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 of200,321
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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 wonít even get the current 31 that have bans in place ... and some of those bans wonít 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 doesnít 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.
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190617
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Mike the Pike wrote:
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.
Marriage between same sex couples in the united states is a fact.

Not an opinion... a fact
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190618
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage between same sex couples in the united states is a fact.
Not an opinion... a fact
No it's not. And that's a fact, not an opinion. Marriage between two same sex PEOPLE is a fact in several states.

Marriage between same sex couples would be polygamy and that's illegal in all states.

What a dope!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190619
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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.
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.
ANOTHER slimy shift???

Now marriage has 'legal implications'???

Moreover, I have never 'focused on the religious impact'. I have simply said ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior AND a silly sterile redumbant half of marriage.

Nor are those 'opinions', they are simple reality.

Just a heads up limp twit, the law can't equate the union of a diverse gendered couple with a duplicate half. Nor can the law equate mom and dad with a default sterile half plus a stranger.

Simply put, there is no such thing as a ss 'marriage'.

Smile.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190620
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
It's clear you have no argument with the defunct stance of ss couples with marriage.
However, I've never proclaimed myself as half of anything. A genetic chimera has the full DNA of two people, and no epi-marker mistakes like homosexuals. We are however both sexual mutations. You however are in denial about it.
Smile.
<quoted text>
You lied about my last 'proclamation', now you are showing your ignorance by your next claimed 'proclamation' by me.
Look up the difference between a genetic chimera and epi-genetics.
You are by default, admitting you are a sexual defect. Come out. Facing reality bravely is the first step to real life. Admit it.
Smile.
Are you now saying that you are not a Lesbian trapped in a mans body?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190621
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The slut lesbian is not on the marriage license. In fact, I have to cover her one eye when I'm with my wife.
So how is it that you have a slut lesbian inside of yourself, but, you don't have your so-called "epi-marker mistake"?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190622
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

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?
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.

1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.

2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.

Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.

This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190623
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not. And that's a fact, not an opinion. Marriage between two same sex PEOPLE is a fact in several states.
Marriage between same sex couples would be polygamy and that's illegal in all states.
What a dope!
Fransissy Fransissy is such a twitty
He twists a post and he thinks heís witty
He goes on and on and on about poly
When everyone knows itís just his folly
His attacks on others that are different than him
Prove to Gay Americans that he is just dim
Maybe heíll realize that SSM is a right
But until then we wonít give up the fight.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190624
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Fransissy Fransissy is such a twitty
He twists a post and he thinks heís witty
He goes on and on and on about poly
When everyone knows itís just his folly
His attacks on others that are different than him
Prove to Gay Americans that he is just dim
Maybe heíll realize that SSM is a right
But until then we wonít give up the fight.
I fully support your right to equal protection. I have been to several gay weddings of people I love. Gay weddings are the best!

Too bad you don't support marriage equality as I do.

Hope that clarifies my position, dummy.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190626
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

I find it difficult to see Marram's logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Marram? Why? And why are you a hypocrite? How would a loving marriage of three men hurt you?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190627
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the sincerity you approach with.
1. I have no problem with GLBT's facing the reality of who they are. I continue that reality acceptance, and find that 'different' people appreciate the consistency. I share my reality with a brashness when dealing with denial. Many GLBT's do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter is, I AM a monster mutation.
2. I have never limited marriage to procreation. That is really a dishonest assertion about me... I simply take marriage to it's fundamental essence. In fact, if I take marriage to it's earliest roots, it is the reunion of gender to it's prehistoric genderless simple life form. I also use the issue of anal sex for the same purpose; expose the silliness of trying to equate ss couples to marriage.
Here is the bottom line; The union of a heterosexual couple, and the fruit that is most often the result are described as marriage and family. Those words describe a situation like no other. If the words marriage and family are subverted by a different type of relationship (as you suggest), there is no longer a description that expresses that distinction.
This begs the question, why don't ss couples establish their own identity and legal rights? Why the demand that we pretend that marriage and family are the same as ss couples? Do you have an answer?
Can you name one two legal contracts that are EXACTLY the same other than in name?

If Same-Sex Couples get a license to join their relationship in every single way that Opposite-Sex Couples, why should it be called something different?

The government doesn't have an interest in creating two identical unions with differing names.

You're a traditionalist. And that's fine. But it's not enough to develop a whole separate definition.

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 of200,321
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••