Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

guest

Long Beach, CA

#204352 Jul 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They were facts, not opinions.
Far more agree with me than you.
It is clearly a period of denial.
History screams enjoy your moment, because it will quickly pass.
People agreeing with your opinions does not make them facts.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#204353 Jul 23, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Pot, meet kettle. You never discuss anything. You only launch silly insults because you are bored with your life and have nothing to offer.
Guest whimpered childishly, bored with his life and having nothing to offer.

Get some schtick son.
Still laughing at you

Covina, CA

#204355 Jul 23, 2013
Please be as stupid as the Glendora, California city council.

Proponents of California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that stopped same-sex marriage in the state, are pursuing an aggressive legal strategy, hoping to revive the ban that state officials have declared dead.

P.S. the world is still laughing at you all.
Frankie Rizzo

Los Angeles, CA

#204356 Jul 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll meet you face to face. Remember, I offered to sit down with you once before but you refused. You tell me when and where...
You say face to face. You sure its not packing his fudge that you seek?!
readOweep

Covina, CA

#204357 Jul 23, 2013
I was hoping the two part glue would have shut you up Frankie.

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.

This is BULL since the moderator lets his sick buddies post racist c r a p on the board all the time.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204358 Jul 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Guest whimpered childishly, bored with his life and having nothing to offer.
Get some schtick son.
Thanks for proving my point. You responded exactly as predicted.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204359 Jul 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll meet you face to face. Remember, I offered to sit down with you once before but you refused. You tell me when and where...
Why would I waste the time with a deliberate and continual liar?

You can't even be honest about accusing me of troll behavior because I exposed a gay troll.

You live a lie, and you demand others join your deceit.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204360 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He may not think that because he's too busy not thinking of the end result of "marital relations".
Bingo!

LOL

“"Situation Normal"”

Since: Jun 13

"All Flucked Up"

#204361 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo!
LOL
Yes indeed my good sir! Bingo,and welcome California the 13th state to pass marriage equality. Isn't it about time this thread came down? I mean the question has been settled once and for all. Finished.Over.Done,forever.... .;)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204362 Jul 24, 2013
-SNAFU- wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes indeed my good sir! Bingo,and welcome California the 13th state to pass marriage equality. Isn't it about time this thread came down? I mean the question has been settled once and for all. Finished.Over.Done,forever.... .;)
A law changed reality? Redumbant genders are now diverse genders like marriage?

Duplicate genders now connect the roots of humanity and the future in the present by the reunion of diverse genders?

I don't think so, but you are free to pretend all you want child.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204363 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply pointing out that the reunion of a man and woman in marriage connects humanity with the very roots of their existence and, at the same time, reaches into the future with the next generation.
But you bring up an interesting point. Even the Bible notes the incredibly profound fact that marriage reunites what was originally one genderless being.
A ss couple just cannot equate to that depth of diversity in a heterosexual couple united as one, in anyway, shape or form. The past and future joined by a man and woman into the present embarrassingly exposes the absolute barrenness of a ss couple.
It really makes it shameful to even speak of equating the two relationships.
while I am simply pointing out that same sex couples are indeed married, legally, and recognized on the state and federal level, a fact, not opinion.

You brought up barrenness again, so I will remind you again, that argument was laughed at in the supreme court, there are millions of couples that either cannot or choose not to have children, and we have never ever stopped them from getting married, the ability or decision to have children is not any kind of basis for deciding if a couple can marry, never has been.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204364 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
while I am simply pointing out that same sex couples are indeed married, legally, and recognized on the state and federal level, a fact, not opinion.
You brought up barrenness again, so I will remind you again, that argument was laughed at in the supreme court, there are millions of couples that either cannot or choose not to have children, and we have never ever stopped them from getting married, the ability or decision to have children is not any kind of basis for deciding if a couple can marry, never has been.
You lie.

I brought up far more than barrenness.

A bad ruling cannot change the vast and numerous distinctions between marriage and SS couples.

Moreover, not only was there not agreement about procreation, the bare majority flew in the face of previous SCOTUS rulings.

No piece of paper can equate distinct relationships. And that is ALL SS couples have.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204365 Jul 24, 2013
-SNAFU- wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes indeed my good sir! Bingo,and welcome California the 13th state to pass marriage equality. Isn't it about time this thread came down? I mean the question has been settled once and for all. Finished.Over.Done,forever.... .;)
The 13th state to reject marriage conjugality, but not by the will of the people.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204366 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
while I am simply pointing out that same sex couples are indeed married, legally, and recognized on the state and federal level, a fact, not opinion.
You brought up barrenness again, so I will remind you again, that argument was laughed at in the supreme court, there are millions of couples that either cannot or choose not to have children, and we have never ever stopped them from getting married, the ability or decision to have children is not any kind of basis for deciding if a couple can marry, never has been.
The willingness to accept each other as husband AND wife is why the license is issued. Sex, is part of the marital union, and we all know sex makes babies. That's it.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204367 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I waste the time with a deliberate and continual liar?
You can't even be honest about accusing me of troll behavior because I exposed a gay troll.
You live a lie, and you demand others join your deceit.
Once again, let it be known that he refuses to meet with me. I suspect that if he met me, he would have a much more difficult time saying the stuff he says on this forum. His anonymity, such as it is, provides him with a shield.

Either that or he's afraid to meet me.

I am a pacifist. He has no reason what so ever to fear me.

Sitting down face to face, over a cup of coffee or glass of wine might help us understand one another better.

But he refuses.

Pity...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204368 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The willingness to accept each other as husband AND wife is why the license is issued. Sex, is part of the marital union, and we all know sex makes babies. That's it.
No there are restrictions on marriage, it is not willingness alone.

I know sex is the only thing you think marriage is about, but that is not at all the case in the eye of a reasonable person as our justice system would say.

Same sex couples are married, legally, and recognized on both the state and federal level.

People have sex regardless of their marital status

People have babies regardless of their marital status

Legally

Facts, not opinion

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204369 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
while I am simply pointing out that same sex couples are indeed married, legally, and recognized on the state and federal level, a fact, not opinion.
You brought up barrenness again, so I will remind you again, that argument was laughed at in the supreme court, there are millions of couples that either cannot or choose not to have children, and we have never ever stopped them from getting married, the ability or decision to have children is not any kind of basis for deciding if a couple can marry, never has been.
Kennedy himself even brought up the issue of children. He said that children are placed at a disadvantage by not allowing their same-gender parent's marriage to be legally recognized.

He addressed the fact that children of same-gender parents do not feel that their families are equal to other legally married couples.

He gave examples of how insurance coverage for children are at risk.

He also talked about how social security death benefits are not applied to children of same-gender married couples.

And finally, he talked about how certain laws make crime against Federal Agents and their families a much more serious offense. These laws are set up to deter criminals from targeting Federal Agents and their families. With DOMA, same-gender married couples and their children weren't protected by such laws.

So, Kennedy absolutely had children in mind when he wrote his decision.
Amy

Fullerton, CA

#204370 Jul 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie.
I brought up far more than barrenness.
A bad ruling cannot change the vast and numerous distinctions between marriage and SS couples.
Moreover, not only was there not agreement about procreation, the bare majority flew in the face of previous SCOTUS rulings.
No piece of paper can equate distinct relationships. And that is ALL SS couples have.
page after page of pointless bigoted posts..you never once mention anything of love and commitment between two people, the REAL reason that people get married. If procreation is the only thing that matters to you, then marry a turkey baster.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204371 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No there are restrictions on marriage, it is not willingness alone.
The willingness to accept each other as husband and wife.
I know sex is the only thing you think marriage is about, but that is not at all the case in the eye of a reasonable person as our justice system would say.
Is there no end to your powers....now u can read other people's minds. Why are men and women joined together in "marriage" a formally recognized union?
Same sex couples are married, legally, and recognized on both the state and federal level.
Their relationships have been designated marriage. That is the distinction.
People have sex regardless of their marital status
People have babies regardless of their marital status
people do all sorts of things outside marriage, sex, live together, etc. So what's your point?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204372 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The willingness to accept each other as husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Is there no end to your powers....now u can read other people's minds. Why are men and women joined together in "marriage" a formally recognized union?
<quoted text>
Their relationships have been designated marriage. That is the distinction.
<quoted text>
people do all sorts of things outside marriage, sex, live together, etc. So what's your point?
I didn't realize you were so young, you probably don't know the laws around marriage, there are age limits, permission clauses in some state for underage, there are polygamy laws there are a number of legal restrictions on marriage.

Men and woman and men and men and women and women, same sex marriage is legal and recognized on the state and federal level regardless of your ignorance of that fact.

Same sex marriage has also been designated as marriage

The point is, that marriage is not only about sex, not only about children. Millions and millions have and are married without either the intent or ability to have children, marriage is not limited to that.

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.

Berkeley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Vallejo man arrested in Oakland in fatal shooti... 6 min Vet 12
The indisputable truth about the fire in Oaklan... 3 hr Truth Teller 1
It's Almost 5 Months Later 5 hr Oakland my home town 1
News Doctor heads to court after online sex sting (Nov '06) 13 hr Voyeur 17,437
Why is there so much racism in Oakland? (Mar '12) 15 hr kyman 58
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 16 hr south amboy 20,699
Raiders 21 hr Rick grande 1

Berkeley Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Berkeley Mortgages