Town Square

Retired Prop. 8 judge says same-sex marriage's time has come

Original post made on Apr 20, 2012

The now-retired federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 said at a meeting in San Francisco Thursday he thinks same-sex marriage is "an idea whose time has come."

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 20, 2012, 7:06 AM


Posted by Tennessee Jed, a resident of Jensen Tract
on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:18 am

So he was..."like" asleep for those 20 years on the bench? And to think I stood-up for this dolt when the heat was on him to recuse himself before the Prop8 trial began.

Posted by Homeowner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:36 am

Yes! Thank god that same-sex marriage is continuing to move closer to reality.

Posted by Mae, a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:50 am

It is time we all get over this and let it happen!!

Posted by Andrew M., a resident of Birdland
on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:53 am

You know who can't wait for same sex unions to become legal? Divorce attorneys.

Posted by Mort, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Long overdue

Posted by Charlie brown, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Apr 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm

Soon, Snoppy and I can tie the knot, why not?

Posted by darn, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 20, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Charlie brown (aka Rick Santorum) go take your hate somewhere else. As for your question: a human who loves another human that just happens to be the same gender is not even close to bestiality. Here's a helpful infographic for you: Web Link

Posted by Sybil, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Darn , you apparently haven't seen the group dykes on bikes. Not only are they beasts, they always look angry......I thought they just wanted love, but they are out to mess people up.

Posted by Mittens, a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:47 pm

What about taking on multiple wives though? Heavens sakes, can't we all get along? I think it should be left up to the states. In Utah, for example. As long as you can show you wear magic happy underpants you should be able to have as many wives as you please. File this under religious freedom. Obama is a nice guy but he's in over his head.

Posted by Bob, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2012 at 11:45 am

At our current time in history, marriage is a contract. In the past it may have had other meanings or intentions, such as to bind warring or competing families or countries together. But at this point in time Marriage is a contract. Remove the word marriage, or change the word to something else and you are left with the simple fact that the resulting action is a legal binding contract executed between two parties with specific rights, expectations and responsibilities. People must apply to the government for permission to enter the contract. Sometimes this permission is denied. Most times it is granted. Upon receiving permission to establish the contract, the parties then move towards executing to the contract. Often the execution is conducted with personal selected rituals such as meeting in a church, declaring your commitment in front of family and friends, or more privately like standing next to Elvis. And this is generally followed in celebrated with family and friends. However, there is no requirement for any such ritual or celebration to occur for the commitment to be made and the contract put into force. Once the contract has been established, the parties must abide by its terms and expectations and in turn will receive the rights and shared benefits of the contract. These include changing names and acting together as one. Creating an estate. Building wealth. Living life. Making decisions together. Making decisions for each other if one becomes unable to do so individually. Parties who act together as if a contract existed, even though no specific contract was entered into, will after a certain period of time be recognized and deemed by the common laws of our country to be existing and operating under this contract. And, if the parties decide the arrangement isn't suiting them, then they must apply to the government for permission to dissolve the contract and settle their debts and gains equitably.

This is a simple issue of contract. Currently managed and controlled by government entities. As such, I believe the government must act equally and equitably the same to all applying parties, without discrimination. We can not have freedom in a society where certain members are excluded from receiving the rights and benefits of contracts that other members receive without question. Where will we be if the government declares that the color of your hair, or the color of your skin, or your sex determines who may enter into contracts, who may own property, who may get a drivers license, or which people will attend which schools? Where will we be? We can not justify such actions, such decisions, by saying, "its tradition". Years ago, back in our history, slavery was tradition. Years ago, back in our history, your right to vote was determined by your sex, and that was tradition. Years ago, back in our history, your education was decided by the color of you skin, and that became tradition, and habit as well. We have slowly turned some things around. The contract issue is another one that needs turning. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter how populist or unpopular an issue may be. The government is required in all cases treat the people equally, fairly and equitably. I say, if you apply for permission to enter into the contract, your body parts, matching or not, should not be factored in, any more than the color or your hair, or the color of your eyes. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Posted by Mitten, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm

It's sad to watch AIDs related dementia take the life and logic away from this once coherent judge. He is unwittingly making the case for those moralists who have been combatting the demise of the institution of marriage. At least he retired, not a minute too soon.

Posted by Mittens, a resident of another community
on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Mitten, you nasty kitten; you've lost one of your mittens ... advanced stages of dementia perhaps? That's okay, a GOP president was in the advanced stages through most of his presidency.

Heavens, with so many unwed mothers traipsing around on welfare -- and you really can't fire them, as much as I'd like to -- can't we just marry them off to all the magic happy underpants guys in Utah? My own wife has had to work sooooo hard during her life, we could always use another set of hands for washing her two Caddies. We feel blessed to have lived as we have, my wife slaving away in the kitchen and me slaving away at the hedge fund company. Most patriotic Americans have never known such work! At all!

Posted by Reese Davis, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Apr 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm

How did homosexuals ever get the idea that they had any rights
that are inalienable? Who told them that? Don't they understand
that they only have the rights that decent people care to dole
out to them? What on earth is the matter with queers?

Posted by Mitten, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm

Reese, there's not enough room on his topic to fully answer all of your questions, but good questions they are. Only in calif. would such perversion be considered acceptable or tolerable.

Posted by Mittens, a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Absolutely. There's no room for rational discussion when there's so much hatred to distribute across the board. Suffice it to say that people don't act perverted like that in Utah. We know how to be intolerant of such abominations. Our happy magic underpants protect us from such devilish temptations.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Apr 24, 2012 at 10:15 pm

mittens doesn't wear underpants...fess up!