Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201809 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

#166077 Oct 31, 2012
For all my jest.. perhaps that actually is an answer.

The government could stop recognizing all marriages, only recognize civil unions, release the word ďMarriageĒ to individual churches or other organizations that will perform ďMarriagesĒ and then each organization can set up their own individual rules that have nothing to do with the governments recognition of a civil contract that must be filled out and filed legally.

Different paperwork, everyone happy

Certainly would not affect my marriage any. I personally could care less what word the government uses.
4more

Covina, CA

#166078 Oct 31, 2012
Why leave so soon?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166079 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are still explaining that you didnít understand... I canít help you kid, you didnít get it, your arenít going to.( shrug )
I know you don't understand. Everyone else knows you don't understand.

I'm tired of trying to explain it to you fruitloop, so I guess we're done.

You wish to deny equal rights to people you don't like anyway. You're a bigot no use discussing equal rights with you.

Happy hating jackass!
RiccardoFire

Los Angeles, CA

#166080 Oct 31, 2012
4more wrote:
Why leave so soon?
Don't leave. DiRucci and his dance partner Hud are going to engage in rear axle coitus. Sort of like watching a donkey show in TJ.
Tata

Westminster, CA

#166081 Oct 31, 2012
Lets get back to basics. No SSM in this country.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166082 Oct 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't understand. Everyone else knows you don't understand.
I'm tired of trying to explain it to you fruitloop, so I guess we're done.
You wish to deny equal rights to people you don't like anyway. You're a bigot no use discussing equal rights with you.
Happy hating jackass!
Wrong again, and you would do better to not pretend you speak for anyone but yourself, it makes you look foolish, you are the only person that didnít understand, and the only person that continuously complained that you didnít understand. You speak for yourself... no one else.

I donít hate anyone, I despise some of the things they do, and it is usually a lack of perspective. Sometimes I flip the perspective for them to show them the other side of what they are doing.

I donít expect you to comprehend... so donít bother explaining that you donít.
DorN

La Puente, CA

#166085 Oct 31, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully Queers won't exist in the foreseeable future.
Next
--------
----------If you Want to keep homosexuals from being born, let them marry homosexuals not heterosexuals. Homosexuals all have at least one heterosexual parent.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#166086 Oct 31, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
No he didn't.....and Baker vs Nelson DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PROP 8 CASE. They are NOT similarity situated!!!
Baker vs Nelson has to do with a marriage license not being issued, the Perry vs Hollinsworth case has to do with marriage being a right for Same-Sex Couples and Prop 8 removing that right......NOT THE SAME...therefore Judge Walker was not BOUND by the Baker vs Nelson case and preceded with the trial!!!
Proposition 8 is almost identical to Minnesota's law defining marriage as one man and one woman.

Judge Walker ignored the precedent of Baker v Nelson and excluded evidence showing the universal nature of male/female marriage.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166090 Oct 31, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Proposition 8 is almost identical to Minnesota's law defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Judge Walker ignored the precedent of Baker v Nelson and excluded evidence showing the universal nature of male/female marriage.
He couldnít, there is no such universal nature, marriage is specific to humans, and homosexuality appears in nature all the time across many species.

Any such argument would have been proven quickly to be wrong, the lawyers knew better than to go down that failure of a road.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166091 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, and you would do better to not pretend you speak for anyone but yourself, it makes you look foolish, you are the only person that didnít understand, and the only person that continuously complained that you didnít understand. You speak for yourself... no one else.
I donít hate anyone, I despise some of the things they do, and it is usually a lack of perspective. Sometimes I flip the perspective for them to show them the other side of what they are doing.
I donít expect you to comprehend... so donít bother explaining that you donít.
You mad Fruitloop?

Too Funny!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#166094 Oct 31, 2012
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He couldnít, there is no such universal nature, marriage is specific to humans, and homosexuality appears in nature all the time across many species.
Any such argument would have been proven quickly to be wrong, the lawyers knew better than to go down that failure of a road.
I don't get it. Please explain it. "universal nature"?
Huckster

Covina, CA

#166098 Oct 31, 2012
Those huckster hands are kind of ruff?
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166100 Oct 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You mad Fruitloop?
Too Funny!
Not at all kiddo... just not here to educate you, I honestly donít care if you understand what people are saying or not, in fact it is tad more entertaining that you donít.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#166101 Oct 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get it. Please explain it. "universal nature"?
You can get that explanation from the person that I was responding to.

If you want to put into kiddy language other peoples posts for you, I will require a large salary from you.
Javier

Villa Nueva, Argentina

#166102 Oct 31, 2012
Madre Soltera Gana Trabajando Desde Su Casa En Sus Horas Libres $7,438 Důlares al Mes

Natalia Ńlvarez de Argentina,, nunca lo hizo; hasta que la curiosidad se apoderů de ella, llenů una sencilla encuesta en lŪnea y antes de darse cuenta, descubriů el secreto para vencer la crisis y ser capaz de mantener a su familia mientras cuida sus tres hijos.

http://trabajos-en-argentina.webs.com/

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#166104 Oct 31, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose, you cannot prove a negative.
Can you prove there is no elephant in your bathtub?
Winston Smith wrote:
Did the fossil record exist before the first fossils were found?b
The existence of God or gods is based upon opinion. Likewise the lack of existence is based upon opiinon.
No, if god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
It's quite possible, in fact likely, that there are fossils that exist we haven't found.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#166105 Oct 31, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
..There IS evidence...Look around...You think all this just happened ?
<sarcasm>There can't be a natural explanation for it.</sarcasm>

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#166106 Oct 31, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
You just called him a racial slur.
"Boob" is a racial slur?
DoorMat

Covina, CA

#166107 Oct 31, 2012
Whats that door mat doing there anyway?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#166108 Oct 31, 2012
Finally of course we need to acknowledge that our sources are not there for our benefit, to tell us what was going on, like radio commentators at a social gathering, but that we are eavesdropping on a debate about what Greek homosexuality was and what it should be. This debate seems to have become particularly intense in the 4th century, and the vast majority of our information about it comes from three men, writing in the decades around 350 BC, and almost certainly acquaintances: Plato, Xenophon and Aeschines. It seems clear that what provoked so much debate at this time was the development of a flourishing market for handsome boys, slaves, male prostitutes and the cithara-boys, who sang to the lyre and danced at parties. It was this challenge that our authors were responding to, wondering what the difference was in the end between the love-smitten guests at a dignified symposium and the cithara-boy hired to entertain them, between a politician who had had many admirers and a common whore. Athenian homosexuality, with all its highly patterned practices, was suddenly threatened with a highly visible doppelganger, which replaced the discourse of "admirers", "beloveds" and "gracious favouring" with a world of clients, contracts, prices and tricks. Greek Love was confronted for the first time with a rather too vivid image of sheer homosexual lust.

The sex-market had one other consequence. It made it clearer that some men were rather more devoted to handsome boys than others, going well beyond the call of duty, prepared to spend large amounts of money on them and indeed to get into fights over male slaves, while remaining immune to the charms of courtesans - men like Misgolas "always surrounded by cithara-boys, devoted to this thing like one possessed", or Ariaeus "always accompanied by handsome Striplings". A new type of person was beginning to emerge - the homosexual himself.

∑ The Greeks and Greek Love by James Davidson is published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson on November 29

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.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Monterey Public Officials VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS May 26 Un agenda 21 and ... 4
public officials violating federal laws May 24 Un agenda 21 and ... 3
the music thread (Apr '12) May 23 Musikologist 19
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) May 23 ikestubbs 1,535
News Letters: Charter application superior (Jan '11) May 21 Yin Simons 13
News Taking extraordinary measures to wear an extrao... May 18 outtogether 2
News Police: Armed robbery at Santa Cruz sandwich sh... May 11 bump 1
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]