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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186525 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He is by implication, why is it even being brought up here? If we all agree that ability or intent of procreation is not and has never been any kind of requirement for a couple to be married in the US whatsoever, then it has no place in a discussion about same sex marriage.... period.
That's because of the rabid rejection of any connection between marriage and procreation by SSM zealots. It's hard to let it go by when someone insists they are not at all related. Most of the government perks for marriage are based on raising children.

I say it is dumb and wrong to deny the connection. Much better to say, yes they are related but irrelevant. And that ssm couples often have children too.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186526 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because of the rabid rejection of any connection between marriage and procreation by SSM zealots. It's hard to let it go by when someone insists they are not at all related. Most of the government perks for marriage are based on raising children.
I say it is dumb and wrong to deny the connection. Much better to say, yes they are related but irrelevant. And that ssm couples often have children too.
t is like saying since most people that are married have brown eyes, brown eyed marriages are directly related to marriage and so we should look down on people that marry that have blue eyes

I don’t think there should be any "perks" for having children myself but that is a different subject.

The only connection they need to get out of their heads is that the ability to have, or intent to have children has not now nor ever been a requirement for a couple to marry.

Same Sex marriage does not change that one tiny little bit

I think it is dumb for them to keep bringing up a tactic that has already failed as they have been unable to show that procreation has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186527 Apr 4, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone ever said that "marriage has nothing to do with procreation"?
NO!
That would be ridiculous.
All that we have tried to communicate is that procreation IS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage.
Surely you can see the difference between the two statements...
I don’t think they can, because it is not in their personal interest to distinguish between them, by playing dumb, they get to keep a lame argument that has already failed in court.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#186528 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 discriminates against poly too. Exactly the same as it does against same sex. You know, EQUALLY.
Was polygamy legal before Prop 8? No

Was same sex marriage legal before Prop 8? Yes

You call that equally?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186529 Apr 4, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes! Disturbing and amusing at the same time.
Unfortunately the loonies here in San Francisco love her. My New York relatives give me hell. They swear I vote for her because some (very few) of my political views are in line with hers.

She's part of the 1%. But not. Because rich lefties get an exemption.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186530 Apr 4, 2013
Some more off topic Frankie nonsense-

I think we should rename SFO Emperor Norton International Airport.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186531 Apr 4, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy legal before Prop 8? No
Was same sex marriage legal before Prop 8? Yes
You call that equally?
So if prop 8 stands and all other laws against polygamy fall, will polygamy be legal Miss Thing?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#186532 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So if prop 8 stands and all other laws against polygamy fall, will polygamy be legal Miss Thing?
If?

You are completely incorrigible.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186533 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Some more off topic Frankie nonsense-
I think we should rename SFO Emperor Norton International Airport.
Nooooo!

Xemu International :D
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186534 Apr 4, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy legal before Prop 8? No
Was same sex marriage legal before Prop 8? Yes
You call that equally?
Frankie thinks that Prop 8 was a deceptive ploy not to ban Same Sex marriage, but to make Poly marriage even more illegal than it was before.

That banning same sex marriage was just a side effect of its actual intention.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186535 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
t is like saying since most people that are married have brown eyes, brown eyed marriages are directly related to marriage and so we should look down on people that marry that have blue eyes
I don’t think there should be any "perks" for having children myself but that is a different subject.
The only connection they need to get out of their heads is that the ability to have, or intent to have children has not now nor ever been a requirement for a couple to marry.
Same Sex marriage does not change that one tiny little bit
I think it is dumb for them to keep bringing up a tactic that has already failed as they have been unable to show that procreation has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.
Families are the foundation of society, the building blocks. Especially marriages with children. Thus justified government perks. To encourage marriage. If there were no government perks for marriage, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I believe there should only be government benefits for families with children regardless of their parents marital status or sexual preference. And lesser benefits if any for families without children since marriage is good for society. ALL marriage, even unpopular ones like those child molesting welfare cheating polygamists. And yes, siblings.

WOO HOOO! Gimme some lucky charms.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186536 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie thinks that Prop 8 was a deceptive ploy not to ban Same Sex marriage, but to make Poly marriage even more illegal than it was before.
That banning same sex marriage was just a side effect of its actual intention.
Oh come on, just when I thought you might be getting reasonable in your late youth.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186537 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Nooooo!
Xemu International :D
There is a bill to rename SFO Harvey Milk International. I don't mind but I like Emperor Norton International better.

If they rename it Harvey Milk, I would have to endure my crude New York relatives "Flying" out to visit me. "We'll be FLYING into Harvey Milk around COCKTAIL hour..."
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186538 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on, just when I thought you might be getting reasonable in your late youth.
I am trying to be as reasonable as you are :)

It isn’t easy to be that unreasonable
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186539 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a bill to rename SFO Harvey Milk International. I don't mind but I like Emperor Norton International better.
If they rename it Harvey Milk, I would have to endure my crude New York relatives "Flying" out to visit me. "We'll be FLYING into Harvey Milk around COCKTAIL hour..."
Ah, I had no idea

Is that any different than republicans homosexual wet dream of coming into Reagan?

I suppose that is up to the people of SF

Personally I don’t like it when they re-name stuff

I didn’t like it when they re-named Cape Canaveral Cape Kennedy

I didn’t like it when they renamed Washington national airport

but I suppose that is up to the people that live there.

I did however agree that Pluto is not ( and never really was ) a planet
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186540 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Families are the foundation of society, the building blocks. Especially marriages with children. Thus justified government perks. To encourage marriage. If there were no government perks for marriage, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I believe there should only be government benefits for families with children regardless of their parents marital status or sexual preference. And lesser benefits if any for families without children since marriage is good for society. ALL marriage, even unpopular ones like those child molesting welfare cheating polygamists. And yes, siblings.
WOO HOOO! Gimme some lucky charms.
Having children is a choice, and people should take careful stock of their situation before having children to insure that their situation is stable, financially and emotionally before deciding to have or adopt children.

I don’t think we should be handing out rewards for doing so, we are overpopulated already.

I love children, and I am part of the problem as I had several.

Your welfare cheating child molester friends aside, I don’t think the government should be rewarding or punishing people's behavior trough taxation. That is a crutch, we should make our own decisions and take on the financial and emotional responsibility that go along with those decisions. I have never liked the idea of the government trying to control people’s behavior though taxation.

Unfortunately there is not a political party that agrees with me.:)
Claudias

San Dimas, CA

#186541 Apr 4, 2013
The big threat?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#186542 Apr 4, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
How is not answering a simple question spot on. Well I guess for you avoiding intellectual debate is your typical style so you would think it to be spot on for someone else to do the same.
Says the sissy who ran like a girl/blonde.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#186544 Apr 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought I was just pointing out how idiotic it is to equate an ever only duplicated sterile half to the gender diversity of marriage.
Most people don't know I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight man until I tell them.
Kind of messes up your gay twirl, doesn't it.
Smirk.
Shit Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people DO know that you're a neurotic, delusional mess.
Troll attack because you have no logical argument.

Again.

Snicker.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186545 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
I am trying to be as reasonable as you are :)
It isn’t easy to be that unreasonable
Yeah yeah.

Being reasonable in your mind means to respectfully look up at you on the mountaintop while you dispense your sage down to us.

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
facetime? (gay guys only) (Jul '11) Nov 30 Chechi6 67
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Nov 29 SnottyGurl 24
News The Pass2 men charged with attempted murder in ... Nov 24 Cabazon 4real 1
David Thornton Sells Obama Salts For Millions. ... Oct '16 Patriot 1
News Teens protest legislation (Mar '06) Oct '16 never really a part 227
Obama does not want you to check for ill Att. c... Oct '16 Luke 1
Obama does not want you to check for ill Att. c... Oct '16 Luke 1

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages