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
160,941 - 160,960 of 200,347 Comments Last updated 57 min ago

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184342
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
nope....it does happen.
such is the nature of love.
Im saying that actual relationships tend to appeal to pairs..
THERE ARE some REAL three way relationships.....
I wont comment on how strong they may be??
it could be very strong...
but their numbers tell a story....
that cohabitating pairs are much more common.
and "threesomes' are genrally are about recreation.
It's too bad you can't give us more information, we are all just waiting for your information. Please enlighten us. LOL

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184343
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
mislead by who??
Clinton for one:“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”— Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983&#8243; — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”— Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”— Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”— Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”— John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”— Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
machete of rialto

Irvine, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184344
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

just announced wrote:
hopefully this thread will be retired after the Supreme Court rules - the end of homophobes once and for all.
hate the haters.
as long as there are phaggs like you, there will be plenty of haters ready to deliver. word!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184345
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

endocannabanoid system wrote:
you claimed the state requires marriages to produce children. you did it in the first sentence...
this is false....as the state requires NOTHING from a union between two adults. wake up.
No, the first sentence says: "The state requires posterity and married couples produce children with better outcomes than children born out of wedlock." I've acknowledged children are born out of wedlock. The thing is, children raised by married mother and father have better outcomes, spend less time in prison and more time in school, for instance, than children raised by only one of their parents.

I've never written the state requires married couples produce children; that's a strawman you find written by same sex marriage supporters. Children are a benefit from marriage, both for the state and the parents.
RedLine

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184346
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Warning the Red Line has been crossed.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184347
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Clinton for one:“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”— Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983&#8243; — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”— Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”— Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”— Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”— John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”— Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
ive admitted in the past these people were wrong...

how could they nOT be?? IT WAS WRONG!! many of us new it, like myself.

77 senators voted for it, and many of them were democrats.

THEY were wrong.

many of them have recanted. Bush, cheney, rumsy and wolfy have not.

im glad you have.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184348
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, the first sentence says: "The state requires posterity and married couples produce children with better outcomes than children born out of wedlock." I've acknowledged children are born out of wedlock. The thing is, children raised by married mother and father have better outcomes, spend less time in prison and more time in school, for instance, than children raised by only one of their parents.
I've never written the state requires married couples produce children; that's a strawman you find written by same sex marriage supporters. Children are a benefit from marriage, both for the state and the parents.
again brain.....the state requires NOTHING of married couples.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184349
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not "attacking" their rights. They are asking for the granting of rights that they do not rate. There is no "Compelling Reason" to grant them the same status as heterosexual couples. Maybe compelling to them, but not to the majority of us. We are merely responding.
Here is the compelling reason...

1.) Scientists and the Supreme Court have determined that homosexuality is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality. It is no worse than heterosexual behavior and no better than heterosexual behavior. It is equal. Like it or not, those are the facts based on scientific findings and legal findings in this country.

2.) Heterosexual relationships are granted the right, protection, and privileges of marriage. Homosexual relationships are not granted these things.

3.) The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

4.) So, if homosexual and heterosexual relationships are both supposed to be equal under the law; and heterosexual relationships are given more rights and protections via marriage than homosexual relationships; and the Fourteenth Amendment states clearly that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of law; then THERE IS A COMPELLING reason to give homosexual relationships THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual relationships.
RedLine

San Dimas, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184350
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Warning the Red Line has been crossed.

Large guns will be firing next, jets, tanks and missles are being ready and sent away now.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184351
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, the first sentence says: "The state requires posterity and married couples produce children with better outcomes than children born out of wedlock." I've acknowledged children are born out of wedlock. The thing is, children raised by married mother and father have better outcomes, spend less time in prison and more time in school, for instance, than children raised by only one of their parents.
I've never written the state requires married couples produce children; that's a strawman you find written by same sex marriage supporters. Children are a benefit from marriage, both for the state and the parents.
Do you really believe that all children raised by their biological parents fair better than all children raised by someone else?

I've worked for many years in the field of social work. And I've got to tell you, that simply isn't the case.

Two parents who are physically/emotionally abusive to their children and who have serious drug/alcohol problems DO NOT do better than children raised in a loving, stable, supportive household headed by non-biological parents--regardless of the parent's orientation.

The key to raising successful children has less to do with the biological connection to the parents and more to do with the skills of the parents.

It's not "who" raises the kids, but "how" the kids are raised.

That is the case 100% of the time.

It hardly takes an advanced degree to know this is true.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184352
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

6

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>um.... prior to "the vote," gay people HAD the right to marry. The vote took that right away, and that is why SCOTUS will overturn it. You should have learned this stuff in high school civics class.
XBox

Gay people ALWAYS had the right to marry, along with every other American, and actually exercised that right, even fathered, or gave birth to, children, with their respective (opposite sex) husband or wife.

The people of California voted to constitutionally define marriage, as it had been defined, for all of American history, as a union of husband/man AND wife. What was taken away was the right to participate, by the voter, in the constitutional process.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184353
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really believe that all children raised by their biological parents fair better than all children raised by someone else?
Of course not. There will always be situations where the bio parents cannot, or choose not, to care for their children. So what's your point?
I've worked for many years in the field of social work. And I've got to tell you, that simply isn't the case.
Two parents who are physically/emotionally abusive to their children and who have serious drug/alcohol problems DO NOT do better than children raised in a loving, stable, supportive household headed by non-biological parents--regardless of the parent's orientation.
True, but children will do better in any other stable home environment .
The key to raising successful children has less to do with the biological connection to the parents and more to do with the skills of the parents.
It's not "who" raises the kids, but "how" the kids are raised.
The biological connection should not be severed unless there is legitimate reason for doing so. Even gay people have a mom and dad.
That is the case 100% of the time.
It hardly takes an advanced degree to know this is true.
True

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184354
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
move to utah
My oh my....how quickly the mood changes as soon as the "P" word is mentioned. So much for "equality". Apparently, some are more equal than others.
endocannabanoid system

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184355
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
My oh my....how quickly the mood changes as soon as the "P" word is mentioned. So much for "equality". Apparently, some are more equal than others.
I dont have any problem with polygamy.

I only suggested utah, bcause you might feel more at home amomgst others who are practicing the same sort of thing...

sort of like(and equal to) when the castro or greewich village became hot spots...

mabey the law proibiting polygamy is wrong??

yet, Im not the one to make that call....(a voter)

the other obstacle to having full civil rights for polygamists is public opinion.

but then again, public opinion was squarely against same sex marraige just a generation ago.

in the early 60's, it was the same deal with interacial marraige....and now look at how humdrum that has become.

mabey it is time to make your case to the high court!!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184356
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
XBox
Gay people ALWAYS had the right to marry, along with every other American, and actually exercised that right, even fathered, or gave birth to, children, with their respective (opposite sex) husband or wife.
The people of California voted to constitutionally define marriage, as it had been defined, for all of American history, as a union of husband/man AND wife. What was taken away was the right to participate, by the voter, in the constitutional process.
State sponsored segregation was legal throughout most of the country; particularly in the south, until the judicial branch of the federal government (i.e. The Supreme Court) found these laws unconstitutional.

If left up to the individual states and their legislators, who knows how long, if ever, these laws would have remained in place.

This is why the Fourteenth Amendment is so important in determining the rights of U.S. citizens. States and their residents CANNOT determine the rights of U.S. citizens.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184357
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. There will always be situations where the bio parents cannot, or choose not, to care for their children. So what's your point?
<quoted text>
True, but children will do better in any other stable home environment .
<quoted text>
The biological connection should not be severed unless there is legitimate reason for doing so. Even gay people have a mom and dad.
<quoted text>
True
The "point" of my comment was in response to the post which stated "The thing is, children raised by married mother and father have better outcomes, spend less time in prison and more time in school, for instance, than children raised by only one of their parents."

And this clearly is not the case.

Children can be raised by anyone as long at the parent(s) provide(s) the proper financial support,, discipline, stable environment, exposure to education, and love.

You guys act as though child-rearing is some deep mystery that only a married man and woman are capable of doing. And that simply is not the case.
phaines

Big Bear Lake, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184358
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

endocannabanoid system wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have any problem with polygamy.
I only suggested utah, bcause you might feel more at home amomgst others who are practicing the same sort of thing...
sort of like(and equal to) when the castro or greewich village became hot spots...
mabey the law proibiting polygamy is wrong??
yet, Im not the one to make that call....(a voter)
the other obstacle to having full civil rights for polygamists is public opinion.
but then again, public opinion was squarely against same sex marraige just a generation ago.
in the early 60's, it was the same deal with interacial marraige....and now look at how humdrum that has become.
mabey it is time to make your case to the high court!!
polygamist are no different than these lil low-lifes who find females to support them on welfare...they just do it on a larger scale...slimeballs..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184359
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the compelling reason...
1.) Scientists and the Supreme Court have determined that homosexuality is a normal, legal, expression of human sexuality. It is no worse than heterosexual behavior and no better than heterosexual behavior. It is equal. Like it or not, those are the facts based on scientific findings and legal findings in this country.
Please validate these claims.

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184360
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The "point" of my comment was in response to the post which stated "The thing is, children raised by married mother and father have better outcomes, spend less time in prison and more time in school, for instance, than children raised by only one of their parents."
And this clearly is not the case.
The key here, is by their OWN married mother and father in a stable home. That's the gold standard. I was raised by mom and dad, my children are,......and you?
Children can be raised by anyone as long at the parent(s) provide(s) the proper financial support,, discipline, stable environment, exposure to education, and love.
True.....but who doesn't want their own Mom and Dad, absent abuse of course?
You guys act as though child-rearing is some deep mystery that only a married man and woman are capable of doing. And that simply is not the case.
Ask the kids. Seriously.....that's not the point. We all have mothers and fathers, even you. Married mom and dad in a stable home is still the hold standard.
1 post removed

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184362
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please validate these claims.
Smile.
The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas,(2003),

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

29 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 min Reverend Alan 52,581
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Crybaby Cons 146,742
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min The Warriors 1,081,749
Jindal says rebellion brewing against Washington 6 min Righteous 602
Ted Cruz: Investigate 'appalling' Miss. Senate ... 8 min Righteous 152
John Walsh thesis scandal: Veterans have mixed ... 8 min Crybaby Cons 4
Fist bumps less germy than handshakes, study says 9 min lolol 3
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 17 min -Dont Panic- 244,969
•••
•••