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
126,861 - 126,880 of 200,578 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142650
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>But Chaz is no longer "Gay", Chaz is now straight due to surgery. At least Chaz knew something was wrong and was able to afford to fix it thanks to her/his family being rich.
Chaz's sexual orientation DIDN'T change just because the outside did. When a person transitions from one sex to another.....whatever their sexual orientation was......still remains the same. In other words if a man transitions to a woman and was attracted to women......they then technically become a Lesbian because even though the body changed genders......their sexual orientation DIDN'T change.

And Chaz didn't change because he knew being a Lesbian was wrong......he changed because he always felt something wasn't right.

I've personally know a couple of folks who have gone through the total change........one was a man who always felt that he was a woman inside......married, had children, divorced and at the age of 55 years old.....started the physical change. Today, she is a happy woman who still has 3 children and is a Lesbian in a long term relationship with another woman!!!

The other was a woman who transitioned to a man, she was attracted to men......when he got through the change, he is still attracted to men.....making him technically Gay.

Do you understand that one's gender is not the same as one's sexual orientation?
Anonymous

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142651
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but Catholic Justices have been on the High Court before and still didn't do things the way the Pope or the Vatican would have liked them to have ruled.....and they won't here either.
The Constitution ISN'T ran by one's religious beliefs......and the High Court usually will rule in favor of individual rights......not what some bible says is right......we are not a THEOCRACY.
Oh really? Google search "Vatican Washington DC connection".
jesus christs pudenda

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142652
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU....
Nope. As long as you keep coming in here and spewing shit, I am going to throw it right back at you.
Riccardos pudenda

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142653
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>But Chaz is no longer "Gay", Chaz is now straight due to surgery. At least Chaz knew something was wrong and was able to afford to fix it thanks to her/his family being rich.
What "surgery" made him straight?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142654
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Google search "Vatican Washington DC connection".
I don't have to.......I believe that when a case on this issue does reach the High Court......they will make the right decision.....even if it's 5-4 in our favor.

Now, you don't have to believe as I do.....but the court has always ruled in favor of individual rights.....doing so in Loving vs Virginia, again in Griswold vs Connecticut, again in Roe vs Wade and again in Lawrence vs Texas, as well as Skinner vs Oklahoma. Each case was about an individuals right....whether to marry someone of a different race, being allowed to use birth control, about a woman's right to make decisions for her body, about the right to have anal sex without government intrusion and about not being forced to be castrated........look up each and every case.....they are about individual rights and the High Court ruled in their favor.
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142656
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>But Chaz is no longer "Gay", Chaz is now straight due to surgery. At least Chaz knew something was wrong and was able to afford to fix it thanks to her/his family being rich.
Who says Chaz is rich?
Did you get the permission to look into his account?
Idiot.
Chaz was gay and knows what the experience is like. You do not. You cannot speak for Chaz nor can I.
So shut the HELL up.
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142657
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>But Chaz is no longer "Gay", Chaz is now straight due to surgery. At least Chaz knew something was wrong and was able to afford to fix it thanks to her/his family being rich.
I'll be honest...once I started thinking rather than reacting I realized the different divisions of those who are homosexual, bi-sexual, those who feel they're trapped in the wrnog sex....they carry a lot more weight and character than many of us do by not just losing it.

It's gotta be tough brother...we were lucky enough to be born heterosexual. And in by no way am I claiming they're handicapped because gays are obviously not. It's just that society needs to get educated and catch up to their being. Once done everyone with an IQ above 50 will realize they're just other people in which whom tastes are not our own and whom cause about zero on the Harm Meter.

Let it go friend.

It's good advice.

Worrying about the fact harmless gays live in our midst is a waste of time.
Asshole23

Kingsburg, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142658
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

This article is old put something new on here
Bill Of Rights

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142659
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

Asshole23 wrote:
This article is old put something new on here
Better yet,how about you get the F out and your problem is solved! Do you always whine like this? Adios! LOL

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142660
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

RnL2008 wrote:
we are not a THEOCRACY.
People like Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney want us to become a theocracy. That's why it's so imporant to vote for Obama in 2012.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142661
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Gay people need to do everything to get Obama reelected this Nov. If not they will blame us if Obam loses. We can't allow Romney to win under any circumstances.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142662
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...
In its decision, the court wrote:
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Being gay is not fundamental to existence, sorry. And why do you gays keep attempting to co-opt the Loving vs Virginia precedent? In that case, it was still a man and woman getting married. There was not and still is not any basis for "race" to be used in the enforcement or drafting laws. Loving vs Virginia has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage push. It is CLEAR in your own quote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

If this was about some generic definition of marriage, it would not have included the words "fundamental to our very existence and survival".

The gay agenda is being fiercely resisted because of the underhanded bitch-tricks you people use. Anybody with integrity would easily understand that phrase as being between a man and a woman.

GAY IS NOT THE NEW BLACK.

THE OLD BLACK IS STILL BLACK

And blacks will never support gay marriage in large numbers, no matter what black celebrity or President says they support it. The Asians do not support it, and the majority of Hispanics do not support it. The votes in the states do not support it, and the Constitution does not grant special rights to gay people or anyone else. Marriage is a defined NATURAL coupling between a man and a woman, and recognized by law. That is why one needs a license to be married legally. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Two men or two women in a couple is not a marriage no matter what any paper says.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142666
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
Being gay is not fundamental to existence, sorry.
Gay people are still human beings. We still exist, sorry.
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
The gay agenda is being fiercely resisted because of the underhanded bitch-tricks you people use. Anybody with integrity would easily understand that phrase as being between a man and a woman.
You use the term "gay agenda." You sound like a Christian fundie. That explains a lot.
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
GAY IS NOT THE NEW BLACK.
THE OLD BLACK IS STILL BLACK
And blacks will never support gay marriage in large numbers, no matter what black celebrity or President says they support it
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

The big shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage among black voters in Maryland is reflective of what's happening nationally right now. A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 59% of African Americans across the country supportive of same-sex marriage. A PPP poll in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania last weekend found a shift of 19 points in favor of same-sex marriage among black voters.
_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
There is no such thing as gay marriage..
So why is it you oppose something so much that you claim doesn't exist?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142668
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay is not fundamental to existence, sorry. And why do you gays keep attempting to co-opt the Loving vs Virginia precedent?
Define what it means as "fundamental to our existence?" If a heterosexual couple is past the childbearing years, are they "fundamental to our existence" if they can't have children? If a heterosexual couple is either infertile or sterile, are they "fundamental to our existence" if they can't have children? See, if procreation was required in order to get a marriage license......you'd have a point.....but seeing as it isn't.....you have no argument!!!

Now, why is the Loving case used so much.....because up until this time race played an important role in keeping marriage separate even for a man and a woman who happen to be of different skin colors.......and if you remove race or skin color from the argument and instead insert gender.....you have the same argument......that's why it is used.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142669
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Same sex marriage isn't the central issue. It's important that all are treated with respect and dignity, we reject violence and hatred directed toward any group. There are places in the world, where political opponents are called homosexuals and discredited; as long as gays are prosecuted for consensual adult associations; same sex marriage is a distraction.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142670
May 26, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
Marriage is a defined NATURAL coupling between a man and a woman, and recognized by law. That is why one needs a license to be married legally. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Two men or two women in a couple is not a marriage no matter what any paper says.
Actually one needs a license in order to provide proof that they are married and entitled to receive certain rights, benefits and privileges of being married......it has NOTHING to do with the Natural coupling between a man and a woman.....in fact the state does not care if you couple at all!!!

You're right.....there is NO such thing as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage.......but it is a legal marriage that simply involves 2 people of the Same -Sex or 2 people of the opposite-sex.

Your last comment is wrong......if the state issues a marriage license even if it is to 2 men, 2 women or a man and a woman.....it is a legal, valid and recognized marriage by the state......and once DOMA is overturned or repealed......all will be recognized as legal, valid and recognized as such at the federal level.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142671
May 26, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Thank you president Obama.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

57% of Maryland voters say they're likely to vote for the new marriage law this fall, compared to only 37% who are opposed. That 20 point margin of passage represents a 12 point shift from an identical PPP survey in early March, which found it ahead by a closer 52/44 margin.

The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed.

The big shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage among black voters in Maryland is reflective of what's happening nationally right now. A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 59% of African Americans across the country supportive of same-sex marriage. A PPP poll in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania last weekend found a shift of 19 points in favor of same-sex marriage among black voters.
Bill Of Rights

Livermore, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142672
May 26, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay is not fundamental to existence, sorry. And why do you gays keep attempting to co-opt the Loving vs Virginia precedent? In that case, it was still a man and woman getting married. There was not and still is not any basis for "race" to be used in the enforcement or drafting laws. Loving vs Virginia has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage push. It is CLEAR in your own quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
If this was about some generic definition of marriage, it would not have included the words "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
The gay agenda is being fiercely resisted because of the underhanded bitch-tricks you people use. Anybody with integrity would easily understand that phrase as being between a man and a woman.
GAY IS NOT THE NEW BLACK.
THE OLD BLACK IS STILL BLACK
And blacks will never support gay marriage in large numbers, no matter what black celebrity or President says they support it. The Asians do not support it, and the majority of Hispanics do not support it. The votes in the states do not support it, and the Constitution does not grant special rights to gay people or anyone else. Marriage is a defined NATURAL coupling between a man and a woman, and recognized by law. That is why one needs a license to be married legally. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Two men or two women in a couple is not a marriage no matter what any paper says.
And you would be wrong about blacks once again! Here is the latest national poll on how blacks now feel about marriage equality! Sorry,but 59% of blacks are now in support of it! And maybe according to you there are NO marriages between couples of the same sex but yours is but an opinion! What does count LEGALLY is what the state says,if they say it is legal it is in fact legal! Who cares what an old bigoted opinionated fool thinks!
Blacks now support marriage equality by 59%

www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarri...

news.yahoo.com/strong-support-gay-marriage-no...
Dan

Roseville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142673
May 26, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

_Reality Speaks_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Being gay is not fundamental to existence, sorry. And why do you gays keep attempting to co-opt the Loving vs Virginia precedent? In that case, it was still a man and woman getting married. There was not and still is not any basis for "race" to be used in the enforcement or drafting laws. Loving vs Virginia has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage push. It is CLEAR in your own quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
If this was about some generic definition of marriage, it would not have included the words "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
The gay agenda is being fiercely resisted because of the underhanded bitch-tricks you people use. Anybody with integrity would easily understand that phrase as being between a man and a woman.
GAY IS NOT THE NEW BLACK.
THE OLD BLACK IS STILL BLACK
And blacks will never support gay marriage in large numbers, no matter what black celebrity or President says they support it. The Asians do not support it, and the majority of Hispanics do not support it. The votes in the states do not support it, and the Constitution does not grant special rights to gay people or anyone else. Marriage is a defined NATURAL coupling between a man and a woman, and recognized by law. That is why one needs a license to be married legally. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Two men or two women in a couple is not a marriage no matter what any paper says.
Listen stupid....is being straight and popping out 30 offspring to 11 different women essential to our 'existance'???

Because dumbfuck that's what some straight male just managed and guesswhat...the story line was that he wanted "the state" to pick up his child support bill because he felt the need to go whoring around a few years earlier.

Integrity? You lack it bud. Gay is not the new black. That I'll agree opon but the simularities are present and undeniable asshat and those are discriminating against a grouping of people based on thier makeup which in fact their makeup creates no viable harm.

Now MORON....gfo find harm in gays...gays marrying or the fact you just don't like homosexuals or piss off because my little buttercup punk that's how it works - you don't have the power to inflict your opinion into other American citizens freedoms unless those freedoms or liberties include harm.

And "gay agenda"...LOL!!! The onlt "gay agenda" I've seen shitforbrains is that homosexuals want to be equal.

Well...let 'em...and get a LIFE of your own for Christ's sake loser.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142675
May 26, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but THERE is NO genetic defect just because one happens to be Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual......IN FACT in order to be even considered a genetic defect.......THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A GENE and there isn't one!!!
Inaccurate. I agree there is not a 'gene', however, there does not have to be a gene. Check it out.

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.

Other Recent Simi Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 15 hr Bee Keepers 4,977
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 20 hr facts faced 15,929
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Mon Mudflys to 7,901
Insights into Isla Vista Shooter Elliot Rodger Aug 18 szaAsx 53
Use one word....drop one game (Aug '13) Aug 18 _Zoey_ 261
Elliot Rodgers Viral Superstar Aug 16 hArstle 22
Text me I'm horny (Apr '12) Aug 14 Boy 18 years old 18

Search the Simi Valley Forum:
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Ventura County was issued at August 21 at 1:49AM PDT

•••

Simi Valley News Video

•••
•••

Simi Valley Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Simi Valley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Simi Valley News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Simi Valley
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••