Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#197087 Jun 21, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is an official bonding.
.....of husband and wife. Very good. U get a gold star.
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197088 Jun 21, 2013
Frankie, do you swallow? a simple yes or no will do Oh is it Frankie because you are a little boy bitch or are you a female?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#197089 Jun 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go with your 'confusion' excuse again...
First you could make no sense of the essence I'd marriage, then it was an 'opinion', then a 'term paper', and now it's a 'theory'. Just like evolution, right?
As to essence, that is exactly how I used it to prove SS couples do not equate to marriage. You are the one who portrayed it as exclusionary to other elements I'd marriage.
But here is still the bottom line : The basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly not equal to marriage.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I must ask, Are you drunk? What does "I'd marriage" mean? You use it twice. Makes no sense grammatically or otherwise.
The bottom line is that if you believe that the basic essence of (the most important part of) marriage is a cross cultural constraint (on the father) on evolutionary mating behavior, then your wife has my condolences.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not define their marriage in this manner.
And since mating behavior isn't always the primary drive for people to marry (based on the fact that many people do not or cannot have children), then same-sex couples are no more of a failure than those couples who do not procreate.
In large, we're not marrying to have children. We're simply legalizing the long-term relationship that we choose to be in--as most couples do.
Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us. If you don't like gay marriage, too bad. It's happening throughout the country and around the world. And eventually, it'll come to your neck of the woods as well.
Now you are confused about an i-phone spell checker flub (replace 'I'd' with 'of'), but not enough to not respond. Interesting. This while you ignore the slimy gay twirl slide you continue.

I always get a kick out of a ss couple who will NEVER procreate telling married people about the validity of kids. But laying that aside, 96% of married couples do have children. Those who are unable would if they could. That leaves a fraction who choose not to have children. In very large, we ARE marrying to have children.

I'm not surprised when you reject the Bible to hold your denial, but when you really expose your ignorant bias when you reject science. I understand that for a gay, mating behavior is confusing, but again, you have no qualification to speak for a heterosexual couple. Especially in contradiction to science.

The bottom line, this isn't my opinion, it's simple science;

At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197090 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
Frankie, do you swallow? a simple yes or no will do Oh is it Frankie because you are a little boy bitch or are you a female?
Another gay post by Bruno. I liked you better when you were straight.
Stingers

Monrovia, CA

#197092 Jun 21, 2013
Public and private partners were putting up bee-proof netting to prevent more bees from dying.

The pesticide was reportedly applied to the trees on June 15, 2013 to control aphids.
Bowling pin

Monrovia, CA

#197108 Jun 21, 2013
Yep another worthless posting.
Slags

Monrovia, CA

#197114 Jun 21, 2013
It's to bad the entire city council didn't listen to those who pointed out the warning signs of financial failures of Josh Betta and the entire city council and city hall staff.

It makes me sick to see the City of Glendora, California promise money to the tune of $1 million dollars and not help these families ,shame on you;

Chris Jeffers

D. Wayne Leech

Jeff Kugel

Dave Davies

Joseph Santoro

Judy Nelson

Gene Murabito

Karen Davis

Douglas Tessitor

New Finance director (2013)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#197115 Jun 21, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
1) They are allowed to try, as they possess all of tthe requisite equipment.
2) You must be insane to think that there is no state interest in supporting 2 biological parents.
3) We aren't talking about "protection", we are talking about extending rights to invalid groups.
4) The number of rights is identical. The number of claimants is larger. Can't you count?
5) You're insane. I used the word correctly. Because the number of claimants is greater, not the amount of rights sought after. You are attempting to confuse the issue. I ain't having it. Add the correct fields.
6) You sadly claim that I have said something that I have not.
7) WTF I am talking about is how your side says that the government has no right to dictate whom we can marry, then you claim that the laws limiting the amount of spouses, or the marriage of siblings, is justified. One minute you decry governmental involvement in marriage, the next, you celebrate it. You lack consistency. You are confused.
8) Earth to morn yourself, you should learn to be consistent. Idiot-boi.
Spot on, old chap. Bravo!
kookaa

Long Beach, CA

#197116 Jun 21, 2013
People should be able to marry whoever they want.
Stubs

Monrovia, CA

#197117 Jun 21, 2013
Did you stub your big toe?
kookaa

Long Beach, CA

#197118 Jun 21, 2013
Stubs wrote:
Did you stub your big toe?
No, did you? If so, I hope it gets better soon.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#197119 Jun 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Big Red
Or to put it another way, marriage developed as a means of dealing with the product of the male female sexual union, off spring. Remove that element, and would marriage exist, as a distinct, recognized by society, relationship?
<quoted text>
The vast majority haven't thought that deep on the matter.
<quoted text>
Why people marry should not be confused with why marriage exists.
<quoted text>
SSCs differ in form and function.
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but the risk of pregnancy is not an issue for ANY SSC. Even if an OSC doesn't "plan" on having children. They sometimes do anyway. "Two go to bed, but three get up".
I don't know if you understand how Kimare is defining marriage.

He is saying that marriage exists because men must be legally (or traditionally) tied to a woman so that he will take care of the family.

He is saying that without marriage, men would go around, spreading their seed, impregnating one woman after another, but not hanging around to care for the offspring.

He's saying that women aren't as capable of providing the resources needed to raise the children. That's why men must be tied down in a relationship.

Now, look at your own marriage (I'm assuming you're married). Is that how your own marriage is defined? Is that why you entered into marriage?

Most people agree that "love" became the significant basis for marriage in the 17th and 18th century--during the period of enlightenment.

And I would argue that the basis for the vast majority of marriages today is love. Some people still marry for wealth or status. Some marry because of an unplanned pregnancy. Some marry due to physical attraction.

I don't agree with Kimare's primitive notion--his theory.

I just want you to think about what Kimare is saying about marriage--that's all.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
get outta my neighborhood

UK

#197120 Jun 21, 2013
kookaa wrote:
People should be able to marry whoever they want.
NAMBLA thanks you.

Get outta my neighborhood!

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#197122 Jun 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Now you are confused about an i-phone spell checker flub (replace 'I'd' with 'of'), but not enough to not respond. Interesting. This while you ignore the slimy gay twirl slide you continue.
I always get a kick out of a ss couple who will NEVER procreate telling married people about the validity of kids. But laying that aside, 96% of married couples do have children. Those who are unable would if they could. That leaves a fraction who choose not to have children. In very large, we ARE marrying to have children.
I'm not surprised when you reject the Bible to hold your denial, but when you really expose your ignorant bias when you reject science. I understand that for a gay, mating behavior is confusing, but again, you have no qualification to speak for a heterosexual couple. Especially in contradiction to science.
The bottom line, this isn't my opinion, it's simple science;
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
You know what I get a kick out of? I get a kick out of you thinking that you're some mystical, magical, god just because you happened to fall on a woman a few times and ended up spitting out some kids.

It's hardly special. People have been having kids since the beginning of mankind.

And I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but the number I found was that there are about 58,410,000 married couples living in the U.S. Of that number, 28,896,000 do not have children. That means about 50.6% do not have children.

There has been an 80% increase between 1976 and 1980 in the number of women aged 40-44 who have never given birth.

In case you haven't noticed, the baby-boom has passed. The economy is in the tank. People aren't having kids at the rate they once did. More women are deciding to not marry--to pursue careers. And those who do marry are deciding, largely for economic reasons, to remain childless.

Be gone, you fool... Nobody cares about your contrived definitions or your horrendous mathematical skills.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#197123 Jun 21, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
The world has lost its collective mind.
Well, now you're just sounding geriatric.

Isn't it always the older generation who looks at the younger generation and throws up their hands in exasperation?

And yet, the world keeps spinning, society continues to thrive, people continue to marry, babies continue to be born, and life goes on.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Stubs

Monrovia, CA

#197124 Jun 21, 2013
Now pinky has stepped in and found out what a stubbed toe feels like.

Did you stub your big toe, again?

Don't kick the door or wall again and he pain should go away in a couple of weeks or so!

Please refrain from posting profanity or offensive material.

Be polite.

Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator.
get outta my neighborhood

UK

#197125 Jun 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, now you're just sounding geriatric.
Isn't it always the older generation who looks at the younger generation and throws up their hands in exasperation?
And yet, the world keeps spinning, society continues to thrive, people continue to marry, babies continue to be born, and life goes on.
Another uppity lecture from Generation X-crement.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
kookaa

Long Beach, CA

#197126 Jun 21, 2013
get outta my neighborhood wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA thanks you.
Get outta my neighborhood!
Fail.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#197130 Jun 22, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if you understand how Kimare is defining marriage.
He is saying that marriage exists because men must be legally (or traditionally) tied to a woman so that he will take care of the family.
He is saying that without marriage, men would go around, spreading their seed, impregnating one woman after another, but not hanging around to care for the offspring.
He's saying that women aren't as capable of providing the resources needed to raise the children. That's why men must be tied down in a relationship.
Now, look at your own marriage (I'm assuming you're married). Is that how your own marriage is defined? Is that why you entered into marriage?
Most people agree that "love" became the significant basis for marriage in the 17th and 18th century--during the period of enlightenment.
And I would argue that the basis for the vast majority of marriages today is love. Some people still marry for wealth or status. Some marry because of an unplanned pregnancy. Some marry due to physical attraction.
I don't agree with Kimare's primitive notion--his theory.
I just want you to think about what Kimare is saying about marriage--that's all.
Wow, where is the confusion now???

Let me show you where it really is.

1. I defined marriage in no such way. Social science does. Your argument is with science honey, not me.

2. I did not assert that men go around spreading seed unless tied to marriage. Evolution dictates that across species. Are you denying evolution too?

In fact, just yesterday CNN posted this article;

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/
laslocky-monogamy-marriage/ind ex.html?iref=allsearch

3. I didn't assert that woman are incapable of raising children without support, the government did. Hence, most single mothers get more support from the government than a man can provide. Notice, they are not 'doing it on their own'.

4. How I live out marriage on the surface does not negate the roots of why I married. That's like arguing food is not necessary for life, because I eat food more often because I like it, rather than because I am hungry.

5. History shows that love has ALWAYS been a driving force of marriage. It has not always been an option for survival however.

I want you to think about the degree of your denial of reality. And the distortion you exist in.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#197131 Jun 22, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Now you are confused about an i-phone spell checker flub (replace 'I'd' with 'of'), but not enough to not respond. Interesting. This while you ignore the slimy gay twirl slide you continue.
I always get a kick out of a ss couple who will NEVER procreate telling married people about the validity of kids. But laying that aside, 96% of married couples do have children. Those who are unable would if they could. That leaves a fraction who choose not to have children. In very large, we ARE marrying to have children.
I'm not surprised when you reject the Bible to hold your denial, but when you really expose your ignorant bias when you reject science. I understand that for a gay, mating behavior is confusing, but again, you have no qualification to speak for a heterosexual couple. Especially in contradiction to science.
The bottom line, this isn't my opinion, it's simple science;
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what I get a kick out of? I get a kick out of you thinking that you're some mystical, magical, god just because you happened to fall on a woman a few times and ended up spitting out some kids.
It's hardly special. People have been having kids since the beginning of mankind.
And I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but the number I found was that there are about 58,410,000 married couples living in the U.S. Of that number, 28,896,000 do not have children. That means about 50.6% do not have children.
There has been an 80% increase between 1976 and 1980 in the number of women aged 40-44 who have never given birth.
In case you haven't noticed, the baby-boom has passed. The economy is in the tank. People aren't having kids at the rate they once did. More women are deciding to not marry--to pursue careers. And those who do marry are deciding, largely for economic reasons, to remain childless.
Be gone, you fool... Nobody cares about your contrived definitions or your horrendous mathematical skills.
Wow, pushed some buttons there VV. Kicked your gay twirl into a class 5 tornado...

Lets get this straight.

-Noting the silliness of a mutually sterile couple dictating the place of children in marriage makes me the victim of a 'god complex'??? Did you really try that idiotic argument???

-As to the percentage of children, you need to expand your understanding past gay twirl censorship. I wasn't referring to the changing percentage in the US. In world history, the average is estimated at 96%.

Moreover, the point remains, the vast majority of marriage does or would include children if possible.

Be gone, you fool... Nobody cares about your contrived, dumbed down restrictions on marriage or your horrendous thinking skills.

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
News Looking Back at Monterey County: Fire on Canner... 21 hr Joe 1
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) May 1 Apathy 99
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 19 rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Apr 18 BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr '15 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr '15 svorpion 1,531
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]