Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,741

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.

Read more
Pietro Armando

Melrose, MA

#204423 Jul 24, 2013
Huh wrote:
Time for SCOTUS to do away with UNCONSTITUTIONAL same sex marriage bans and just make it legal nation wide...HATE AND BIGOTRY CANT BE LAW.
Fine, extend that to plural marriage too. HATE AND BIGOTRY CAN'T BE LAW.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204425 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I said they laughed, you said they laughed, thank you for validating my point
You implied they laughed AT people. They did not.

But how silly is this argument? I object to your vindictive partisanship making this issue more contentious and difficult than it need be. That's my point, thank you for affirming it. You don't encourage social change by laughing at people wary of it. You hinder it.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#204426 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, extend that to plural marriage too. HATE AND BIGOTRY CAN'T BE LAW.
I agree..
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204427 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
You can tell them that a hundred times ( I have, or near to it ) but they cannot give up on that argument, because it is the only thread left for them to hang to, the argument was already dismissed in every court it was brought to, the thread has broken.
Now they are on the ground, defeated and still trying to find that broken thread.
Any first week cultural anthropology or sociology student knows the close association of children and marriage. Your attempts to spin it otherwise speak volumes. There is no need to be so dishonest as to repeatedly falsely claim that anyone is saying procreation is a requirement of marriage. No one has said that. To deny the association is spin.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204428 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Sup D? That is all they have to hang onto. The bible crap, shot down, all other reasons shot down. Procreation, shot down, they are just to damn stupid to see it.
Sup Jizz? Why are you are a hypocrite? Why do you attempt to deny marriage equality on religious grounds?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204430 Jul 24, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree..
Me too. Here's to REAL marriage equality. Even for people you don't like.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#204431 Jul 24, 2013
Love is all that matters with children...
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204432 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You implied they laughed AT people. They did not.
But how silly is this argument? I object to your vindictive partisanship making this issue more contentious and difficult than it need be. That's my point, thank you for affirming it. You don't encourage social change by laughing at people wary of it. You hinder it.
No I said they laughed at that argument, and they did, you agreed they did, thank you for validating my point

You canít lie your way out
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204434 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, extend that to plural marriage too. HATE AND BIGOTRY CAN'T BE LAW.
Jizzy says polygamy shouldn't be allowed because some religious people practice it. Jizzy is a hypocrite.

Big D gives lip service to those fundies using polygamy to commit their crimes of welfare fraud and child abuse. He'd "vote for it" forgetting that votes don't matter sometimes.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204435 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Any first week cultural anthropology or sociology student knows the close association of children and marriage. Your attempts to spin it otherwise speak volumes. There is no need to be so dishonest as to repeatedly falsely claim that anyone is saying procreation is a requirement of marriage. No one has said that. To deny the association is spin.
I have aced classes in both physical and cultural anthropology.

There has also been a close association of slavery in history to successful families

There has been close association of domination physically of the male over the female in the history of families

Just because something may have been true in history, does not make it a good thing.

The ability or intent to have children is not a requirement for a marriage, that point is moot.

Millions of couples in the US either cannot have children, or have chosen not too, we have not denied any of these couples the right to marry, nor do we as a society look down on them or their marriages.

There may be some ignorant morons that do, but I will not allow the ignorant to define my marriage or anyone elseís.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204436 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>OK. I will.
MY post.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
"But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. its not a requirment in any state. So your point of being a steril marriage hold's no any water. We don't mandate procreation in a heterosexual marriage so how can you EVEN try to in same sex marriage. Now go away you really bore me.
As to "hijack the word", look it up fool, you will find that same sex marriage is found in the deffination. "
KMares post
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TH6FC2NTH...
"We both know and understand no such thing.
Only a ss couple who need protection to have sex would tell a heterosexual couple who need protection not to procreate that it doesn't matter.
Ss couples just don't equate to marriage. You will never be more than 'marriage LIGHT'. REALLY light. So light, relationship would qualify!
Smile. "
Well Frank, KMare, seems to think that procreation is a requirement. Have a great day, Gumba
I never read anyone here saying procreation is a REQUIREMENT for marriage. Have a bad day.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204439 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No I said they laughed at that argument, and they did, you agreed they did, thank you for validating my point
You canít lie your way out
It's a stupid argument. You imply they laughed AT people wary of SSM. They did not. Your spin is another of your lies. As is you "Liar!" straw man.

It's of course good that SCOTUS isn't vindictive like you.

This social change will happen quicker and easier without your dishonesty and hate.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204440 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage, is based upon two(or more) consenting adults( depending upon religion, or country) entering into a legal, binding contract.
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. In many cultures, marriage is formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples or two persons of opposite gender in the gender binary, and a diminishing number of these permit polygyny, child marriages, and forced marriages. In modern times, a growing number of countries and other jurisdictions have lifted bans on and have established legal recognition for same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and interfaith marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Wiki cut and paste. Priceless.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204441 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I have aced classes in both physical and cultural anthropology.
There has also been a close association of slavery in history to successful families
There has been close association of domination physically of the male over the female in the history of families
Just because something may have been true in history, does not make it a good thing.
The ability or intent to have children is not a requirement for a marriage, that point is moot.
Millions of couples in the US either cannot have children, or have chosen not too, we have not denied any of these couples the right to marry, nor do we as a society look down on them or their marriages.
There may be some ignorant morons that do, but I will not allow the ignorant to define my marriage or anyone elseís.
You obviously didn't ace English or logic.

No one here has said that procreation is a requirement for marriage. Why do you attempt to spin it that they did? Why do you attempt to spin away the close association you learned when you "aced" bonehead Sociology 101?

Slavery? Wow.
wtf

Kent, WA

#204442 Jul 24, 2013
http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/open-the-floodg...

disturbing, but homosexuals will not speak out about it
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204443 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a stupid argument. You imply they laughed AT people wary of SSM. They did not. Your spin is another of your lies. As is you "Liar!" straw man.
It's of course good that SCOTUS isn't vindictive like you.
This social change will happen quicker and easier without your dishonesty and hate.
They laughed at the argument, you agreed they laughed, thank you for validating my point.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204444 Jul 24, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Don't even try to put words in my mouth. I said in this nation, we do not make or change laws, based on religion. If you wish polygamy based on a religious beliefe, NO.
But you are attempting to justify denying marriage equality to them based on the fact that their religion encourages polygamy. Same thing. Worse actually.

What harm would a marriage of three consenting adult atheists cause you?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#204445 Jul 24, 2013
wtf wrote:
http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/ open-the-floodgates-pedophiles -arguing-their-sexual-orientat ion-is-no-different-than-homos exuals/
disturbing, but homosexuals will not speak out about it
Good gawd.......Strawman BS<.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#204446 Jul 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
They laughed at the argument, you agreed they laughed, thank you for validating my point.
They didn't laugh at the argument, they laughed at a bad joke. SCOTUS doesn't laugh at fellow Americans. Yet.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#204447 Jul 24, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>

No one here has said that procreation is a requirement for marriage..
They have implied exactly that repeatedly

Thank you for saying that, so that others can see just how completely clueless you are.

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.

Oroville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Oroville Tacos (Aug '14) 20 hr tamikajohnson1959 5
News Suspected gang leader arrested in Reno (Feb '10) Feb 28 fee 29
Review: Grain FED Worm Castings Feb '15 grainfed 2
Letter: Elected officials have to stop PG&E cle... Feb '15 Timothy Siegel 1
News Laser treatment that tackles toenail fungus ava... (Jan '09) Jan '15 SaTaN 166
any girls want to Skype? Jan '15 SaTaN 2
News Funeral today for homicide victims (Jul '08) Jan '15 Ridiculous Website 1 38
Oroville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Oroville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]