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 8,323)

Showing posts 166,441 - 166,460 of199,080
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190596
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

7

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

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190597
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190598
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

Nelson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190599
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190600
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly right!
Great post
Thank you!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190601
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190603
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190604
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190605
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190606
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Lets play basketball instead.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190607
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190608
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190609
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190610
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190611
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190612
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190613
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190614
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try socks.
The slut lesbian is not on the marriage license. In fact, I have to cover her one eye when I'm with my wife.
Marriage existed long before any laws of society. The sole purpose of law is to protect the birthplace of society's children. Mating behavior has the strongest impact on marriage. Culture and religion would be next.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. A sterile duplicated half of marriage. It is an insult to intelligence to equate the two.
Smile.
As an aside: Are you really happy living like this KiMare, dividing yourself into man and lesbian? Yes it is only my opinion, but surely it's mentally healthier to accept oneself as an integrated whole; and to refer to oneself as an unique individual not as a monster mutation.
Yes, I agree the basis of marriage when it first existed was as a means of regulating mating. But as I've said (you constantly repeat yourself, so I'm taking that as a license to repeat myself) it is so much more than that, especially in the modern day. With so many children being born outside of wedlock, its original purpose of constraining reproduction is limited at best. Throughout the Centuries people have married for financial security and transaction. Apart from certain tax, legal, citizenship benefits I would say the majority of today's marriages are for love and not because of having a family. SSM, it may be sterile but it is not a duplicated half marriage. You of all people ought to appreciate that there is duality within all of us. Males and females have aspects within them of their gender opposites. Not only that but people (in hetero marriages) often choose partners quite similar to themselves physically and in personality so that's not really an opposite is it; and it doesn't make it a half duplicate marriage.
People in different parts of the world have different expectations and social norms of marriage, arranged marriage being just one example, is it so hard to comprehend or accept a different sort of marriage within our (Western) culture? that of SSM. I would equate the two with love, and partnership and hopefully with equality of legal rights and recognition; doesn't mean they are interchangeable.
Again, how does SSM directly impact hetero marriage? And, I'm thinking legally you are a man, but in actuality you are not, so you yourself have a pretendie marriage because it was not one man and one woman. You have male DNA does not make you male when you also have female DNA; it makes you Intersexed, or as you prefer the old fashioned term, hermaphrodite. There is currently no provision for us to marry as we are. We have to marry as male or female. If the wording of a marriage was changed to two persons then it would include SSM and ourselves. What are your thoughts on that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190615
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Stocking wrote:
<quoted text>
As an aside: Are you really happy living like this KiMare, dividing yourself into man and lesbian? Yes it is only my opinion, but surely it's mentally healthier to accept oneself as an integrated whole; and to refer to oneself as an unique individual not as a monster mutation.
Yes, I agree the basis of marriage when it first existed was as a means of regulating mating. But as I've said (you constantly repeat yourself, so I'm taking that as a license to repeat myself) it is so much more than that, especially in the modern day. With so many children being born outside of wedlock, its original purpose of constraining reproduction is limited at best. Throughout the Centuries people have married for financial security and transaction. Apart from certain tax, legal, citizenship benefits I would say the majority of today's marriages are for love and not because of having a family. SSM, it may be sterile but it is not a duplicated half marriage. You of all people ought to appreciate that there is duality within all of us. Males and females have aspects within them of their gender opposites. Not only that but people (in hetero marriages) often choose partners quite similar to themselves physically and in personality so that's not really an opposite is it; and it doesn't make it a half duplicate marriage.
People in different parts of the world have different expectations and social norms of marriage, arranged marriage being just one example, is it so hard to comprehend or accept a different sort of marriage within our (Western) culture? that of SSM. I would equate the two with love, and partnership and hopefully with equality of legal rights and recognition; doesn't mean they are interchangeable.
Again, how does SSM directly impact hetero marriage? And, I'm thinking legally you are a man, but in actuality you are not, so you yourself have a pretendie marriage because it was not one man and one woman. You have male DNA does not make you male when you also have female DNA; it makes you Intersexed, or as you prefer the old fashioned term, hermaphrodite. There is currently no provision for us to marry as we are. We have to marry as male or female. If the wording of a marriage was changed to two persons then it would include SSM and ourselves. What are your thoughts on that?
Too wordy.
Pasture

Covina, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190616
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Fokners have never had it so good.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 166,441 - 166,460 of199,080
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Modesto Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Modesto People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••