Prop. 8 headed for 9th Circuit

Prop. 8 headed for 9th Circuit

There are 815 comments on the Daily Democrat story from Aug 5, 2010, titled Prop. 8 headed for 9th Circuit. In it, Daily Democrat reports that:

Mixed reaction -- largely falling along conservative and liberal lines -- was coming in following a Wednesday afternoon ruling overturning California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Democrat.

First Prev
of 41
Next Last
Pedros Pedo Posts

United States

#1 Aug 5, 2010
A lower court's so-called "gay" judge rules on the so-called "gay" agenda.

The final arbiter has NOT made a final ruling, yet.
Karina

Sacramento, CA

#3 Aug 5, 2010
I'm getting married on Saturday, but I feel like my marriage has been sullied by the gay marriage BAN. Defining marriage by genitals rather than by love hurts my marriage. I voted to uphold the sacred institution of marriage by allowing gay marriage. Too bad Prop 8 passed, and hopefully this overturn will be upheld.
GET OVER IT

United States

#4 Aug 5, 2010
Karina wrote:
I'm getting married on Saturday, but I feel like my marriage has been sullied by the gay marriage BAN. Defining marriage by genitals rather than by love hurts my marriage. I voted to uphold the sacred institution of marriage by allowing gay marriage. Too bad Prop 8 passed, and hopefully this overturn will be upheld.
What RIGHTS have been denied to you? Absolutely none. So your feelings are hurt. Toughen up. How does it really hurt your marriage? It makes your marriage better by denying rights to others?? I don't get it.
GET OVER IT

United States

#5 Aug 5, 2010
Withdraw last post. I misread Karina's post.
Navalator

Songkhla, Thailand

#6 Aug 5, 2010
Pedros Pedo Posts wrote:
A lower court's so-called "gay" judge rules on the so-called "gay" agenda.
The final arbiter has NOT made a final ruling, yet.
You use the term "gay" quite liberally. What evidence do you have that the judge is "gay"? Also, you seem to know what the "gay" agenda is. I have been curious for years exactly what that agenda is. The crazy evangelicals and Mormons claim that they are fighting the "gay" agenda. You seem to know. What exactly it is?
Pedros Pedo Posts

United States

#7 Aug 5, 2010
Karina wrote:
I'm getting married on Saturday, but I feel like my marriage has been sullied by the gay marriage BAN. Defining marriage by genitals rather than by love hurts my marriage. I voted to uphold the sacred institution of marriage by allowing gay marriage. Too bad Prop 8 passed, and hopefully this overturn will be upheld.
Please cite the section of the CA constitution where one can find any support for your genital claim.

Or are you just making that up on the cuff?
Navalator

Songkhla, Thailand

#8 Aug 5, 2010
GET OVER IT wrote:
Withdraw last post. I misread Karina's post.
How ethical and civilized of you to recognize the error. Congratulations. You must have a lot of integrity.
Pedros Pedo Posts

United States

#9 Aug 5, 2010
Navalator wrote:
<quoted text>
You use the term "gay" quite liberally. What evidence do you have that the judge is "gay"? Also, you seem to know what the "gay" agenda is. I have been curious for years exactly what that agenda is. The crazy evangelicals and Mormons claim that they are fighting the "gay" agenda. You seem to know. What exactly it is?
Open eyes, that's all it takes.

(BTW, heard your tired-worn out red-herring line, from above, before)
Karina

Sacramento, CA

#11 Aug 5, 2010
Well, what's the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage? Genitals.

Maybe you believe that marriage is based on children. I don't, but fine. Children come out of certain genitals.(Okay, that sounds really weird.) So to say that some people can have marriage because they physically have the possibility of children and others can't is to be talking about genitals.

That's why I say that the gay marriage ban is based on genitals and not love, Pedro. Because it is.
Karina

Sacramento, CA

#12 Aug 5, 2010
And the judge is gay. Which to some means that he should not be allowed to judge this case, but to me means that he is much more equipped than a heterosexual to judge the case. Because why the heck should it matter to a heterosexual?

Well, I suppose it should matter--I'm glad to see so many heterosexuals who campaign strongly FOR gay marriage.
Pedros Pedo Posts

United States

#13 Aug 5, 2010
Karina wrote:
Well, what's the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage? Genitals.
Maybe you believe that marriage is based on children. I don't, but fine. Children come out of certain genitals.(Okay, that sounds really weird.) So to say that some people can have marriage because they physically have the possibility of children and others can't is to be talking about genitals.
That's why I say that the gay marriage ban is based on genitals and not love, Pedro. Because it is.
In YOUR equally valid opinion.

We do agree one one thing that sounds "really weird."
Mark D

Stanwood, WA

#14 Aug 5, 2010
Marriage is as much about responsibilities as it is about rights. Your lover dies after a long illness, you don't get stuck with the hospital bill. Your spouse dies and you are legally on the hook.

I am a conservative and I support gay marriage for conservative reasons.

But beyond that, once it became legally accepted that homosexuality was genetic, it also became inevitable that gay marriage would become a right. Since governments confer certain rights and privileges on married couples, it would be unlawful to deny access to those same rights and privileges to someone based on genetics.
Mrs Clooney

El Macero, CA

#15 Aug 5, 2010
I guess what consistently has me puzzled it why anyone cares who marries hat gender??? It has no day to day impact on the avaergae citizen. The arument that 'marriage has always been defined as a one man and one woman'. Really??? Check your history books, people!!! Marriage has a legal component and it has a spiritual component. Same sex couples just want the SAME rights for their union as is giving to hetero couples. Rememember, there was a time when people of different faiths, let alone race/ethnoicity, couldn't marry. And I have seen no societal meltdowns with a Jew and a Cathlic or a Filipino and Anglo being married.

Just admit it: those who scream the loudest on this issue really just have a problem with homosexulaity and most likely, sexuality in total. Anyone agree???
Richard Saunders

Belmont, CA

#16 Aug 5, 2010
You make two interesting points:

Why does the government intercede in a private contract with two people in the first place, and why family law in particular?

If there is a genetic basis for granting gay marriage, then you must be supportive of polygamy, because the point of the male reproduction organs is too spread its seed as far and as wide as possible.
Mark D wrote:
Marriage is as much about responsibilities as it is about rights. Your lover dies after a long illness, you don't get stuck with the hospital bill. Your spouse dies and you are legally on the hook.
I am a conservative and I support gay marriage for conservative reasons.
But beyond that, once it became legally accepted that homosexuality was genetic, it also became inevitable that gay marriage would become a right. Since governments confer certain rights and privileges on married couples, it would be unlawful to deny access to those same rights and privileges to someone based on genetics.
Theresa

United States

#17 Aug 5, 2010
GET OVER IT wrote:
<quoted text>What RIGHTS have been denied to you? Absolutely none. So your feelings are hurt. Toughen up. How does it really hurt your marriage? It makes your marriage better by denying rights to others?? I don't get it.
I think you misunderstood. She voted to ALLOW gay marriage! She's on the side of equality!
thinker

Oak Brook, IL

#18 Aug 5, 2010
I think the most important point made by the judge is that this is about CIVIL RIGHTS ... the pro-Prop 8 people continue to state that this is "activism" on the part of the judge b/c "the voters have spoken". Well, they are simply wrong. The whole point of a judiciary is to protect the minority from the will of the majority when it in fact violates such rights as determined in the bill of rights and again in the 13th and 14th amendments. Case in point - slavery. That was the will of the people and I'm sure not ONE person that voted in favor of Prop 8 would say that if that's what people wanted/voted for, or at least 51% of the population did, then it should be lawful. 2nd case in point - miscegenation; all of the same arguments being made about traditional marriage now were being made in the 40s, 50s and 60s against mixed race couples, "It's against nature. It's not God's will", it was up to the court to say, "a simple majority may feel this way, but legally it is unconstitutional b/c it's against ones CIVIL rights". I think a lot of Prop 8 proponents are so convinced of their moral righteousness they totally overlook that this is a CIVIL issue, not a religious one. Separation of church and state - no church has to recognise same sex marriage if they don't want to. But a CIVIL COURT is a completely different matter. And, on a personal note, seriously, how does it affect YOU? It doesn't. At all.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#19 Aug 5, 2010
I find it interesting that no one has touched on one topic, and it absolutely doesn't matter to me what the issue is, it could be any topic any issue.

That subject is that one lone person can ignore what the will of the people have voted for. That concerns me more then anything else.

How does that make you feel?...It doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy that's for sure. It doesn't matter whether you are for or against the issue.
thinker

Oak Brook, IL

#20 Aug 5, 2010
Pedros Pedo Posts wrote:
A lower court's so-called "gay" judge rules on the so-called "gay" agenda.
The final arbiter has NOT made a final ruling, yet.
So, who is the final arbiter? On this planet, in this country under the rule of law, it is the SUPREME COURT. Facts my friend, facts.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#21 Aug 5, 2010
DaveInWoodland wrote:
I find it interesting that no one has touched on one topic, and it absolutely doesn't matter to me what the issue is, it could be any topic any issue.
That subject is that one lone person can ignore what the will of the people have voted for. That concerns me more then anything else.
How does that make you feel?...It doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy that's for sure. It doesn't matter whether you are for or against the issue.
A federal Judge who's job it is to decide these things is hardly "one lone person" and the fact that our system of government was so designed so that the tyranny of the Majority can not overrun the rights of the Minority makes me feel that the system is working precisely as designed. There are many things which should not be subject to "the will of the people" if our Constitution is to have any meaning at all. No popular vote should ever be used to decide such an issue.
Publican

San Francisco, CA

#22 Aug 5, 2010
GET OVER IT wrote:
<quoted text>What RIGHTS have been denied to you? Absolutely none. So your feelings are hurt. Toughen up. How does it really hurt your marriage? It makes your marriage better by denying rights to others?? I don't get it.
I think you need to read "Karina"'s post more carefully.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 41
Next Last

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.

Wally Herger Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California Rep. Dreier announces plan to retire (Feb '12) Mar '12 torch 4
News Gloria Darlene Linch, Red Bluff: SmartMeters (Feb '11) Sep '11 Jeanne S 34
News Calif. rep. wants shared sacrifice in debt talks (Sep '11) Sep '11 lastoutlaw 10
News Herger in downtown Chico on Tuesday (Aug '11) Aug '11 Angry American 8
News Marijuana-legalization push gets voice on Capit... (Dec '10) Jul '11 roaddog 288
News House Republicans seek IRS probe of AARP (Mar '11) Jul '11 joey 37
News GOP calls for IRS probe of AARP (Apr '11) Jul '11 joey 2
More from around the web