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.

laughing man

UK

#199059 Jun 29, 2013
Rock Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
This inconvenient little truth is NEVER addressed, is it? How far into the jungle would we have gotten, without the co-operation of the natives?
It astounds me how they remain on the Plantation and blame Whitey Righty for all their ills.

If you took off their shackles and pointed them to the open gate, they'd cut your throat.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199061 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
SHUDDUP troll. You deserve no respect or response. Don't try to wheedle any out of me. I'll respond to you if and when it amuses me.
That's what I thought. You're not here to have a rational discussion. You're here to troll. Notice how angry you are when I imitate you trolling. LOL

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199062 Jun 29, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, yeah. That's why they didn't let the south flood the House by counting slaves as "whole" people.
Anyone who has actually taken the time to study our history knows that. They also know that many of the founders were ready and willing to take on the issue of slavery at the drafting, but they felt it would result and losing everything, thus they wrote the 3/5th clause knowing by attrition the practice of slavery would bring about its own demise.
But I guess people like you whom get their historical education from comedy central don't understand that.
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with the price of rice in china?
<quoted text>
Since Corporations are nothing more that a conglomeration of citizens, I don't think they would have much trouble with the concept.
Anyhow, what difference does it really make? Most corporations hedge their bets when making campaign donations anyhow, so each party comes out about even.
<quoted text>
No you idiot. The Constitution was the end-point. It is what it is, and only changes through the Amendment process, not at the whims of the SCOTUS.
<quoted text>
The Constitution doesn't address the issue you marriage. The founders weren't interested in an all powerful, know and control everything federal government.
<quoted text>
Actually we all lost. The court has announced to the American citizen that they "lack standing" to address the government for a redress of grievances as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
But you are so near sighted, you can't see beyond- YAY, I can marry a dude..
So you think they were wrong to base their decision in large on the 5th Amendment?

Please tell us all how they got it wrong.

And YAY! I can marry a dude! That's all we wanted and that's what we got.

We would have been happier if they had overturned DOMA altogether. That didn't happen. However, they have set a standard that's going to be awfully hard for states with DOMA written into their constitutions to maintain it.

Same-sex couples will go to apply for a marriage license. They will be denied. These couples will appeal any state's decision to try to enforce DOMA. They will go before a federal court. That's how states will be overturned--one by one.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#199063 Jun 29, 2013
Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I thought. You're not here to have a rational discussion. You're here to troll. Notice how angry you are when I imitate you trolling. LOL
Try to relax fruitcake.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199066 Jun 29, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to relax fruitcake.
I am very relaxed. And your trolling continues. Call me a derogatory name. Blah blah blah. Squawk!

I thought you were here to have a discussion about polygamy? I look forward to hearing your conversation points. Or perhaps you saying you wanted to discuss polygamy was just a troll bait tactic, and you really have no conversation points?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

#199067 Jun 29, 2013
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a real live AssTroll?
I don't know what a "real live AssTroll" is, so I cannot answer that question. Sorry dude. Hope you're having a wonderful weekend. Peace.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Camp Cove

#199068 Jun 30, 2013
Sparkle_is_stripper wrote:
<quoted text>oh look the Marlboro man is back
The real Rock Hudson was MUCH better looking.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199069 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Still waiting for your source where you can prove that 98% of couples have intercourse for procreation. Last time you said the figure was 96%.
2.) If every heterosexual couple who is currently married ONLY had sex for procreative purposes, then the population of the planet wouldn't be 7 billion, it would be 70 billion.
3.) Procreation isn't confusing for homosexuals. We've all been taught the birds and the bees. It's hardly rocket science. I always adore it when you act as though procreation was a magical, mysterious process that only straight people can fathom.
4.) More ass fascination... I'm hardly surprised.
5.) According to a 2006 survey completed by the Centers for Disease Controlís National Survey of Family Growth showed that "38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex." BOTTOM line, you ASSume that only gays engage in ANAL sex. Obviously, straight people do too. My guess is that you've looked at you wife's ASS a few times over the years and thought about taking a ride. Those who live in glASS houses should throw stones.(I capitalized those words that I thought might give you the most enjoyment).
Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!!

I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not.

I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain.

I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that.

Get help VV.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199070 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah... You seem to be getting the point. Not ever instance of sexual intercourse results in babies. Gay people do it all the time.
Here is more of your gay confusion.

Heterosexual couples have to use protection to avoid procreation.

Homosexuals never have to worry about procreation!

They have to use protection to have sex!!!

Just another major distinction between ss couples and marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199071 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that anal sex was the primary method of contraception before condoms came along don't you? Not to mention, many people believe it feels good.
Please provide proof of that claim. I debunked it for you a while ago, it seems you are trying to slip an old lie in again.

Additionally, most people scream in pain and degradation when analized. Very few victims enjoy it. That is why most gays would rather be the perpetrator.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199072 Jun 30, 2013
SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening.

Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work???

The bottom line is still this; Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit!

YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199074 Jun 30, 2013
Sparkle_is_stripper wrote:
<quoted text>REALITY is that your a lonely azz worthless internet troll who has nothing more in his life then his hate and a keyboard... must suck being you
Reality is you are steeped in bondage and denial.

Why do you hate the people who try to help you and embrace the ones who don't care?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199075 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV.
<quoted text>
Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!!
I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not.
I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain.
I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that.
Get help VV.
1.) I clearly understand mating behavior and procreation. I have observed it all of my life. I further specified my comments by saying that not every single instance of intercourse, or as you call it "mating behavior", does not result in childbirth. It is not a very difficult concept.

2.) I call anal sex "natural" because millions of heterosexual and homosexual people have been engaging in it for eons. That fact, in and of itself, makes the act "natural". If people didn't like it, then it wouldn't be so widespread.

3.) I only respond to your comments so that others can be educated by your obvious ignorance on the subject. It is a corrective moment...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199076 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide proof of that claim. I debunked it for you a while ago, it seems you are trying to slip an old lie in again.
Additionally, most people scream in pain and degradation when analized. Very few victims enjoy it. That is why most gays would rather be the perpetrator.
I don't recall you ever debunking my claim. I would have remembered such ignorance.

Here's a paragraph on heterosexual anal sex practices...

"Heterosexual anal sex has been around for millennia. Paintings and etchings from Japan, China and Europe all depict men performing anal sex on women, as do ancient erotic drawings, sculpture and pottery from the Mediterranean and South America. In some Polynesian cultures, anal sex was practiced explicitly as a means of birth control. Today, some adolescents regard anal sex as a means to prevent conception, regardless of increased risks for transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Over the past decades, heterosexual anal sex rates have climbed. In the Fifties, anal sex was reported by fewer than fifteen percent of the population. Modern overall rates suggest that around a third of men have performed anal sex on a woman, and slightly fewer women have received anal sex. The rates are still higher in sexually active adult in their twenties." ("Psychology Today", David J. Ley, Ph.D., February 6, 2011)

And as I pointed out in my previous answer, "According to a 2006 survey completed by the Centers for Disease Controlís National Survey of Family Growth showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex."

Finally, I have to wonder, "How does he know what 'most gays' would prefer with regards to anal sex?" You, being allegedly heterosexual, don't know what "most gays" prefer. It's been my experience that most gay men I've known are versatile when it comes to anal sex. They can either be a "top" or a "bottom", depending on any variety of factors.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199077 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV. Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!! I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not. I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain. I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that. Get help VV.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) I clearly understand mating behavior and procreation. I have observed it all of my life. I further specified my comments by saying that not every single instance of intercourse, or as you call it "mating behavior", does not result in childbirth. It is not a very difficult concept.
2.) I call anal sex "natural" because millions of heterosexual and homosexual people have been engaging in it for eons. That fact, in and of itself, makes the act "natural". If people didn't like it, then it wouldn't be so widespread.
3.) I only respond to your comments so that others can be educated by your obvious ignorance on the subject. It is a corrective moment...
More gay twirl lies on gay twirl lies...

1. The fact that not all heterosexual sex produces children does nothing to equate them to the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples.

2. Yes you did call anal sex natural, while denying it's inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature.

Meanwhile, you called procreation unnatural.

Both claims are idiotic.

3. You were claiming something about ignorance???

Get help for your denial VV.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199078 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening.
Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work???
The bottom line is still this; Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit!
YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!
More nonsense... Your entire post is unintelligible.

"Reality is not listening?" What does that even mean?

"Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??" Please elaborate as to why they would need a unanimous decision. That's never been the standard in the past. Why would it need to be the standard now?

"Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!!" Again, this makes no sense.

As always, your efforts to be clever stand in the way of your ability to clearly express your ideas.

Even a near-senile, jack-ass would understand the importance of clarity.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#199079 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: I understand that mating behavior and procreation are confusing realities for homosexuals, in that mating behavior is meaningless and procreation is impossible for ss couples. However, for 98% of the population it is not. But to be straightforward, for you to call anal sex natural, but not procreation, really exposes the depth your denial delusions! Kind of scary VV. Man... I mean Queen, that must have took some work to totally avoid the substance and gay twirl my comments!!! I simply said that MOST (98%) of the population understand mating behavior and procreation. You clearly do not. I then pondered how you can call anal sex natural, but deny that procreation isn't natural. You didn't explain. I then noted that the degree of your denial is troubling. I repeat that. Get help VV.
<quoted text>
More gay twirl lies on gay twirl lies...
1. The fact that not all heterosexual sex produces children does nothing to equate them to the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples.
2. Yes you did call anal sex natural, while denying it's inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature.
Meanwhile, you called procreation unnatural.
Both claims are idiotic.
3. You were claiming something about ignorance???
Get help for your denial VV.
1.) Another one of your contrived phrases, "the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples."... I've got to admit, you never let the English language stand in your way when trying to make a point.
Why do you think a ss couple's inability to procreate is so horrible? Do you think all sexual intercourse should result in offspring?
Isn't it possible that many--if not most--people engage in sexual activity as a means of "love making", "deepening of a relationship" or "simple pleasure"?

2.) There is inherent harm in just about anything; especially if it's not done correctly. There is inherent harm in heterosexual sexual activity if not done correctly. Unexpected pregnancy--leading to abortion leaps to mind. STDs are possible if safeguards are not in place. And there's always the possibility of discomfort--usually from a woman's perspective--if the man is too aggressive or uninterested in satisfying a woman by bringing her to climax.

3.) Show me where I've ever stated that procreation is unnatural.

Waiting...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199080 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
More nonsense... Your entire post is unintelligible.
"Reality is not listening?" What does that even mean?
"Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??" Please elaborate as to why they would need a unanimous decision. That's never been the standard in the past. Why would it need to be the standard now?
"Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!!" Again, this makes no sense.
As always, your efforts to be clever stand in the way of your ability to clearly express your ideas.
Even a near-senile, jack-ass would understand the importance of clarity.
Go outside and find someone. Anyone. A kid, whatever.

Ask them to explain it to you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#199081 Jun 30, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Another one of your contrived phrases, "the absolute procreation desolation of ss couples."... I've got to admit, you never let the English language stand in your way when trying to make a point.
Why do you think a ss couple's inability to procreate is so horrible? Do you think all sexual intercourse should result in offspring?
Isn't it possible that many--if not most--people engage in sexual activity as a means of "love making", "deepening of a relationship" or "simple pleasure"?
2.) There is inherent harm in just about anything; especially if it's not done correctly. There is inherent harm in heterosexual sexual activity if not done correctly. Unexpected pregnancy--leading to abortion leaps to mind. STDs are possible if safeguards are not in place. And there's always the possibility of discomfort--usually from a woman's perspective--if the man is too aggressive or uninterested in satisfying a woman by bringing her to climax.
3.) Show me where I've ever stated that procreation is unnatural.
Waiting...
1. You are still trying to equate the natural ability of heterosexuals to procreate with the defective absolute failure of ss couples to do so? Really???

2. You are calling the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex natural, once again trying to equate it with the natural design of intercourse. Really dumbing down again...

3. POST 198969;

"Mating behavior" or as the rest of us call it "sexual intercourse" does not always result in children. Marriage unions do not always result in children. So, it is not a "natural result" of sexual intercourse; and certainly not a "natural result" of the marriage union.

VV, look at the last sequence of posts. You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!
Mikey

Fullerton, CA

#199082 Jun 30, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You are still trying to equate the natural ability of heterosexuals to procreate with the defective absolute failure of ss couples to do so? Really???
2. You are calling the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex natural, once again trying to equate it with the natural design of intercourse. Really dumbing down again...
3. POST 198969;
"Mating behavior" or as the rest of us call it "sexual intercourse" does not always result in children. Marriage unions do not always result in children. So, it is not a "natural result" of sexual intercourse; and certainly not a "natural result" of the marriage union.
VV, look at the last sequence of posts. You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!
Actually, I think your last sentence applies directly to you. Maybe you should read it again...'You are like a slimy snake avoiding reality. It is truly psychotic denial. Get help!'

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 Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) Fri 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 3 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr '15 svorpion 1,531
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar '15 mando 12
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]