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 (Page 8,149)

Showing posts 162,961 - 162,980 of199,116
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186521
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he ever said that procreation is a requirement for marriage, only that procreation is closely related to marriage. And of course it is.
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.
Anonymous

Cropseyville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186522
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

It's very obvious that non of you people work! Stop ranting about non sensible irritance and go get a job you lo$ers!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186523
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
VV
As I've pointed out not all who oppose SSM are straight, some are gay, and have publicly stated such.
That's why you will note that in the opening line of my comment I specifically said, "Every single solitary straight..."

The point of my comment is that when a straight person comes out strongly against same-sex marriage, they tend to (at the same time) condemn homosexuality.

It's through their condemnation of homosexuality that they explicitly announce their own orientation and its superiority.

My post was in response to someone who claimed that homosexual people do not need to "come out of the closet". This person also insinuated that straight people do not come out of the closet--do not announce their orientation. And I don't agree...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186524
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're discussing same sex marriage laws and Jar wrote: "Incest laws come from not wanting children with a third eye or some other defect. Gays and lesbians can't reproduce as a couple so nothing to worry about there." It seems to me, this argues procreation and marriage are related.
Now, we get another story where marriage has nothing to do with procretion.
I'd contend, the reason people support same sex marriage are emotional, not rational.
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...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186525
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186526
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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 donít 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186527
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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 donít 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

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186528
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186529
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186530
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Some more off topic Frankie nonsense-

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186531
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

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

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186532
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186533
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186534
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186535
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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 donít 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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186536
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186537
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186538
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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 isnít easy to be that unreasonable
Big D

Modesto, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186539
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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 donít like it when they re-name stuff

I didnít like it when they re-named Cape Canaveral Cape Kennedy

I didnít 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186540
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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 donít 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 donít 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 peopleís behavior though taxation.

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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 162,961 - 162,980 of199,116
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••

Fire Weather Watch for Riverside County was issued at April 24 at 1:32AM PDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••