Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 4, 2010, www.cnn.com story 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#144990 Jun 9, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
that is incorrect as well. there is no inherent rule that married couples must have offspring.
Honey, you have listened to gay twirl talking points without engaging your brain.

No one is saying marriage "requires" children.

The FACT is that 96% of marriages DO involve children, so they distinguish marriage and must be considered. Marriage is the ONLY relationship that births all other relationships. That is true throughout nature where there are two genders.

The value you hold your OWN mother and father SCREAMS against gay unions being the same as marriage!

The FACT also is that marriage in every single culture in all of human history has involved both genders. Not a single culture has EVER accepted gay 'marriage' from start to to finish.

The union of opposite genders is infinitely more complex and difficult than any redundant relationship. A CHILD can look at marriage and gay unions and distinguish the difference. Especially when one couple (and only one) is mom and dad, right?

Gays unions have every right and potential establishing their OWN rights and privileges JUST LIKE MARRIAGE DID. But imposing a imposter relationship over the most significant one is dangerous and dumb!
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#144991 Jun 9, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>But not exactly helpful to the cause there bro. Focusing on issues irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage, especially issues often hung like an albatross around our necks is nothing but a distraction.
<quoted text>Vague to the point of being completely meaningless. What I get from that is you saying that the state's only role in the regulation of the marriage right is to hopefully be able to keep up with who is married to whom with no restrictions, absent all parties being consenting adults. So, no matter how absurd a combination I throw at you, as long as they have consented and as long as you got at least two people, you're not only good to go, you, you, you, you and all your future soul mates are entitled to equality in the rights, benefits, protections and so forth of marriage.
What can I say when you say that my equal rights are trivial and just a distraction to you. Do you expect me to apologize or something?

And what can I say when you say I already have equal rights to marry another person? I say that you hate that dumb argument when it's used against you- here it is- You have the same equal right to marry a woman as any heterosexual man.

And many people consider YOUR quest for equal rights a just a trivial distraction. How do you like that?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#144992 Jun 9, 2012
thisGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to disagree with your perverted homo lifestyle
What law says you can't disagree?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#144993 Jun 9, 2012
Mona Lot wrote:
Hey Doc,
What's the problem with posting under your own nic?You know that we can tell you're not who you are trying to impersonate......silly boy!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#144994 Jun 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
What law says you can't disagree?
Hey Mona.......seems you picked up a troll.......lol!!!

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144995 Jun 9, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, you have listened to gay twirl talking points without engaging your brain.
No one is saying marriage "requires" children.
The FACT is that 96% of marriages DO involve children, so they distinguish marriage and must be considered. Marriage is the ONLY relationship that births all other relationships. That is true throughout nature where there are two genders.
The value you hold your OWN mother and father SCREAMS against gay unions being the same as marriage!
The FACT also is that marriage in every single culture in all of human history has involved both genders. Not a single culture has EVER accepted gay 'marriage' from start to to finish.
The union of opposite genders is infinitely more complex and difficult than any redundant relationship. A CHILD can look at marriage and gay unions and distinguish the difference. Especially when one couple (and only one) is mom and dad, right?
Gays unions have every right and potential establishing their OWN rights and privileges JUST LIKE MARRIAGE DID. But imposing a imposter relationship over the most significant one is dangerous and dumb!
please do not call me 'honey' because for one i do not know you and secondly it is a form of belittlement.

secondly you are incorrect. poster 'thisguy' in post #144966 did infer marriage which produced no children were 'dead ends'.

i cannot believe your figure of 96% of heterosexual marriages due to the reasoning i see no facts supporting this claim.

your claim of homosexual marriages as being 'imposters' is merely a reflection of your opinion and not one universally seen.

i appreciate your input but it is hard to believe your statements above given you have no references to back your claims with the remainder being statements regarding your opinions on the matter. sorry.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144996 Jun 9, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
What can I say when you say that my equal rights are trivial and just a distraction to you. Do you expect me to apologize or something?
And what can I say when you say I already have equal rights to marry another person? I say that you hate that dumb argument when it's used against you- here it is- You have the same equal right to marry a woman as any heterosexual man.
And many people consider YOUR quest for equal rights a just a trivial distraction. How do you like that?
if 'rick in kansas' is gay he does not have equal rights in terms of marriage outside of 5 states from my understanding. that is why the discussion is taking place.

if rick is indeed a man and homosexual he would then be attracted to certain men who appeal to him and not women necessarily so i cannot see how your statement would fit that he could marry a woman given the likelihood is not present.

as far as the gays pursuit of this marriage aspect they apparently do not consider it trivial and i myself am starting to understand why given marriage might be an integral part of their lives they are missing.

why do you feel most oppose gay marriage? i am getting two sides to this. one based on past traditional marriage being 'broken' and some basing it on religious belief.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#144997 Jun 9, 2012
The Great Sly_Clyde wrote:
<quoted text>Dear Lucy.
If you had several long time friends who where gay, then why don't you understand what it is that they want? I support my friends.
Not every single gay wants marriage. And maybe I want things that are not legal. Has nothing to do with friendship. Maybe that is why you so lonely.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144998 Jun 9, 2012
Mona Lot wrote:
<quoted text>SO, WHAT BUSINESS is it of yours if 98-99% of people, straights, vote to define marriage as one man and one woman only. Like, you said it is none of your business. It really does not matter what straights are into, it is none of your business.
What is our business is the fact that you are compared to pedophiles and polygamist.
I think with a Mormon presidential candidate leading so far, America is ready to here from the heterosexual polgyamist and ignore the whinings of the gays which we are done with and ready to lock back in the closet.
i cannot believe your statements as well.

in the west california held a vote on proposition 8 which outlined if marriage should constitute only an opposite sexed union or should include gay couples. the vote was far from your figures above in which those that voted for only heterosexual coupling in marriage should be the rule.

and i have not yet seen queries by gays asking about the personal lives of the striaght population albeit i cannot clami to have seen every post.

your post(s) sound angry. if you are is there a reason behind it?

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#144999 Jun 9, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Not every single gay wants marriage. And maybe I want things that are not legal. Has nothing to do with friendship. Maybe that is why you so lonely.
i agree.

i don't know about this poster being lonely but not all gays want marriage. i think it was elton john who downplayed it as an example. but also not all heterosexuals wish to be married as well.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145000 Jun 9, 2012
Pam Jordan wrote:
<quoted text>
if 'rick in kansas' is gay he does not have equal rights in terms of marriage outside of 5 states from my understanding. that is why the discussion is taking place.
if rick is indeed a man and homosexual he would then be attracted to certain men who appeal to him and not women necessarily so i cannot see how your statement would fit that he could marry a woman given the likelihood is not present.
as far as the gays pursuit of this marriage aspect they apparently do not consider it trivial and i myself am starting to understand why given marriage might be an integral part of their lives they are missing.
why do you feel most oppose gay marriage? i am getting two sides to this. one based on past traditional marriage being 'broken' and some basing it on religious belief.
Religion and tradition I would say are the biggest reasons some people oppose same sex marriage. Followed by the "slippery slope", they're afraid that if they allow same sex marriage they will have to allow "perverts" who might want to marry more than one person to also have that right.

As for me, I see no compelling reasons to deny same sex marriage. All marriages are good for society and all marriages are equally valid.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#145001 Jun 9, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion and tradition I would say are the biggest reasons some people oppose same sex marriage. Followed by the "slippery slope", they're afraid that if they allow same sex marriage they will have to allow "perverts" who might want to marry more than one person to also have that right.
As for me, I see no compelling reasons to deny same sex marriage. All marriages are good for society and all marriages are equally valid.
I have to agree with the religion part. I find it somewhat hypocritical that the same people who oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons are usually the same group who claim there is a war on
1. Christianity
2. Christmas
3. Religion

They fail to recognize that there are religions, including some christian denominations that accept same sex marriage. That their actions to make same sex marriage illegal, or not recognized, is denying the followers of those religions freedom of religion.

Marriage, as recognized by the gov't is a contract between two consenting adults. It provides the couple certain rights, privilages and tax advantages.

The slippery slope arguement is a complete fallacy. Same sex opponents will argue what's next,
People marrying their pets. Illogical as pets can't give their consent
Pedophiles marrying children. Illogical as children can't give their consent
Polygamy: Illogical, too complicated legal contract leading to lawsuits concerning estates...

there really are no compelling or logical reasons to deny same sex marriage, but then religion, especially fundamentalists never use logic

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#145002 Jun 9, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Not every single gay wants marriage. And maybe I want things that are not legal. Has nothing to do with friendship. Maybe that is why you so lonely.
What do you want that's not legal that you're going to have the nerve to compare to gay marriage?

“Yellow Brick Road”

Since: Mar 12

The Land of OZ

#145003 Jun 9, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Not every single gay wants marriage. And maybe I want things that are not legal. Has nothing to do with friendship. Maybe that is why you so lonely.
Lucy that really hurt, way down deep. what a putz
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#145004 Jun 9, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you want that's not legal that you're going to have the nerve to compare to gay marriage?
It's not about comparing. It's my opinion. I was explaining my friendship with people.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145005 Jun 9, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with the religion part. I find it somewhat hypocritical that the same people who oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons are usually the same group who claim there is a war on
1. Christianity
2. Christmas
3. Religion
They fail to recognize that there are religions, including some christian denominations that accept same sex marriage. That their actions to make same sex marriage illegal, or not recognized, is denying the followers of those religions freedom of religion.
Marriage, as recognized by the gov't is a contract between two consenting adults. It provides the couple certain rights, privilages and tax advantages.
The slippery slope arguement is a complete fallacy. Same sex opponents will argue what's next,
People marrying their pets. Illogical as pets can't give their consent
Pedophiles marrying children. Illogical as children can't give their consent
Polygamy: Illogical, too complicated legal contract leading to lawsuits concerning estates...
there really are no compelling or logical reasons to deny same sex marriage, but then religion, especially fundamentalists never use logic
The slippery slope argument is not a complete fallacy. It has some legitimacy, but not enough to justify denying same sex marriage.

If you don't think the slippery slope argument has some legitimacy, just look at the reaction when I mention polygamy here. I get everything from very hostile "off topic!" complaints to death threats. Why? Because they're afraid of the slippery slope and wrongly think that the argument for polygamy weakens the case for same sex marriage. That is hypocritical. It doesn't.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#145006 Jun 9, 2012
Frank Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The slippery slope argument is not a complete fallacy. It has some legitimacy, but not enough to justify denying same sex marriage.
If you don't think the slippery slope argument has some legitimacy, just look at the reaction when I mention polygamy here. I get everything from very hostile "off topic!" complaints to death threats. Why? Because they're afraid of the slippery slope and wrongly think that the argument for polygamy weakens the case for same sex marriage. That is hypocritical. It doesn't.
the arguement against polygamy has to do with legal issues, especially estate issues.

suppose a man is married to a woman for twenty years, they get a house together, which she contributed too. He then goes out and marries a younger woman and dies shortly afterwards without a will. does the new wife get an equal share

what about children, how is the estate divided

I'm sure you can see that there are a host of legal issues with polygamy

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#145007 Jun 9, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>It's not about comparing. It's my opinion. I was explaining my friendship with people.
INTERPRETATION: My comparisons of what I want to do that's illegal in no way relate to same s e x marriage. I was just talking out of my a s s.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#145008 Jun 9, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
the arguement against polygamy has to do with legal issues, especially estate issues.
suppose a man is married to a woman for twenty years, they get a house together, which she contributed too. He then goes out and marries a younger woman and dies shortly afterwards without a will. does the new wife get an equal share
what about children, how is the estate divided
I'm sure you can see that there are a host of legal issues with polygamy
You are saying that polygamists should be denied equal rights because it would be too complicated to grant them. That's a common argument. I hope you see how bigoted and hypocritical it is.
TheVoiceofReason

Port Hueneme, CA

#145009 Jun 9, 2012
Call it "Civil Union"

and leave the word

"Marriage" for the normal people

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.

Brooks Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
dunnagan Feb '15 bsmoney024 1
News Sheriff's Dept.: Suspect ID'd in July stabbing ... (Aug '10) Sep '14 nanuel torres felix 10
News Banned film resurfaces 90 years after San Franc... (Aug '11) Sep '14 USSLIBERTY 5
News Casino expansion is flawed (Sep '10) Jul '14 Chief 3
News Colton city manager investigation delays budget (Jul '14) Jul '14 FosterFreeze 1
News Restitution award to county for illegal cockfig... (Jun '14) Jun '14 hsus and rico set... 9
News 4 candidates present at WJUSD school board forum (Oct '10) Jun '14 Karen Rosenkilde ... 13
More from around the web

Brooks People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]