Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201862 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.

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.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190607 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
<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.
Hmmm, your post is not about <looks at top of page> "Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage."

Hmmmm.....I wonder why you never post anything about the topic.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190608 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>There's no such thing as a sane chimera.
<looks at top of page>

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

Hmmm.... I wonder why you never post anything about the topic.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190609 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
But ya ARE paranoid, Blanche.
<looks at top of page>

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

Hmmm.... I wonder why you never are on topic.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190610 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Cry baby.
waa...
waa....
waa....
Adapt or go extinct, wussy boy.
<looks at top of page>

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

Hmmm.... I wonder why you never are on topic.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190611 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> Pretty telling about his cognitive abilities, isn't it.
<looks at top of page>

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

Hmmm.... I wonder why you are never post about marriage equality at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190612 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
waa....
waa,,,,
waa.....
Nothing you can do to stop it.
<looks at top of page>

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

Hmmm.... I wonder why you never post about marriage equality.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190613 Apr 30, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
May? He is talking about 7 other than the ones with bans currently in place, he is counting on California legislature agreeing with such a measure LOL and Nevada... saying he only needs 7 is a joke, he won’t even get the current 31 that have bans in place ... and some of those bans won’t be in place for long, that 31 is a declining number.

Is there a place we can put down a wager on that not happening?

( chuckle )

It is a pipe dream for him, but just a joke, it doesn’t have the support to pass

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.

Lake Forest Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Anti-abortion group releases video snippet afte... 12 hr Dan 2
News Affordable senior apartments coming to Irvine (Aug '14) Aug 23 Suzy Briggs 3
News They have gangs in south Orange County? (Dec '07) Aug 22 da lil homie tine... 121
News 'Storage Wars' controversy, Jeff Jarred and his... (Jun '12) Aug 20 fubar 10
Gangs in lake forest: South side Raza vs Family... Aug 19 califasss 1
Loud Rumbling Noise in Aliso Viejo (Jun '09) Aug 14 Elena in Laguna 46
News Wife of televangelist Benny Hinn files for divorce (Feb '10) Aug 8 discocrisco 20
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lake Forest Mortgages