Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, 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.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#143036 May 27, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So SS relationships are simply redundant.
That would be a definite distinction between marriage and gay unions, right?
Where did I say same sex relationships are redundant? How could you possibly get that out of what I posted??? I was comparing sexual attraction in the genders, not even making a comparison between gays and straights.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#143037 May 27, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So things like minority rights and handicapped rights are a violation of equal rights for all, right?
No. Where are you getting that. Give an example.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#143038 May 27, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So things like minority rights and handicapped rights are a violation of equal rights for all, right?
Are you actually angry that someone in a wheelchair can get a better parking spot than you do?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#143039 May 27, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So SS relationships are simply redundant.
That would be a definite distinction between marriage and gay unions, right?
No family is redundant. No relationship is redundant.

It's not our fault that your mind can't grasp the infinite wonder and diversity of human kind.

And really, what do you suggest for gay folks? We CAN'T be attracted to the opposite gender, and yet were were created with all of the same needs for love, and family that everyone else has. We aren't talking about a simple choice here, we are talking about how some of us are hard-wired.

Should we pretend to be otherwise, and marry straight folks in loveless marriages of convenience? Raise kids in such a toxic environment?

Would you really want that for yourself, or for one of your kids?

Should we deny the most basic human instincts for love, companionship, and family just to make you feel better about yourself?

Do you think that really makes sense?

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#143040 May 27, 2012
KiMare wrote:
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no effect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Wrong, idiot. We all know what you'd say to a friend that had never heard of civil unions and asked what it meant. You'd reply "Oh it's when gays get M A R R I E D". DUH.

Marriage means two people making a commitment to spend their lives together. End of story. There's no need to invent a new word for it. We already have one. "Marriage". You just want your special rights.
Frank Rizzo

Union City, CA

#143041 May 27, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
None of that makes any sense.
A good marriage is BASED on love, and many people want to formalize their marriage legally for a variety of reasons, whether they are gay or straight.
No married couple is required to recognize all committed relationships as a requirement to obtain a marriage license. Just ask straight folks. Very few support incest, child marriages, or polygamy, and yet they are allowed to marry. Gay couples are no different.
Yes, gay people are claiming all of the benefits of marriage. As they should. Loving your family makes folks do things like that.
No one is "redundant" in a marriage. Everyone is different, and brings different strengths and weaknesses to the union.
Civil marriage is unrelated to the religious idea of marriage, for legal purposes. Many Christian denominations, however, have no issue with marrying gay couples.
Marriage is a building block of society because it supports stronger and more secure families, and having MORE secure families will only strengthen society. The plumbing of those involved isn't an issue.
No one is asking for any change in "crucial distinctions". Just the right to have one's family legally recognized. It happens all the time.
We already answered the "redundant sexuality" one. Trying to word it in a different way to increase the length of your argument is illogical.
No one denies a child parents by becoming a caring parent, and there is ample evidence that having married parents is better for kids. Can you prove that having forcible unmarried parents is better for kids? Provide stats and studies, please. There is also ample evidence that gay couples are just as successful at raising great kids as straight couples are.
Gay people and straight people engage in the same sexual acts. Please explain why you are only concerned when you imagine gay folks having sex? Do you ask your straight friends is they enjoy any types of sex that are non-procreative? Do you support their marriages if they do?
If those who do not procreate should not be allowed to marry because they are a "genetic dead end", please explain, in detail, why infertile and elderly couples are allowed to wed.
Why is marriage healthy for straight people but not healthy for gay couples?
The "sole birthplace" one doesn't make enough sense. Can you reword it in english?
The bottom line is that anyone who marriage and family life should logically support it for gay folks for all of the same reasons that straight folks engage in it.
Good Post. This is the best thing you can do, calmly and respectfully explain that there is no harm in same sex marriage.

When people love someone who wants to be in a same sex marriage, it is hard to impossible to oppose it. The more people come to know same sex couples the more tolerance and acceptance there will be.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#143042 May 27, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
why would a gay guy want to be married in a Christian church in the first place?
He most likely will not, but the potential to be a member of a Church, then sue to obtain a large sum of money might be. pull your head out of obama for a minute and figure it out.
RiccardoFire

Sacramento, CA

#143043 May 27, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the CDC, as of 2005, they knew of not one single case of le$bain to le$bian transmitted HIV and well over 200,000 cases of women who contracted HIV through heterosexual $ex, yet for some reason, the bigots aren't on here suggesting that all straight women turn le$bian for the sake of their health and lives. Why the double standard???
The stats don't lie, the gays lying in the graves this Memorial Day weekend don't lie. Men having sex with men is not good for your health.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#143044 May 27, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
He most likely will not, but the potential to be a member of a Church, then sue to obtain a large sum of money might be. pull your head out of obama for a minute and figure it out.
Maybe you should get your head out of homophobic hate.

A homosexual would never be a member of a church, especially one that preaches hate and intolerant towards LGBT peoples.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#143045 May 27, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
Men having sex with men is not good for your health.
I'll think about that when my boyfriend is pounding me up the butt.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#143046 May 27, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
There is no proof that you are just not a pervert......
And the relevance of this mindless quip is, what exactly?
Here Is One wrote:
There is no proof that you were born that way......
As I have said, nature vs nurture is irrelevant to equal protection of the law. Your argument is utterly witless, and what is more, even if it were relevant, you lack the capacity to back it with fact.
Here Is One wrote:
But if proof is ever found by definition it will be a defect in your brain........
There is solid proof that you lack the capacity to support your position with facts, or to indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. It appears that you only continue to post to further illustrate your own incompetence.
Here Is One wrote:
Then we can treat it........
You havenít even proven your juvenile assertion yet.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#143047 May 27, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>He most likely will not, but the potential to be a member of a Church, then sue to obtain a large sum of money might be. pull your head out of obama for a minute and figure it out.
Sue for what? Churches don't have to marry ANYBODY. They can't be sued for that.

“Pay the toll”

Since: Jan 10

or meet the troll

#143048 May 27, 2012
Rational Adult wrote:
<quoted text>Take your queer butt back to the Nettie thread so Seen, can continue to whip it, gaywonder. I love the fact that you are a gay queer, it suits you.
Yes, gay puke, the federal law is DOMA and it says that homosexuality is not a protected or suspect class.
We do not have segregation in Alabama because of the 14th Amendment and it took Blacks over 100 years after they were given the right to gain the right.
I relish your hate. It soothes me. However I am not gay. I am an American who believes in freedom for all, even a putz like you. Why do you care so much about this issue, makes me think you are gay and are afraid god hates you for it. Silly child.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

HATE AND BIGOTRY

#143049 May 27, 2012
Rational Adult wrote:
I can see that you are obviously confused between myself and Rose NoHo.....she's kicked your azz many times and so, you think I am her and she is me.....but that's wrong and you know it is......just like you know that most of what you post is nothing but lies.

Silly idiot........get your facts straight.....oh, that's right.....YOU CAN'T!!!
Here Is One

Mexico

#143050 May 27, 2012
lides wrote:
And the relevance of this mindless quip is, what exactly?
Here Is One wrote, "There is no proof that you were born that way...... "

As I have said, nature vs nurture is irrelevant to equal protection of the law. Your argument is utterly witless, and what is more, even if it were relevant, you lack the capacity to back it with fact.
Here Is One wrote, "But if proof is ever found by definition it will be a defect in your brain........ "

There is solid proof that you lack the capacity to support your position with facts, or to indicate its relevance to the topic at hand. It appears that you only continue to post to further illustrate your own incompetence.
Here Is One wrote, "Then we can treat it........"

You haven’t even proven your juvenile assertion yet.
what I said is that there is no proof it is not a choice

If there was proof it would be a defect in your brain and that we could fix.......LOL
Here Is One

Mexico

#143051 May 27, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually gay men who are living in denial married to women (or who run and hide in the Priesthood) have stunted $exual attractions to children because they repressed their $exuality so that it didn't develop normally - they are high risk for molesting children.

To the extent which someone represses their $exuality, there will be a proportional lack of age progression in their $exual attractions. To the extent which someone represses their $exuality, there will be a proportional increase in obsession with their $exuality. Common sense Modern Psychology works much better than the bible.

More symptoms of the underlying problem - people who get their information about $ex education from a 2000 year old Middle Eastern desert tribe that clearly didn't even understand basic human rights. It's time for this to stop. There's a reason it's so prevalent in fundamentalist atmospheres like the Roman Catholic, Baptist and Mormon Churches.
sounds to me line we need to build more prisons then
Here Is One

Mexico

#143052 May 27, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>If being gay really is a choice, then where are all the homosexuals that figured out how to choose to be straight again? Or maybe even at least some gays turned bisexual by being able to develop genuine attraction to the opposite $ex - who are now faithfully in an opposite $ex relationship? Why aren't they ever on here telling us how they did it?
there are many that have gone straight

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#143053 May 27, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
what I said is that there is no proof it is not a choice
If there was proof it would be a defect in your brain and that we could fix.......LOL
whether homosexuality is a choice or innate is immaterial to the arguement and a red herring.

This is the United States of America, land of the free. Americans should be free to choose the adult they want to spend their lives with in marriage. The gov't and everybody else, especially some bronze age mythology fanatical adherents have no business in that decision.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#143054 May 27, 2012
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
sounds to me line we need to build more prisons then
while I agree that would go a long way to solving america's problems, it violates the 1st ammendment. So we really can't lock up all those mentally disturbed fundamentalist christian evangelicals who believe in a mythological skydaddy.

It is unfortunate that they never grew out of those childish beliefs upon reaching adulthood. I guess we're just lucky that most stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy etc.
Here Is One

Mexico

#143055 May 27, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>The current court will likely approve gay marriage if they address it since Roberts has a history of doing consulting work for gay rights groups showing them how they can win cases based on Constitutional Law. At least GW did something good for us.
Roberts is pro equal rights but he is also for keeping the word marriage to mean a civil union between a man and a woman

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.

Studio-City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News All Los Angeles County Jails on Lockdown (Feb '06) 6 min Johnny 1,707
News At the mercy of the climate jihadists 8 hr California Bound 15
Review: Barry O Bernstein Law Office (May '10) Thu Informed opinion 26
??ll Wed nope 1
News Garden Grove Man Arrested In Hit-And-Run Collision May 19 Pamy 1
UFO Hvovers over Santa Maria Slow moving So to ... (Jan '10) May 19 deanne 48
Review: Ramy's Nursery (Feb '13) May 18 Jerry 2
More from around the web

Studio-City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]