Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201865 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230863 May 29, 2014
Rancho Navarre wrote:
The Domestic Violence risk is around twice as high in gay relationships (+/- 40%) as in heterosexual relationships (+/-20%).
Can you remotely begin to back up these "facts"?
I don't think you can.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#230864 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you are still having difficulty counting or understanding the very meaning of equality Pietro.
I see you dodged the question.
Pietro, does any state allow three or more people to legally enter into one marriage?
Another dodge.
Sorry, kiddo, learn to count, and find a valid argument. Your tiresome arguments of polygamy are irrelevant, lack a rational basis, and merely prove that you have difficulty understanding what equal means.
And the hat trick, the trifecta, three peat.....

Why if two lesbians constitute "marriage", why not three?

If conjugality, male female or husband AND wife, is legally expendable as the basis for marriage, why should monogamy be retained?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#230865 May 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
I see you dodged the question.
No, Pietro, I exposed the depth of your ignorance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Another dodge.
Nope, just more ignorance on your part.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And the hat trick, the trifecta, three peat.....
Why if two lesbians constitute "marriage", why not three?
If conjugality, male female or husband AND wife, is legally expendable as the basis for marriage, why should monogamy be retained?
Pietro, learn to count. Why your argument is irrelevant has been explained to you countless times (thank heaven it has been explained countless times, because clearly, you lack the ability to count them anyway.

The reality remains that every state has marriage between two people, and no state allows marriage between three or more. Such a change seeks greater, not equal protection of the law; whereas same sex marriage seeks equal protection of the law for two people.

I'm sorry you are too dumb to understand why your argument is inept and irrelevant. It must truly be difficult to go through life with such a mental handicap.
The Normal Majority

Sacramento, CA

#230866 May 29, 2014
Marriage IS NOT a "right"!

In this country "rights" can not be restricted.
If marriage was truly a "right" then the state could not limit marriage on any grounds. If marriage is a "right" then no age or family restrictions can exist as an example.

A woman could marry a young boy or girl! If marriage is a "right" then two children could marry each other.......what a mess that would be.

SO QUIT SAYING MARRIAGE IS A "RIGHT"!!!!!!!!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#230867 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Pietro, I exposed the depth of your ignorance.
Dodge
Nope, just more ignorance on your part.
Dodge again.
Pietro, learn to count. Why your argument is irrelevant has been explained to you countless times (thank heaven it has been explained countless times, because clearly, you lack the ability to count them anyway.
Learn the difference between men and women....oh wait...you like outties, not innies.
The reality remains that every state has marriage between two people, and no state allows marriage between three or more.
The reality also remains that some states, either through ballot, legislative action, or court imposed, have abandoned conjugality as the basis for legal marriage within their particular state. So, why then, if that conjugality is expendable, why isn't monogamy?
Such a change seeks greater, not equal protection of the law; whereas same sex marriage seeks equal protection of the law for two people.
Soooooo what? Why does number, two, trump nature, conjugal or opposite sex, as it pertains to legal marriage? Please explain how two lesbians constitute "marriage", but not three? Still same sex, still "marriage equality", conjugality has been rejected, and yet you cling to this notion that the state must.....ohhhhhhhh....they just have to....retain monogamy. The bottom line is, you offer no compelling reason why three lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, and no lawsuit has yet to be filed in this regard. It's only a matter of time. It'll be fun to watch the rainbow coalition trip over themselves trying to argue against their own.
HaZuzz

Covina, CA

#230868 May 29, 2014
Page 9,976 and counting too #230867
Rancho Navarre

Honolulu, HI

#230869 May 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you remotely begin to back up these "facts"?
I don't think you can.

I'm sure I can relocate my research books at the Denver Public Library if I EVER return to Colorado
Rancho Navarre

Honolulu, HI

#230870 May 29, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>What is your suggestion?
THISisABSTRACT for most people, bear with me -
Although we are not aware of it, certificate of marriage is a contractual certificate of ownership. This is the basic reason we are so possessive of each other when we become "married". Until people wake up to this concept, they can do nothing to change it.
As long as people "possess" each other, we will remain as we are now. I believe we are stunted in our growth as a species compared to what we're capable of.
ALWAYS go on this rule and you will achieve everything you endeavor: YOU are no one's possession - NO ONE is your possession
real love never possesses.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#230871 May 29, 2014
Judges should read and apply law impartially according to precedent, not write their own marriage law to create new social justice.
Rancho Navarre

Honolulu, HI

#230872 May 29, 2014
DO'T be side stepping the MARRIAGE/ POSSESSION issue, baby boy
It applies to all marriages between HUMANS.
"social justice" my ass - ya f*ckin' mule
Jim Stevens

San Jose, CA

#230873 May 29, 2014
Why all the love?
Sgt Peppers

Gardnerville, NV

#230874 May 29, 2014
Where's the Covina Corksoaker when we need his impeccable logic?He's probably sucking brass plating off the doorknobs in his room at the institute.
Lol

Torrance, CA

#230875 May 29, 2014
Thats funny
INflatable

Covina, CA

#230876 May 29, 2014
Glendora, California doesn't care that the rest of the state of California has a water problem nor the rest of the country for that matter. The city has allowed 9,360,000 per year to wash down it's gutters and into concrete flood control channels. Of course the reader has to understand this only ONE of many "water wasters" the city of Glendora has allowed to continues this practice for years unaffected or asked to stop. Glendora currently is in a Stage 1 water drought alert with water usage rules in effect, they should be in a Stage 2 to reflect the reality of Southern California and California as a whole. By declaring a Stage 2 water usage restriction alert they might have to stop their grand building plans numbering over 450 apartment, condos and houses in motion to be built thus putting a further strain on water supplies.

City council members, city manager, city department heads and city attorney all do not care one eye oat ta, being that they are 1% and the cost of the water means nothing to them at all, besides they have purchased more water from resources outside the city limits. Even a board member of Three Valley Water doesn't care either, Ex-city council member and Mayor Bob Kuhn - he just laughs the issue away.

Cali Girl 2014

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#230877 May 29, 2014
Rancho Navarre wrote:
DO'T be side stepping the MARRIAGE/ POSSESSION issue, baby boy
It applies to all marriages between HUMANS.
"social justice" my ass - ya f*ckin' mule
Ha Ha Ha!!
Anthony

Italy

#230878 May 29, 2014
Cali Girl 2014 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha Ha Ha!!
Ciao suo stato un po 'senso ho postato come sei stato? Ti sono mancata Mi sei mancato. Pensate a voi in ogni momento della giornata. Blondi miele italiano.
Junk piling

Covina, CA

#230879 May 30, 2014
Junk piling is common political trick used in retaliation for those got whipped. And who got whipped here but they keep posting.
Anonymous

Vallejo, CA

#230880 May 30, 2014
Adam Carolla Stands By Claim That Gay Mafia Stifles Speech In Hollywood
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/29/adam-caroll...

Adam Carolla isn’t backing down from his recent claim to Salon that the gay community in Hollywood acts like a mafia “demanding everyone apologize for every joke and retract every statement.”
Junk piling

Covina, CA

#230883 May 30, 2014
Live wire aren't you?
Robin

Antioch, CA

#230884 May 30, 2014
Apparently, your vote does not count. In any event, I have debated this issue with those who believe in Marriage Equality, and the fact of the matter is, THEY ARE NOT FOR EQUALITY AT ALL. They also confuse anti-miscegenation with anti-gay marriage. The honest truth is that when you redefine Marriage, well, let's see how 'equality loving' gay marriage supporters are-HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:IF, IF, IF, IF INCESTUAL MARRIAGE, POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES WERE TO BECOME PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT, WOULD YOU BE FULL OF 'EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE FOR ALL' and vote yes, in support?-THE ANSWER IS 'NO'(at least, in every instance in which I have debated, I have immediately noticed, surprise! Surprise! A sudden attack of morality and moral judgment upon those who seek to be married in such unions. That is called 'SIBLINGPHOBIA, AND POLYGAMPHOBIA'. So rather than jump on the Politically Correct Bandwagon and say 'where do I sign in support of gay marriage'-I ask in debate to actually think through the other implications. Now, to prove my point correct, you will read angry posts and derisive posts in response to what I have written. Let me prophesy further:Posts will come in, and they will not only disagree with my hypothetical, they will explain their hatred for incestual and polygamous relationships with arguments as to why others should be denied their happiness in marriage. REMEMBER, THESE ARE THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO EXPRESSED 'EQUALITY' IN MARRIAGE FOR ALL. REMEMBER. I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICT.

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.

Colfax Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
David Dallas Withrow (Apr '15) Jun 1 BeauVine 9
Auburn Walmart News May '16 Jeff 2
Disillusioned with Child Protective Services in... (Jun '06) May '16 Anonymous 80
News Rescuers give details surrounding teen's drowni... Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
News Serial ADA lawsuit filer striking Bay Area Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
News David Ryland: Centennial Reservoir Project a ba... Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
News New school board trustee selected, seated durin... (Oct '15) Oct '15 LaTricia 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Colfax Mortgages