Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 200,936

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

#190615 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190616 Apr 30, 2013
Fokners have never had it so good.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#190617 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190618 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190619 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.
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

#190620 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190621 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190622 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190623 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190624 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190626 Apr 30, 2013
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

#190627 Apr 30, 2013
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.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190628 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
So how is it that you have a slut lesbian inside of yourself, but, you don't have your so-called "epi-marker mistake"?
Marram, you realize that Kimare's term, "epi-marker mistake" is not a real term, don't you?

He believes that he can fool people into thinking that homosexuality is a mistake.

He loves making up scientific-sounding words. But, he's pretty lousy at it; even for a washed-up pastor.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190629 Apr 30, 2013
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?
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are avoiding the point with a lie.

Surprise.

Snicker.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190630 Apr 30, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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?
Relax poly boi

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#190631 Apr 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Marram, you realize that Kimare's term, "epi-marker mistake" is not a real term, don't you?
He believes that he can fool people into thinking that homosexuality is a mistake.
He loves making up scientific-sounding words. But, he's pretty lousy at it; even for a washed-up pastor.
Of course I do. Can you follow my line of questioning? Let me spell it out for you, if itís a Lesbian (in part or whole) how can its incessant babble about how Gay Americans have some sort of defect not admit itís junk science points out itís own defect? Do you get it? I canít believe you had to ask.
Pukers

Covina, CA

#190632 Apr 30, 2013
Let the puking begin, this topic is dead.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190633 Apr 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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?
<quoted text>
You are avoiding the point with a lie.
Surprise.
Snicker.
You know, I just adore when you respond in this way. It only makes you seem more bizarre with each passing day.

At what point do I "lie".

You asked a question and I answered it.

Do you know of any pair of legal contracts that are exactly the same in every way, but are called by completely different names?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190634 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax poly boi
No Fairyhopper.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190635 Apr 30, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I do. Can you follow my line of questioning? Let me spell it out for you, if itís a Lesbian (in part or whole) how can its incessant babble about how Gay Americans have some sort of defect not admit itís junk science points out itís own defect? Do you get it? I canít believe you had to ask.
Why are you a hater?

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) 16 min Eric 69,368
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 2 hr Hello 5,067
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 8 hr pies 15,993
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Mon 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 ]
•••