Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,187

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

#197070 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU FRANKIE you feltching finochio
Third class moron says what?
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197072 Jun 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! That'll get him.
STFU you finoch, go see my next response concerning you
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#197073 Jun 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Third class moron says what?
What's the problem? can't comprehend you dumb azzz

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#197074 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.
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.

Virus Watch

UK

#197075 Jun 21, 2013
blight on Society wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us.
Are you telling us something we don't already know, Caligula?
Anonymous

San Bernardino, CA

#197076 Jun 21, 2013
"GOOD FOR THOSE who find love, NO MATTER what their sexual orientation!!"
phaines

Big Bear Lake, CA

#197077 Jun 21, 2013
Virus Watch wrote:
Warning!
A Tiny URL can lead anywhere. Never click on one.
I never do,especially here ...:)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197078 Jun 21, 2013
Bruno wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the problem? can't comprehend you dumb azzz
I don't know what your problem is and I don't much care.

Probably it's just that you're stupid, so don't worry about it fruitcake. You can't fix that.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#197079 Jun 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
...Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us....
Likewise.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#197082 Jun 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
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.
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?
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not define their marriage in this manner.
The vast majority haven't thought that deep on the matter.
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),
Why people marry should not be confused with why marriage exists.
then same-sex couples are no more of a failure than those couples who do not procreate.
SSCs differ in form and function.
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.
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".

“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?

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) 2 hr La Carmencita 70,068
Live Oak stabbing is second in two days (Jun '08) Oct 17 savvylocal 245
International CIT conference comes to Monterey Oct 14 DO Powers 1
where can I find heroin in monterey? Oct 8 thazzleb17 2
Pacific Grove Girl Chelsie Hills Law suit. Rea... Oct 3 Siding with Toyota 1
Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Sep 23 Shelly 12
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles Sep '14 fancy 3
Monterey Dating
Find my Match

Monterey Jobs

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 ]