Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201807 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.

Howdy

Irving, TX

#190586 Apr 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, I am not belittling you or you slut in any way at all.
And I promise as I know you are a follower of the golden rule that I will treat your marriage as sacred as you treat the marriage of others, including same sex couples.
I will use the same terms you use when you talk of them, I know that is the way you would want it.
I was responding to Kimare, not you.

And I'm a straight guy married to a woman.

Just for clarification.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190587 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Howdy, Kimare never lets the English language stand in his way. He believes that he's a wordsmith. He loves to come up with new words. He thinks he's clever. He doesn't realize how lame he comes across here. It's kind of sad.
Howdy

Irving, TX

#190588 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another one related to the issue you are trying to twirl by;
Would your child think it matters if it was mom and dad, or two 'dads'?
You are an idiot.
Snicker.
Snivelling fool, if you're offended by the usage of a common legal term, then I'm sure we can all find some more words to tick you off.

You're the idiot if you think you get to control any one else's life or marriage. You're an even bigger fool if you let same sex marriage change or alter your marriage (that is, if you could find anyone to marry you in the firt place).
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190589 Apr 30, 2013
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was responding to Kimare, not you.
And I'm a straight guy married to a woman.
Just for clarification.
I probably responded to the wrong post.. multitasking this morning :)

I too am straight and married to a woman, but that does not change my support of same sex marriage as an American I am for freedom, justice and equality.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190590 Apr 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I probably responded to the wrong post.. multitasking this morning :)
I too am straight and married to a woman, but that does not change my support of same sex marriage as an American I am for freedom, justice and equality.
Maybe Frankie distracted you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190591 Apr 30, 2013
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
Snivelling fool, if you're offended by the usage of a common legal term, then I'm sure we can all find some more words to tick you off.
You're the idiot if you think you get to control any one else's life or marriage. You're an even bigger fool if you let same sex marriage change or alter your marriage (that is, if you could find anyone to marry you in the firt place).
Seriously, you are going to hurt your limp wrist gay twirling like that!

First you say word use doesn't matter, now you are trying to limit the word marriage to a legal term. That is either the feminine side that can't make up her mind, or one silly stupid kid playing on the Internet.

It doesn't make a hill of beans difference who applies the word marriage to SS couples, or what affect it does or does not have. A sterile duplicated half is not marriage. Even your child knows the difference between mom and dad and a redumbant gendered couple.

Duh.
LongGoo

Covina, CA

#190592 Apr 30, 2013
This site was declared a toxic waste dump long ago.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190593 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, you are going to hurt your limp wrist gay twirling like that!
First you say word use doesn't matter, now you are trying to limit the word marriage to a legal term. That is either the feminine side that can't make up her mind, or one silly stupid kid playing on the Internet.
It doesn't make a hill of beans difference who applies the word marriage to SS couples, or what affect it does or does not have. A sterile duplicated half is not marriage. Even your child knows the difference between mom and dad and a redumbant gendered couple.
Duh.
The word IS only a legal term

Every other meaning of it changes from religion to religion, from culture to culture, is and has been fluid across time.

The ONLY important distinction is the legal term.

You and your imaginary playmate can make all the determinations you want that only apply to you and believers in your particular sect, no one else.

The only definition that has any actual meaning is the legal term.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190594 Apr 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not looking for thanks... I have not done all that much, I contributed money opposed to prop 8 and talk to folks about it, that is about it. I know other straight folks that have done a lot more than I have.
I just think it is remarkable, that so many Americans have come so far in such a short period of time. In the 80's or 90's this would have been impossible.
But it makes me proud to be an American when I see so many standing up for justice and equality.
You need to do better than that! Why aren't you out gathering signatures? Why don't you have lawyers working on court cases?
You don't really support SSM. You just admitted you haven't done hardly anything.

See how silly you are when you insist I do those things before I am allowed by Big D to discuss poly marriage?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190595 Apr 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The word IS only a legal term
Every other meaning of it changes from religion to religion, from culture to culture, is and has been fluid across time.
The ONLY important distinction is the legal term.
You and your imaginary playmate can make all the determinations you want that only apply to you and believers in your particular sect, no one else.
The only definition that has any actual meaning is the legal term.
Higher powers that people believe in are not "playmates".
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190596 Apr 30, 2013
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
Snivelling fool, if you're offended by the usage of a common legal term, then I'm sure we can all find some more words to tick you off.
You're the idiot if you think you get to control any one else's life or marriage. You're an even bigger fool if you let same sex marriage change or alter your marriage (that is, if you could find anyone to marry you in the firt place).
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

William Shakespeare
Howdy

Irving, TX

#190597 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, you are going to hurt your limp wrist gay twirling like that!
First you say word use doesn't matter, now you are trying to limit the word marriage to a legal term. That is either the feminine side that can't make up her mind, or one silly stupid kid playing on the Internet.
It doesn't make a hill of beans difference who applies the word marriage to SS couples, or what affect it does or does not have. A sterile duplicated half is not marriage. Even your child knows the difference between mom and dad and a redumbant gendered couple.
Duh.
The term "marriage" has legal implications. Those implications and intricasies have nothing to do with the religious side of things. If you want to focus on the religious impact - fine. But the issues of same sex marriage deal with the legal aspect. And as such, that's how I'm framing my discussion and understanding, you snivelling fool.

If your view of same sex marriage is what it is, then, that's where it remains then. In your own little noggin. Not in legal terms. Your opinion is your own, but be aware that no one else MUST embrace your opinion as fact. The only facts that are relevant are the legalities as they affect all of us. Well, at least those that are barred from being legally married.

Got that yet? Your opinion doesn't play into the legalities. It's your own ego that puffs you up enough to think you matter. And the fact of the matter is that you do not matter one iota. The laws do.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190598 Apr 30, 2013
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
The term "marriage" has legal implications. Those implications and intricasies have nothing to do with the religious side of things. If you want to focus on the religious impact - fine. But the issues of same sex marriage deal with the legal aspect. And as such, that's how I'm framing my discussion and understanding, you snivelling fool.
If your view of same sex marriage is what it is, then, that's where it remains then. In your own little noggin. Not in legal terms. Your opinion is your own, but be aware that no one else MUST embrace your opinion as fact. The only facts that are relevant are the legalities as they affect all of us. Well, at least those that are barred from being legally married.
Got that yet? Your opinion doesn't play into the legalities. It's your own ego that puffs you up enough to think you matter. And the fact of the matter is that you do not matter one iota. The laws do.
Exactly right!

Great post
Mike the Pike

Glenn, CA

#190599 Apr 30, 2013
Marriage is simply the union of a man and a woman, this is a fact! No allowance has been made for any other combination. Now if you want to have a social contract or legalized relationship rights of some sort via the courts and have the government accept it from the standpoint of taxes, benefits, etc. That would be quite a different thing and would likely be supported by a large number of the population.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190600 Apr 30, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right!
Great post
Thank you!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#190601 Apr 30, 2013
Howdy wrote:
<quoted text>
The term "marriage" has legal implications. Those implications and intricasies have nothing to do with the religious side of things. If you want to focus on the religious impact - fine. But the issues of same sex marriage deal with the legal aloospect. And as such, that's how I'm framing my discussion and understanding, you snivelling fool.
If your view of same sex marriage is what it is, then, that's where it remains then. In your own little noggin. Not in legal terms. Your opinion is your own, but be aware that no one else MUST embrace your opinion as fact. The only facts that are relevant are the legalities as they affect all of us. Well, at least those that are barred from being legally married.
Got that yet? Your opinion doesn't play into the legalities. It's your own ego that puffs you up enough to think you matter. And the fact of the matter is that you do not matter one iota. The laws do.
Kuntmary has a long history of being unable to distinguish between opinion and fact. Zhe thinks zher opinions are facts.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190603 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware there are a number of fake, imposter, sterile, duplicate half of marriage pretendies, but no such thing as a 'ss marriage'.
Smile.
There's no such thing as a sane chimera.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#190604 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not interested in a polygamous relationship, I simply wish to discuss marriage equality.
Polygamy is marriage too. And as such it belongs in any discussion of marriage equality. Don't you agree?
Big D is not interested in a same sex marriage. But he discusses it, and you allow him to, indeed you encourage him too. Why am I not afforded the same courtesy?
<looks at top of page>

"Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage."

Hmmm.... I wonder why you think this thread is about polygamy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190605 Apr 30, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Only 7 more State buddy..
BTW, that was a Congressional attempt at an Amendment, add 7 States and there is no need for Congress.
I suggest you read Article V of the US Constitution.
There is the question of how likely that will happen as well as the question about some of those states doing away with their bans on SSM thus increasing the required number of states left needing to pass one for an amendment to the US Constitution.

I'm inclined to believe there won't be any such amendment added to the Constitution in the current climate. It is arguable that right now there are 7 states with the potential climate for such an event, then again there are 2 states that may reverse their position.
FoulLine

Covina, CA

#190606 Apr 30, 2013
Lets play basketball instead.

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.

Fremont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hayward officer shoots suspect when Taser fails (Jun '12) 7 hr Give Me A Break 5
News Surenos gang member gets new trial date (Aug '08) Mon microadsl 284
Crystal Rows research reviews Mon microadsl 2
http://www.daleelmanzel.com Mon microadsl 1
Review: MED Mark Mon mms 1
STOP THE INSANITY! LEGALIZE Cockfighting in AG... Sun RiccardoFire 8
News Concord: Prosecutors decline to file charges in... (Oct '14) Sun Loquito yo 13
More from around the web

Fremont People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]