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.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169549 Dec 2, 2012
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that thereís more to marriage than sex, donít you? I have no interest in changing any existing ceremony. As an American I deserve the rights and privileges marriage includes regardless of what you and haters like you think.
I think you do too.

But that means others wanting to marry "regardless of what the haters think" should also be allowed. Like polygamists and incestuous marriages. That's equality to me, how about you?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169551 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That was the question I was going to pose a few days ago, the polygamy angle. The SSM crowd wants to allow themselves into a fold that they bar others from, and they cannot explain that away. As the government has decided that polygamy is illegal, they face the ugly elephant in the room re governmental legislation. If they wish for TRUE equality, then they have to allow for polygamists to enjoy the same freedom to choose their mates that they themselves claim is their "right". All they are doing is exploiting a loophole, to enjoy a "freedom" that was simply unheard of, in the time of the Framers.
And, if we are to address coupling at all, we know that perfect partnership requires some level of difference. Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created, and bonding is what is at the heart of marriage. The argument that the parts "fit" is as insensible as saying that is perfectly OK to stick staples into electrical outlets, simply because "the parts fit". The parts may "fit", but it is inadvisable. The argument that homosexual behavior exist in nature hold no validity, because killing also exist in nature, and rape, and these are not accepted, either. And polygamy, also, can be found in nature, also a "no-no", so the argument that nature validates homosexual behavior is invalid.
Equality can only be served if polygamy is allowed. Where is the equality ? Missing, I think, replaced by the aforementioned "selective elitism" that is what passes today.
Right. Equality is equality. If you exclude anyone, it's not equality. It's a simple concept really.

P.S. Mona Lott hates polygamists! He's sure to be piping up with his dopey bigoted nonsense soon as he reads this. Big Fun!
Bruno

Westminster, CA

#169552 Dec 2, 2012
They say Long Beach is the "Gay" place to live. Heterosexuals that have lived in LB say it in no longer a nive place to live ...
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169553 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
That was the question I was going to pose a few days ago, the polygamy angle. The SSM crowd wants to allow themselves into a fold that they bar others from, and they cannot explain that away. As the government has decided that polygamy is illegal, they face the ugly elephant in the room re governmental legislation. If they wish for TRUE equality, then they have to allow for polygamists to enjoy the same freedom to choose their mates that they themselves claim is their "right". All they are doing is exploiting a loophole, to enjoy a "freedom" that was simply unheard of, in the time of the Framers.
And, if we are to address coupling at all, we know that perfect partnership requires some level of difference. Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created, and bonding is what is at the heart of marriage. The argument that the parts "fit" is as insensible as saying that is perfectly OK to stick staples into electrical outlets, simply because "the parts fit". The parts may "fit", but it is inadvisable. The argument that homosexual behavior exist in nature hold no validity, because killing also exist in nature, and rape, and these are not accepted, either. And polygamy, also, can be found in nature, also a "no-no", so the argument that nature validates homosexual behavior is invalid.
Equality can only be served if polygamy is allowed. Where is the equality ? Missing, I think, replaced by the aforementioned "selective elitism" that is what passes today.
I disagree.

Polygamy by it's very nature is a separate entity.

It's inclusion into the aspect of gay marriage is merely a weak ploy which attempts deflection.

If we're to speak of natural unions in the human world you then have to apply aspects such as love & attraction and both of those elements exist in gay marriage.

The idea of linking killing to gay marriage is absurd by the way. There is no connection. Given heterosexual couplings are also inherently natural as well you in turn link that to killing also moron.

As far as the Founding Fathers they introduced a form of government based on inherent freedoms. In their time slavery was practiced as well but because we continue their format we as a country are evolving into what they intended which explains why women can vote, there are no slaves and Asians can own land. Gay marriage is merely a step in the right direction if we're to practice what was introduced by them.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169554 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Equality is equality. If you exclude anyone, it's not equality. It's a simple concept really.
P.S. Mona Lott hates polygamists! He's sure to be piping up with his dopey bigoted nonsense soon as he reads this. Big Fun!
Equality applies until you find viable harm.

Polygamy was determined by the government to possess inherent harm which would explain it's absence in terms of allowable freedoms in this country.

As of yet no harm has been shown in gay marriage.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169555 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you do too.
But that means others wanting to marry "regardless of what the haters think" should also be allowed. Like polygamists and incestuous marriages. That's equality to me, how about you?
Incest and polygamy carry inherent harms.

Gay marriage does not.

There's your critical difference.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169556 Dec 2, 2012
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I think Clinton was the one that received the lip service.
He did! But I think the president should be issued a BJ at least once a day and find no harm.

But he shouldn't have lied under oath over a silly fat chick blow job! What a dope! If he deserved to be impeached the charge should have been dopiness.

He has a way with the ladies, the old dog. I admire him for that.

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169557 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality applies until you find viable harm.
Polygamy was determined by the government to possess inherent harm which would explain it's absence in terms of allowable freedoms in this country.
As of yet no harm has been shown in gay marriage.
Welcome back Dan! How was Japan you lucky dog!

Hope you didn't threaten to beat anyone up behind the dumpster in the Tokyo Home Depot parking lot!

You didn't, did you Dan?

Funny stuff!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169558 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
There are train wrecks, and tragedies, everywhere.
The unions are evidence of that.

Most recently organized labor tried to use it's methods based on legalized extortion to an ailing company, Hostess, only to take them down.

Good job.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169559 Dec 2, 2012
Bob wrote:
1. The devil is gay.
2. The demons are gay.
3. The bilderbergs are gay.
4. The masons are gay.
5. The members of bohemian grove are gay.
6. The illuminati is gay.
7. The antichrist will be gay.
They will all burn in hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wtSVBTne-KYXX
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church believes anyway.

Are we to take this rants as you being a member?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169560 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Incest and polygamy carry inherent harms.
Gay marriage does not.
There's your critical difference.
No they don't. What's the harm in 3 men marrying? How does it hurt you or anyone else?

And modern science has disproven the supposed medical dangers of close relatives breeding. Besides, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, right Dan?

FUN!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169561 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome back Dan! How was Japan you lucky dog!
Hope you didn't threaten to beat anyone up behind the dumpster in the Tokyo Home Depot parking lot!
You didn't, did you Dan?
Funny stuff!
Why would I?

Funny it is how you cannot apply yourself to the topic at hand.

Can't find that inherent harm in gay marriage and it's been what....months?

LOL!!!
Da Point

Covina, CA

#169562 Dec 2, 2012
Did ya see it, two gay ladies getting married at West Point?

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169563 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The unions are evidence of that.
Most recently organized labor tried to use it's methods based on legalized extortion to an ailing company, Hostess, only to take them down.
Good job.
Uh-oh! Mona Lott says it was not the union's fault, it was Romney's fault! You'll probably be hearing from him soon.

Fun!

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#169564 Dec 2, 2012
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I?
Funny it is how you cannot apply yourself to the topic at hand.
Can't find that inherent harm in gay marriage and it's been what....months?
LOL!!!
I support gay marriage you big silly dope!

What a jackass!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169565 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't. What's the harm in 3 men marrying? How does it hurt you or anyone else?
And modern science has disproven the supposed medical dangers of close relatives breeding. Besides, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, right Dan?
FUN!
Ask the government.

They're the ones who determined harm based on past occurances of underage marriage and the effects of cults in polygamy.

As far as reproduction it often takes place outside of marriage and there are many marriages which exist in which no children are involved not to mention is is not a requirement of marriage.

Facts must sting your sorry ass.

LOL!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169566 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I support gay marriage you big silly dope!
What a jackass!
Nah....you mock it.

Easy enough to see and identify.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169567 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-oh! Mona Lott says it was not the union's fault, it was Romney's fault! You'll probably be hearing from him soon.
Fun!
I'm not Mona Lott.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169568 Dec 2, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Equality is equality. If you exclude anyone, it's not equality. It's a simple concept really.
Really.

So then you also support incestuous marriage and those involving itself with beastiality.

Wow.
Dan

Roseville, CA

#169569 Dec 2, 2012
R Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
See, there you go again, being facetious... Of course it is a scam. Pretending to be a valid couple, without the proper components, is pretense.
We were not talking about marriage, we were talking about "gay" marriage, which is not marriage at all. It is the coupling of a same sex couple which is bogus. The parts are not meant to go where they are being put, in a gay marriage.
I thought the same way until I realized we as humans can be attracted to an adult of the same sex, find love, attraction and a willingness to commit to a marriage.

Being straight myself it was at first a little odd but it's true. What's also true is that those elements are present in marriage.

Some men like fat, obese women in terms of attraction. Never got that one either given I was never attracted to overweight women but they like gays should be able to marry the adult of their choice without your *opinion* being in the way if we're to claim we live in a free country.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
mature white women for young dark mature n sexy... 3 hr BigJG 3
stores with bad customer service {list your wor... Mon CaliDervish 16
Regina or Bill January (Oct '13) May 1 kat 3
News National: How the Drought Will Reshape Californ... Apr 23 H20 the new Oil 1
News FIND Food Bank helps feed thousands at the Cent... Apr 19 CaliDervish 1
Desert Hot Springs Mayor Proud Of Out Of State ... Apr 15 Tony 20
News Group seeks to stop Nestlea s water-bottling op... Apr 14 speak out 1
More from around the web

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]