Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 | Posted by: Topix | Full story: www.cnn.com

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.

Comments
160,841 - 160,860 of 200,588 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184232 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't come up with an argument against what I say, so you accuse me of attacking you.
Girl, you'll know when I'm attacking you.
I'm still rubbing the sleep out of my eyes. Haven't even had a cup of coffee.
I'm hardly in attack mode.
You'll know I've attacked you when you have to go into therapy to deal with the PTSD you'll encounter from a REAL attack by me.
To put it another way, I don't attack you. I hold back. I hold WAY back.
Stop frettin' Miss Thing. You don't got nothin' to worry about from this old queen.
VV, you are so silly. You have been attacking me for three years.

All I've ever experienced is foul gas from a limp wristed gay twirl having a hissy fit.

Sorry, but no PTSD yet...

Smile.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184233 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Of course it doesn't have to be. The law determined that faithfulness to a mate was unnecessary with no-fault divorce. Now we have horrendous consequences of domestic violence and child abuse. Not to mention a devastating drop in every area of the social health of children of divorce.
Now there is a silly and stupid attempt to dumb down marriage to a friendship of any gender, totally denying the part of children. Any sensible person would say the law will be two for two if that happens.
2. That would be like the law requiring sex or children or any other such silly demands.
Here is an analogy that exposes that idiocy;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smile.
<quoted text>
A perfect example of a gay troll attack.
Look, not ONE reasoned response to a single point of reality.
Pure ad homoan attacks of my person.
Do you really think this helps your cause?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No-fault divorce is an example of how past legislating the terms of marriage had devastating effects. It relates directly to this debate. You have no defense so you want to censor it.
Well look at that, you are trying an analogy!!!
Here is an example of exposing an analogy as absurd, something you still have not been able to do;
First, your analogy ignores the basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. That immediately disqualifies your analogy as incongruent.
Second, all farmers (marriage) produce something. Whether it is sheep or something else is irrelevant. Sometimes farmers get too old (they still are identified as farmers). Some have farms, but don't produce for the time being. Others are injured and can no longer produce. But someone who can never, under any conditions produce is NEVER called a farmer.
See how simple that is?
The simple truth is, you troll because you have no character or logic to defend your denial.
Smile.
My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married". You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".

Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to produce offspring.

And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#184234 Mar 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
VV, you are so silly. You have been attacking me for three years.
All I've ever experienced is foul gas from a limp wristed gay twirl having a hissy fit.
Sorry, but no PTSD yet...
Smile.
Then you can surmize that I have never attacked you.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#184235 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married".
Tou(frickin')che'. Touche'.

Kuntmary doesn't HAVE a real argument against SSM, so she has to drag children into the mix.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184236 Mar 23, 2013
xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Your position is a lie.
Sad part is Iím sure she thinks sheís right. Reality is she doesnít have the smarts or qualifications to take scientific theory and present it as fact. Additionally, repeating the same baseless claims ad nauseum doesnít make them true.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184237 Mar 23, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
YES? So you claim that the provision set forth by Article II sec 1 of the constitution preventing a naturalized citizen from becoming President is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment? You really are an idiot.
Youíre such a dummy. You really do have reading for comprehension issues donít you? I do not believe it is discriminatory to exclude non-natural born citizens from running for POTUS. Which is what I said, and you somehow comprehended the opposite. Furthermore, I do believe this parallel to be a red herring argument. Youíll get no further responses from me on the subject. And yes you are a bigot.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#184240 Mar 23, 2013
xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMerde is a loony tune. HE should be glad his feeble-minded attempt at an analogy isn't being graded by a logic professor. The laughter would be heard around the world.
Agreed, he/she is one confused freak. I wonder if itís mother wishes she would have aborted it?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#184242 Mar 23, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but isn't it interesting to contemplate the possibilities?
It is also mind boggling. I think I need to find a 300mm-infinity zoom lens for my old Nikon 35mm SLR.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184243 Mar 23, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
My dear, we're not fighting to call ourselves "parents". We're fighting to call ourselves "married".
You can do that now without the state being involved.
You're the only idiot who keeps insisting that in order for a couple to call themselves "married" they must be capable of being called "parent".
Again, I will challenge you to show me one marriage certificate or license that includes the word "parent" or "child". Name one jurisdiction in this country that mandates all married couples to
produce offspring.
There isn't, nor need to be. Husband and wife covers it all. Its about men and women, not men and men, or women and women.
And yet hundreds of thousands of people marry one another who will not, for whatever reason, produce a child. They are no less married than those that do have children.
Why they marry doesn't change why marriage exists in the first place. Marriage didn't develop as a means of addressing the same sex, male or female, sexual relationship. That's why there's no compelling state interest in a SSR.
ChrisJeffers

La Puente, CA

#184245 Mar 23, 2013
Chris says; Oh no I didn't have anything to do with it.
Anderson Cooper

Los Angeles, CA

#184246 Mar 23, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>When did you get released?
When did you start blowing young men at municipal park gloree-holes??

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#184247 Mar 23, 2013
The state requires posterity and married couples produce children with better outcomes than children born out of wedlock. Better still, graduate high school, find a job and marry before having children. Tough love; marriage isn't a remedial course designed to make homosexuals feel normal.

I understand your support for oppressed minorities; it makes you feel like a good person to push for rewriting marriage law to be inclusive and egalitarian. We understand that and want you to be happy, not to violate the taboos of society. How you live is your business and our law is everyone's business.

However, all people are not equal, men and women differ. When we're dead we are all equal. In that ersatz equality manner, same sex marriage is like a culture of death.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#184248 Mar 23, 2013
You say your progressive but instead of embracing civil unions, domestic partnerships and shacking up you turn on our second oldest cultural institution. Instead of embracing the future to create true freedom and equality you want to redefine marriage for everyone. Rather than building a better way helping your brothers and sisters you turn on your parents and grandparents commitment and honor.

Same sex marriage is bad for the shame.
Earl

Los Angeles, CA

#184249 Mar 23, 2013
Let gays suffer the same misery as straight people! They think marriage is some wonderful experience that they will cherish forever! Wait till they find out it ain't what they think! You can live with someone for years, but that doesn't mean you would be better off married to them! I know people who have lived together for over 5 years, got married then divorced in less than a year! Gays will be cursing everyone for allowing same sex marriage!
ChrisJeffers

La Puente, CA

#184250 Mar 23, 2013
Chris says; Oh no I didn't have anything to do with it.

Then why did Douglas Tessitor of the Glendora city council buy you a $1,000,000.00 whole life insurance policy at the tax payers expense?

Glendora, California is just like the city of Bell, California - crooks..

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184251 Mar 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken by someone whose marriage is so fragile that they are afraid it will be damaged by someone else being able to marry.
I really pity you people
Out of all the discussion, you pull a false assertion out of the air?

Is that really an adult discussion? Do you understand how that insults your intelligence, character and the position you are 'defending'?

I simply state why marriage is distinct from ss couples. You have no defense but ad homoan attacks.

Sad and disgusting.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#184252 Mar 23, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweet Jesus, a Pea Tardy member explaining to us the difference between chess and checkers.
I'll bet he'd love your completely lame apples/oranges/nut analogy too.
Fools seldom differ.
Ad homoan vomit because you have no reasoned response, or you are incapable of a reasoned response?

Oh,'right, you are a troll claiming to be a brainless dysfunctional vagina.

Smirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184253 Mar 23, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
congratulations on the 20+ years of married life. you obviously learned from your parents' marriage that was a life-long committment.
Thanks H&M.
I learned the same from my parents. my partner & i have been together over 23 yrs and are raising 3 kids together.
Bravo!
If we could legally marry, then we could protect all the assets we've built together as a couple, just the same as you and your wife (or husband?)(sorry, not sure of your gender, not that it matters in this electronic world).
Uhhhh...that would be with my wife, "Pietro" is the Italian version of Peter. As to your claim, "If we could legally marry....", that raises a number of questions, and/or comments.

1.) Does one need to marry in order to protect assets?

2.) As an individual, you can already legally marry, however that is not what you seek, which is to have your relationship with your same sex partner designated marriage, yes?

3.) If the state, as have several states done, were to create a civil union structure which would allow you to protect those assets you spoke about, would that solve the problem? Needless to say that would depend on the structure of the CU.
but consider that also, back in our grandparent's days, and most likely even in our parent's days - a divorce was a black mark on a person - they were looked down upon. society was vastly different then, even if a woman left her husband for valid reasons of affairs, abuse, alcholism or drug abuse or any number of good reasons a woman should leave a man. it just wasn't acceptable for a grown adult woman to be single or divorced. that attributed to the lower divorce rate back then.
True, no disagreement there. Also too, if a man had reached a certain age, and wasn't married, he was either considered to be a confirmed bachelor, forever playing the field, or, "light in the loafers"....sorry couldn't resist.:)
NAZI TAKEING OVER EVERY T

San Francisco, CA

#184254 Mar 23, 2013
IF THE WORLD IS ENDING AND NAZIS ARE GOING THROUGH EVERY TOWN WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH STOPPING NAZIS FROM TAKEING OVER

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#184255 Mar 23, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
All marriage will ever be, from a legal perspective, is a contract.
Our government isnít in the God business, not in the religion business, not in the culture business.
Why does the government need to license marriage via contract? If it's nothing more than a contract as you say, why deny certain consenting adult relationships from entering into such a contract? Why does it matter who marries who, if its only a contract?
Our government is in the law business, and their view ( and recognition of ) marriage is only from a legal perspective.
it will always be officially - a piece of paper - form a legal perspective
If that is the case, why does a "piece of paper" matter to you or anyone else?
Now you have a club that wants to make it harder to divorce, go for it, make rules for you club, but donít expect others not of your club to be bound to your clubs rules.
A "club"? Like the Sons of Italy? What the heck are ya talking about Big D?
In all your ranting you have yet to explain why divorce is worse than murder.
Che? E' pazzo? What the heck in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, are you talking about? "Divorce worse than murder"?
Remember I donít care from a religious perspective, I donít care from a historical perspective, but from the legal perspective of government.
Legal perspective of what? Why adultery is still a crime on the books? Apparently it still matters to some state governments to maintain such a law.
For myself, my wife and I wanted to marry, and we have wanted to stay married as a symbol to one another of our continued commitment to one another. I know it is just a piece of paper to the government, but it means more to us, and I could care less what it means to some church down the street.
The Church down the street might feel the same way. Jesus loves you anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Oakdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr lazy posts 15,963
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Fri Macko mono 5,000
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Thu Tank ever 7,926
Judge John D. Freeland is wrong! (Dec '13) Thu Kes 8
Family Wed Baby Girl 1
I am a multi millionaire (Aug '13) Aug 27 KeS 11
Fraud claims coming to court (Jun '07) Aug 26 KeS 2
•••
•••
•••

Oakdale Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Oakdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Oakdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Oakdale
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••