Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments (Page 7,813)

Showing posts 156,241 - 156,260 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179153
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the polygamist wearing a sign or a t-shirt with the word "polygamist" on it? How does the JP know? Suppose the polygamist is asking to marry another person?
That's the whole point. Polygamist or not, a person can only marry one person. Equal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So that restriction should be maintained, but not the opposite sex restriction?
Pay attention this time, dummy. I didn't say the number restriction should or shouldn't be maintained. I'm just pointing out it's not an equal rights issue. Should the number restriction be maintained? Well, why not start a forum on polygamy and discuss that issue?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet you cannot come up with a valid reason why same sex marriage should be legalized, but not plural marriage. Too legally complex perhaps? Complexity can be overcome.
Gay marriage is an equal rights issue.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should have that same right.

Plural marriage? Why not start a forum about the topic?
Could it be you really don't give a damn about it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why is the opposite sex requirement, discriminatory, but not the one spouse at a time?
Jesus H, take notes this time...
The opposite sex requirement gives men and women unequal rights WRT the gender of the person they can marry. The one spouse at a time requirement gives everybody the same rights WRT the number of people they can marry. That doesn't mean it's a good requirement, just not an equal rights issue.

Hey, I have an idea, why don't you start a forum and talk about the issues that would be involved in plural marriages?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do SSM advocates see the big picture? Is it possible to see beyond the rainbow colored glasses? Gay folks say change marriage for them, polygamists say change marriage for them. At what point does it no longer matter who, legally, marries who? Why bother regulate marriage at all?
Slippery slope and red herring. Slippery herring? Sounds kinda suggestive. Red slope? Not much better.

Each issue can stand or fall on its own merits.
Ever consider starting a forum to talk about the issues involved in plural marriages?
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179154
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the whole point. Polygamist or not, a person can only marry one person. Equal.
<quoted text>
Pay attention this time, dummy. I didn't say the number restriction should or shouldn't be maintained. I'm just pointing out it's not an equal rights issue. Should the number restriction be maintained? Well, why not start a forum on polygamy and discuss that issue?
<quoted text>
Gay marriage is an equal rights issue.
A man can marry a woman, so a woman should have that same right.
A woman can marry a man, so a man should have that same right.
Plural marriage? Why not start a forum about the topic?
Could it be you really don't give a damn about it?
<quoted text>
Jesus H, take notes this time...
The opposite sex requirement gives men and women unequal rights WRT the gender of the person they can marry. The one spouse at a time requirement gives everybody the same rights WRT the number of people they can marry. That doesn't mean it's a good requirement, just not an equal rights issue.
Hey, I have an idea, why don't you start a forum and talk about the issues that would be involved in plural marriages?
<quoted text>
Slippery slope and red herring. Slippery herring? Sounds kinda suggestive. Red slope? Not much better.
Each issue can stand or fall on its own merits.
Ever consider starting a forum to talk about the issues involved in plural marriages?
Denying equal rights for polyamorists is "not an equal rights issue". Priceless!

Who else's rights do you consider "not an equal rights issue"?

See if that flies in court, Miss Thing.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179155
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus H, take notes this time...
?
Your gardener can multitask, how great is thou?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179156
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179157
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;

A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179158
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Next.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized as relationships, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179159
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree. But the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
KiMare wrote:
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179160
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE!!!!!!! Sex between men and women makes babies. Human societies throughout history have recognized this, that is why marriage is privileged over other human relationships, and it has been, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized as relationships, a male female union of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Its simply biology.
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179161
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.
I have no argument against a gay man marrying a gay woman. See we both support gay marriage.
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179162
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a simple non issue. You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. Now, try to come up with an argument against gay marriage.
No, you don't understand. Gay marriage is a simple non issue. I mean it's simply not an issue, it just isn't.

Now see how silly that sounds? But it's exactly what you say about other's rights. Dismiss them. They're "non issues"!

Tell it to the judge toots. Probably lock up your dumbass for contempt.
Day Care

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179163
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.

Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!

Screaming little children, them all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179164
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Day Care wrote:
Just look at all those LOUD, fat mouthed GOP, Republicans screaming and shouting.
Thats why these pieces of dung didn't gt elected and lost seats!
Screaming little children, them all.
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze
Frankie RIzzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179165
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze
In his town they are. It's those out of towners that cause all the trouble.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179166
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree. But the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.
Who, or what defines "marriage"? It seems you wish to define it as a union of "two people" regardless of gender composition, and base your concept of "equal rights", on that definition.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179167
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact you think you've made an apt analogy.
For one reason, walnut trees DO bear fruit, because nuts are fruits.
But even if they weren't, the ability to bear fruit is part of the definition of a fruit tree. But the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of a marriage.
Are you so stupid because your brain is made from tissue with two different types of DNA, and it just doesn't work properly?
<quoted text>
Again, stupid, the ability to bear apples is part of the definition of an apple tree, in fact, that's pretty much it, but the ability to have kids isn't part of the definition of marriage.
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.

Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.

According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.

Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.

According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.

It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.

Smile.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179168
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and the Dems are all slim mouthed adults? Pull-eeze
Can we agree that most, if not all, politicians are bottom feeders?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179169
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that a walnut tree normally bears walnuts. In this analogy though, like gay couples, it NEVER bears fruit. Heterosexual couples (Apple trees) most often do.
Gay couples want the fruit of a heterosexual couples (apples) so they can pretend they are just like apple trees; married and families. This is in the silly belief that other people won't notice they are barren walnut trees with apples stuck on them.
According to SCOTUS, the reason for government protection and provision of marriage is exactly because they are the natural and best source of human fruit.
Gay couples are simply one of numerous forms of friendships. If they can be equated to marriage, so can any friendship.
According to Evolution, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are a desolate defect of the fundamental purpose of evolution.
It is clear that on any level considered, gay couples and marriage are vastly distinct.
Smile.
Illinois legislators disagree with you. Awkward.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179170
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we agree that most, if not all, politicians are bottom feeders?
That they are, we get what we ask for.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179171
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Illinois legislators disagree with you. Awkward.
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?

Really awkward...

Smirk smile.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179172
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the ones that bankrupted a whole state?
Really awkward...
Smirk smile.
No, the current ones. Awkward.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 156,241 - 156,260 of199,073
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

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.

•••
•••

Hercules News Video

•••
•••

Hercules Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Hercules People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••