least in 32 U.S. states, and most societies around the globe. All there other items you mentioned, ARE NOT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
Also, polygamy is a valid form of marriage practiced in far more place than SSM, even in this country, albeit without legal recognition. Amazing how you omit that.
<quoted text>
What your marriage is beyond a legally recognized union of husband and wife, is up to YOU AND YOUR wife. The law does not care if you call her your partner, mother of your children,, honey pie, or shnookems.
You need to learn to read.. is English your primary language? I said a “majority” of the rapidly diminishing number of people that oppose same sex marriage do so for religious reasons, and that remains a fact regardless of your ignorance of the fact.

No I am for letting each individual person the freedom to define their marriage and taking away the tynary of you personally defining it for everyone else.

and to your last point, no I cannot have you arrested for referring to your wife as your child bearing appliance, but I do pity her.

My wife is my very best friend, my partner, the one person I can be open about anything to, never hide anything from. She knows all my hopes and fears and my shortcomings ( my wife teases me that I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the intolerant ) and my strengths. I hope my children have the same kind of marriage I have... so far they have.... we taught them well.

And by the way they all support Same sex marriage along with a majority of Americans, we taught them very well.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183825
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The argument in the country is starting to change, anyone notice.

Now that 11 states and one district recognize SSM, the argument is now, why are same sex couples treated differently in one state than another, isn’t freedom for all Americans?

Perfect :)

That is now what businesses are asking the federal government, they are saying it is a business imperative that they be able to attract and move the best people for the job from state to state regardless of their orientation, that SSM needs to be recognized nationally.
BanOn

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183826
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Where did you get your "BanOn's" ??

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183827
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn to read.. is English your primary language? I said a “majority” of the rapidly diminishing number of people that oppose same sex marriage do so for religious reasons, and that remains a fact regardless of your ignorance of the fact.
My response did not contradict what you wrote, retread it. I do not oppose SSM on religious grounds.
No I am for letting each individual person the freedom to define their marriage and taking away the tynary of you personally defining it for everyone else.
Did you not read what I actually wrote? The state defines marriage. In 32 plush states it is DEFINED AS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION OF Husband and Wife. How a couple wishes to define it beyond that. Are you suggesting the state is "tyrannical"?
and to your last point, no I cannot have you arrested for referring to your wife as your child bearing appliance, but I do pity her.
This from a man who thinks his wife is interchangeable with another man.
My wife is my very best friend, my partner, the one person I can be open about anything to, never hide anything from. She knows all my hopes and fears and my shortcomings ( my wife teases me that I have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the intolerant ) and my strengths. I hope my children have the same kind of marriage I have... so far they have.... we taught them well.
Part of that teaching, is modeling behavior, sons learn from their fathers how a husband should treat his wife, and daughters learn the same. I have taught my daughters as well, as well. Tolerance does not mean we ignore differences.
And by the way they all support Same sex marriage along with a majority of Americans, we taught them very well.
Do they support plural marriage as well, or is that crossing the tolerance line?
2013 repubCrooks

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183828
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Once again more SCUM BAG republicans are indicted and will face charges, just like the dirt bag calling himself Nick COnway of thesgvCOG stealing seems to be there only job.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183829
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
My response did not contradict what you wrote, retread it. I do not oppose SSM on religious grounds.
<quoted text>
Did you not read what I actually wrote? The state defines marriage. In 32 plush states it is DEFINED AS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION OF Husband and Wife. How a couple wishes to define it beyond that. Are you suggesting the state is "tyrannical"?
<quoted text>
This from a man who thinks his wife is interchangeable with another man.
<quoted text>
Part of that teaching, is modeling behavior, sons learn from their fathers how a husband should treat his wife, and daughters learn the same. I have taught my daughters as well, as well. Tolerance does not mean we ignore differences.
<quoted text>
Do they support plural marriage as well, or is that crossing the tolerance line?
So you claim to be in the minority of the larger minority of people that oppose Same Sex marriage, not something to be congratulated for.

There are 11 states that recognize same sex marriages as well, and one district, soon to be followed by California regaining its freedom.

Yes we modeled our behavior, we were open, and accepting of people different from ourselves, we were inclusive of people of different religions, orientations even politics, our modeling that behavior was instilled our children who are also unafraid of and accepting of people different than themselves.

Ignore... no, accept and welcome, yes. They put love before hate, acceptance before fear, and they cherish the American values of Justice, Freedom and Equality
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183831
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
Do they support plural marriage as well, or is that crossing the tolerance line?
And he is back to the old religion created playbook against SSM! Wooo Hoooo!

Lost on procreation, lost on gay judges, lost on tradition so it is back to the slippery slope argument’s!

ROFLMAO

Those are the most fun

let’s cut to the chase, I want to hear about your desire to marry your goat.:P

we can talk about Plural when there are enough responsible people campaigning for it, when you have enough signatures on a petition to put it on a ballot, but please take video of your getting the signatures, we want that for You Tube

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 160,461 - 160,480 of200,242
|
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.

13 Users are viewing the San Diego Forum right now

Search the San Diego Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 3 hr PMS will get yeah 7,821
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 8 hr all doned in 4,864
16-Year-Old Injured While Standing up on Double... Sat Carol 16
The Troubadour Sat Billy 1
Maryanne Maloney (Apr '12) Sat Mike G 106
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sat The right is wrong 2,225
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Jul 11 This topics peaked 15,911
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for San Diego County was issued at July 13 at 1:38PM PDT

•••
•••
•••
San Diego Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

San Diego Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

San Diego People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

San Diego News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in San Diego
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••