Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201891 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#215027 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey sister....it's your words; 'mutually sterile'.
So now I'm a blonde lesbian.
Right on.
Wait around long enough and you'll claim I'm a bi-sexual llama wearing a pair of crotchless lace trimmed panties.
Now you've gone and shocked me.

LOL

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#215028 Sep 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
On what basis would society in the end end because anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning? Another poster proved that wrong already. At the most society would waddle, not come to the end.
You are like a worm on hot cement. You twist and turn and twirl, trying to slim out of the corners your denial puts you. I'm not here to support your lies. I'm here to protect marriage and children.
You are getting your ass kicked from every side VV.
Kimare,

Let me try to put this in a manner that you understand. Let's look at history.

Throughout the history of mankind, anal sex has been practiced among straight and gay individuals. It has been going on since the onset of this country. In fact it was probably even more prevalent in history since it was a common means of birth control. There were no condoms. There were no birth control pills. People had to figure out a way early on to have sexual intercourse without always getting knocked up. Now how do you think they did it?

If anal sex were so unhealthy and demeaning, we wouldn't have come this far. Mankind would have ended long ago.

The facts do not support your idea.

Now, let's talk about the contemporary world we live in. In our society anal sex between consenting adults is legal. And none of your bluster and scare tactics will end that.

Finally, please take your attention off my ass. I've seen your photo. You are short. I don't care for short men. And I particularly don't care for short men who are morons. I have standards--none of which you meet.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#215029 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Games?
Like making up terms and asking the other party to 'prove' their non-existent claims are not real???
Ohhh brother.
LOL!!!!
One of Kim's favorite games is to create facts when reality stands in his way. It's where his contrived one-liners come from. They're like canned laughter on an old sitcom.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#215032 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>they turned over the votes that were unconstitutional, as is their job.
no, that definition was already there, they just stopped all those californians from breaking their own constitution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Propo... (2000)

Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code. This stated that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary".[6] While related sections of the law made references to sex, a State Assembly committee that was debating adding sex-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married".[7] That year, the legislature amended the legal definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity. In 1992 the legal definition of marriage was moved from the Civil Code to Section 300 of the Family Code.
When Proposition 22 came before voters, marriage was defined in the Family Code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary" [italics added].[8]
Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, Section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere. This stated that a "marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state".[9] Advocates of Proposition 22 described Section 308 as a "loophole", apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state.[10]
To address this, Proposition 22 did not reword the existing provisions of the Family Code, but added to them the declaration that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".[11] The official citation of Proposition 22, the "California Defense of Marriage Act", is almost the same as that of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. This federal law had a similar purpose, and was intended to prevent any state from being obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#215033 Sep 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro...
If millions of Californians voted to ban all gun sales in the state, would you agree that the Supreme Court should let their decision stand?
Of course not. There is a Constitutional Amendment that allows for gun ownership.
There is also a Constitutional Amendment that doesn't allow for parts of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Just because millions of people express an opinion at the polls does not mean that they can overturn the Constitution.
The only way to change the Constitution is by way of amendment. There is no amendment barring same-sex marriage.
The problem with that analogy is you chose a specific constitutional right. Marriage isn't me tinned in the constitutional at all. Californians went to the polls to maintain a definition of a legally recognized relationship which had existed since the birth of the State, even earlier than that. The voters did amend the state constitution, per established procedure. If the vote had gone the other way, would any SSM advocate object to the process?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#215034 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural families?
Families consist of gay and straight couples, including those with kids moron.
Unfortunately for you your efforts at inventing a new terminology based on your messed up system of thought doesn't exist.
Disagree???
Find just one reference to a "default family" you f-ing IDIOT.
Just one.
-Tick tock...the clock is running.
".....inventing new terminology"? Like "homosexual", "heterosexual" , "gay" to refer to "homosexual"? Not exactly terms that are centuries old.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#215035 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>oh wow1 totally biased report for a totally biased foundation...
so not even one social scientist to cite from? not even one?
Gee why not quote HRC, not any bias there......oh Madone! So it only "bias" when it eminates from sources you dislike, but not "bias" when you like the source? Got it, IMAPP bad, HRC good. Thanks Woody for the intellectual honesty.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215037 Sep 7, 2013
Jbird666 wrote:
<quoted text>What wrong sugarnipples, Still confused about what sex you are?
No. You?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215038 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Riiiight.
I call bullshit.
Next...
I call you bullsh!t.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215039 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Err...
...same sexed couples are made up of individuals whom represent the whole and are fertile genius.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/fertility/
"same sexed". What a dope.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215040 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
DOH!
You missed on that dart throw idiot - I'm not gay but think what you want.
P.S.....gay couples can often adopt those children cast out by their own parents because their biological mommy and daddy units wanted to eradicate themselves of their offspring.
I swear....you could wear 2 sets of Depends, have a cork shoved no less than 3" up your ass and grease your butt, legs and feet with a mix of Crisco and Pam cooking spray and you'd still manage to shit on yourself with these DUMBASS comments you make.
ROFL!!!!!!!!
Wow! Great post. So intellectual. ROFL!!!!!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215041 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>

-Tick tock...the clock is running.
Tick tock... you are a dope.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215042 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
A.) Never claimed kids were "better off" without their biological parents troll. Add to that "natural parents" is a term utilized by you and that other shitforbrain poster KiKrazy and not an accurate description of biological parents.
B.) I did advise kids whom are in abusive situations with the source being their biological parents would be better off elsewhere. Of course you might think momma giving her 3 month old baby daughter a disinfecting cleaning with 2 buckets of boiling water might be a good thing given you seem to be just that STUPID.
---If you're going to lie....at least TRY and be sly about it jizzhead...OK?
LOL!!!
A) You asked him for proof, so I asked you for proof.
B) You're a moron.
C) You're a lying jackass.
LOL!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215043 Sep 7, 2013
Mikey wrote:
<quoted text>
Maggot Maggie is a hating c(_)nt, you just revealed your true colors bub...rot with Kimare.
Very tolerant and diverse.

Trying to argue that children are not one of the main reasons marriage was invented is stupid and counterproductive.

There is no need to do that. You have a right to equal protection regardless of if you have children or not.

You are stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215045 Sep 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay with the game you started.
Can't?
You lose.
Idiot.
Problem with Don Sclio is he's so stupid he doesn't know he's stupid. So when he loses he doesn't know it, he thinks he's won.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215046 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Well....if you're to say couples of gays are 'mutually sterile' you're stating that both members in a gay couple cannot have kids.
Riiight???
So what happens? When Tony hooks up with Bob do his testicles fall off?? Do Bob's sperm shrivel up and die about the same time Tony's nuts turn into SunMaid raisins?
How about when Susan and Ann get married. Does Ann's ovaries shoot out of her body like cannon balls? Do Susan's fallopian tubes tie themselves into an internal pretzel???
Listen IDIOT. Gays are just as fertile as the rest of the population. If Tony wants a biological kiddy to carry on the family name he better find a surrogate mother given Bob ain't gonna deliver but Tony is just as fertile. Ann can get pregnant through artificial insemination or other means.
BLOWS YOUR MIND doesn't it.
So your statement of gays are infertile because they ARE gays is about as bright as claiming the Sun God burned your TV dinner after you left your Swanson turkey and stuffing Hungry Man feast on high in the microwave for 3 hours and 2 minutes.
PULL YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR ASS sunshine. PLEASE.
Calm down fruitloop.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215047 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey sister....it's your words; 'mutually sterile'.
So now I'm a blonde lesbian.
Right on.
Wait around long enough and you'll claim I'm a bi-sexual llama wearing a pair of crotchless lace trimmed panties.
You forgot to LOL!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215048 Sep 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you've gone and shocked me.
LOL
Me too. A llama in crotchless lace trimmed panties. What kind of sick mind...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215049 Sep 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
One of Kim's favorite games is to create facts when reality stands in his way. It's where his contrived one-liners come from. They're like canned laughter on an old sitcom.
And Don Sclio's posts are like canned farts.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#215050 Sep 7, 2013
Don Sclio wrote:
<quoted text>
Your turn.
Go on and shock me by telling me you've been able to hold down job longer than a calendar month.
BAH HAH HAH!!!!
You don't even have a job. And as far as owning your own business, picking up cans along the highway is not much of a business.

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.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Report: Harrison Ford has jet run-in at Califor... Feb 18 tuba toofpaste 15
News Teen Nihilism Erupts in L.a. Premiere of Fierce... Feb 16 Bob 3
News What does Californiaa s 1994 immigration battle... Feb 11 Wildchild 1
News Lisa Vanderpump Is Unsure if She'll Return to '... (Jun '15) Dec '16 Pawlu 3
Black Widow Dec '16 Richie Rich 1
News Boston takes parking lessons from L.A., Seattle Dec '16 Strike three 2
News Reports say Kanye West has been hospitalized in... Nov '16 checkmate 10

Brentwood Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brentwood Mortgages