Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#198809 Jun 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No... It's not an idiotic response. It's a perfectly reasonable observation.
If you believe that current marriage laws should be dictated by history, then maybe you think that other institutions and behaviors should also be supported by their almost constant presence in history.
You just don't agree with them because you realize how absurd it would be for you to try to support slavery, war, genocide, gender inequality, racial and ethnic inequality, etc.
But marriage inequality, you're willing to support that based on the history of marriage--even though you KNOW that marriage has never been the same in all cultures throughout history. Arranged marriage, plural marriage, same-gender marriage, interracial marriage, "ghost marriage", etc. are just a few of the many faces of marriage over the history of mankind.
It doesn't matter. Our Supreme Court Justices, having had all the facts argued before them by the best attorneys and legal teams in the country, came to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to deny federal rights and protections to a married couple who happen to be comprised of same-gender individuals. They found it unconstitutional to deny benefits and protections to married, same-gender couples who have children.
And there you have it... The law is clearly on our side here. It's probably getting close to closing time around here on this particular thread.
The decision has been made. Your team lost. We were triumphant. The definition of marriage (of which there are many) now includes same-gender couples.
I'm curious.

Since the SCOTUS ruling equating ss couples with marriage, does that mean duplicate gendered couples will change to diverse gendered couples, or the other way around?

Will ss couples start mutually bearing children? I can't wait to see the change!

Oh, and when will a gay anus turn into a vagina?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#198810 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
Been over that gay twirl BS many times.

I'm curious.

Since the SCOTUS ruling equating ss couples with marriage, does that mean duplicate gendered couples will change to diverse gendered couples, or the other way around?

Will ss couples start mutually bearing children? I can't wait to see the change!

Oh, and when will a gay anus turn into a vagina?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#198811 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Not as long as you probably.
Frankie, congratulations. Way to hold up your standard of never being on topic or making a valid point.

The reality remains that existing same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court has handed those in support of equality a powerful tool in moving forward with legal challenges, and you still don't have the ability to articulate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law that would render such a restriction constitutional and begin to indicate that you are not an imbecile.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198812 Jun 29, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental difference is love and respect vs hate and contempt
That's your worst problem. Assuming your opinion is "love and respect" and disagreeing with your opinion is "hate and contempt".

And you really believe that.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198813 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, congratulations. Way to hold up your standard of never being on topic or making a valid point.
The reality remains that existing same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, the US Supreme Court has handed those in support of equality a powerful tool in moving forward with legal challenges, and you still don't have the ability to articulate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law that would render such a restriction constitutional and begin to indicate that you are not an imbecile.
I know fruitcake. Duh. Thinking I don't know that is just another example of your arrogance and stupidity.

You have still to convince me why marriage equality shouldn't extend to people you hate. Like polygamists and incestuous couples.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#198814 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: You noted, as I do, that ss couples are a duplicated gendered half of marriage. Interracial marriage has been prevalent across human history with brief points of conflict. Ss couples being called married has never been accepted across the history of a single culture. Moreover, race differences don't affect the essence of mating behavior. SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. I admitted no such thing. I simply quoted the SCOTUS assertion, and mocked it.
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
<quoted text>
An idiotic, obvious and poor attempt to distort what I said, while ignoring all the points.
Clearly no rational response to the argument.
Get real.
There was no argument made by you. You simply re-posted the same opinion you have posted over and over and over again and called it "facts". Nothing you post will change reality. You may keep squawking and spewing out your "facts" until your hands freeze up with carpel tunnel syndrome, but the fact remains you have no legal right to interfere in anyone else's relationship. And you hate that and you are mad about it. Focus on your own life for a while. Smile.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#198815 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Prop 8 prohibited polygamy too. Now it doesn't anymore because it was struck down. But there are other laws against it. One less though.
Why are you struggling so hard to spin that prop 8 didn't prohibit polygamy too?
Was polygamy legal BEFORE Prop 8? NO, it wasn't. Prop 8 stopped same sex couples from marrying. I'm sorry that you find that so difficult to understand. It must be painful to go through life so stupid.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#198816 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't change the reality that throughout history there have been societies that allowed same sex marriage.
Some allowed cannibalism and human sacrifice as well, what's your point?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#198817 Jun 29, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, like all your comments, they speak for themselves, you clearly are lost.
You have yet again pointed out that you are a troll and have nothing to add here. Job well done!
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#198818 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Been over that gay twirl BS many times.
I'm curious.
Since the SCOTUS ruling equating ss couples with marriage, does that mean duplicate gendered couples will change to diverse gendered couples, or the other way around?
Will ss couples start mutually bearing children? I can't wait to see the change!
Oh, and when will a gay anus turn into a vagina?
Yeah, right.... what a silly argument. NOBODY expects that, you flaming moron.
spamexed

Covina, CA

#198819 Jun 29, 2013
Pay no never mind to the liquored up fool who posted before these ones.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#198820 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
He said, idiotically.
...he said, like the troll he is. Keep squawking, little trollie!
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#198821 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What works???
Mating behavior sure doesn't.
Anal sex is still inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
You still have only the duplicate HALF of marriage.
The kids STILL will choose mom and dad.
Stamp your feet and repeat all you want, your relationship isn't marriage.
Stamp your feet and deny reality all you want. It doesn't change the facts. If you don't like it, you are free to move to another country.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#198822 Jun 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Some allowed cannibalism and human sacrifice as well, what's your point?
That what is considered acceptable to society changes over time?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#198823 Jun 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't bring up 'acceptance' or 'opinion'.
I simply point out obvious fundamental differences between ss couples and marriage.
There is nothing hateful about stating facts. If they were not the facts, you would point that out instead of making the 'hate' charge.
So obvious.
So obviously stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198824 Jun 29, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy legal BEFORE Prop 8? NO, it wasn't. Prop 8 stopped same sex couples from marrying. I'm sorry that you find that so difficult to understand. It must be painful to go through life so stupid.
If the other California law against polygamy was repealed, but prop 8 was not repealed, would polygamy be legal in CA Miss Thing?

No? Why not? Because prop 8 prohibits it! Very good Miss Thing!

Please try to remember this simple concept even if you are too stupid to understand it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198825 Jun 29, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>Stamp your feet and deny reality all you want. It doesn't change the facts. If you don't like it, you are free to move to another country.
Likewise.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#198826 Jun 29, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
...he said, like the troll he is. Keep squawking, little trollie!
He said poorly imitating me.
laughing man

Luton, UK

#198827 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
He said, using a grade school comeback some kindergartners would roll their eyes at.
They truly are stuck at the junior high level.

Yet they're always tooting their horns about how smart and creative they are, and they're collectively as dumb as a dishrag.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#198828 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
He said poorly imitating me.
...he said like an angry little troll. Squawk! Squawk! Frankie want a cracker? Calm down Franklyn before you have a coronary.

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
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Dec 2 FordEracing123 85
Where can I find legit black in Salinas asap!? Nov 27 Cjay22 8
News A cold case revisited: The night Dolly Evans di... Nov 21 HD vacaville 2
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Nov 16 Helen Banks Curry 1,549
News Marina mayora s race: Incumbent Bruce Delgado v... Nov '16 Seattle Doug 1
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Oct '16 Agnostic 72,043
News Editorial: Yes on Measure E Oct '16 Kelly Sorenson 1

Monterey Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Monterey Mortgages