Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,935

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.

Full Story
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

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#190614 Apr 30, 2013
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?

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 min J RULES 69,354
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 46 min patickthered 5,065
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 5 hr AZHIGHAZIAM 15,992
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 20 hr GOP bull 2,265
The inconvenient 17-year pause in global warming (Sep '13) Sep 12 Earthling-1 123
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 11 gotti jr 9
Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Sep 10 refer13 1,513
•••
•••
•••

Monterey Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Monterey News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Monterey
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••