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
165,801 - 165,820 of 200,576 Comments Last updated 41 min ago

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#189911 Apr 23, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are all great reasons, but, you forgot the most important one. Gay Marriage should be legal because we deserve equal rights and we’re Americans.
Why do u continue to argue for a right which you already possess, but do not wish to exercise it like any other American?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#189913 Apr 23, 2013
.~

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#189915 Apr 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You silly twit, the law is a mockery when it denies reality.
I do hope you're not trying to impose your reality on anyone. As it is you're dishonest about your identity, so the rest of your blathering is suspect.
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my 'opinion' that ss couples will only ever be a duplicated sterile half of marriage.
Oh really? Then why do you keep repeating this opinion?
Frankie Rizzo

Los Angeles, CA

#189916 Apr 23, 2013
The first time I did it, the guy told me to pretend its candy. He gave me five dollars afterwards as I wiped my mouth on my sleeve.
SOft Racing

United States

#189917 Apr 23, 2013
Where the Hottei ?
An observer

Mountain View, CA

#189918 Apr 23, 2013
Huge misguding and propaganda goes around.

Marriage institute is not a personal preference and it is not about the rights or love.
It is a privilege establish by the society to the women, let her comfortable to have a child and be financially protected if man decide to live her after having sex with her.
If the married couple have love and live together they don't need a goverment to secure that living.

That institution made to share responsibility for the result of sex relationship which could end up with birth of child.
In many cultures marriage without children is annulled or could be annulled by that reason. Christian based culture more generos and not making the birth a contegency on the protection guaranties to the women.

If people want to have a protection on contract they need to write one and enforce it under regular law regardless to the fact that they have sexull intercourse or not.

But the real motive is a goverment benefits to the marriage institute.
The vote result shows that general public has no interest in sponsoring tax breaks for inheritance of individual who could not produce children. That tax break was design to protect children and women who could earn money because she was carring children.

Why are friends passing property to each other must be treated differently if they are f... or not? We all love friends, parents, siblings , children without sexual relationship and we want them the same privileges in the tax as well unfortunately we can't afford it now.(or may be we should vote on it?)

You see the question do we want to give tax brakes to rich homosectual or not, is the question for the majority and have nothing to do with human rights.
Unfortunaly the have huge money and good lobby to fix result of people vote.
SOft Racing

United States

#189919 Apr 23, 2013
Again 92832. The S.S. kicks.You Just dont see your BLESSING.I SO, WISH Coud LIVE THERE. I Could, But not Style... BrAmPp...
SOft Racing

United States

#189920 Apr 23, 2013
Sk8, Worship , Devotions,, Ride moto, DEVOTIONS ....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#189921 Apr 23, 2013
An observer wrote:
Huge misguding and propaganda goes around.
Marriage institute is not a personal preference and it is not about the rights or love.
It is a privilege establish by the society to the women, let her comfortable to have a child and be financially protected if man decide to live her after having sex with her.
If the married couple have love and live together they don't need a goverment to secure that living.
That institution made to share responsibility for the result of sex relationship which could end up with birth of child.
In many cultures marriage without children is annulled or could be annulled by that reason. Christian based culture more generos and not making the birth a contegency on the protection guaranties to the women.
If people want to have a protection on contract they need to write one and enforce it under regular law regardless to the fact that they have sexull intercourse or not.
But the real motive is a goverment benefits to the marriage institute.
The vote result shows that general public has no interest in sponsoring tax breaks for inheritance of individual who could not produce children. That tax break was design to protect children and women who could earn money because she was carring children.
Why are friends passing property to each other must be treated differently if they are f... or not? We all love friends, parents, siblings , children without sexual relationship and we want them the same privileges in the tax as well unfortunately we can't afford it now.(or may be we should vote on it?)
You see the question do we want to give tax brakes to rich homosectual or not, is the question for the majority and have nothing to do with human rights.
Unfortunaly the have huge money and good lobby to fix result of people vote.
Newsflash!

We live in US of A, procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Ergo the rest of your comment regarding financial benefits for women with children is a bit irrelevant in the matter of the question of validating same sex marriage in the US.

The real motive for most couples in the US, apparently, is a pronouncement of love which is recognised in marriage. The legal ramifications of the contract are icing on the cake.
Realtalkdotcom

Sacramento, CA

#189922 Apr 23, 2013
An observer wrote:
Huge misguding and propaganda goes around.
Marriage institute is not a personal preference and it is not about the rights or love.
It is a privilege establish by the society to the women, let her comfortable to have a child and be financially protected if man decide to live her after having sex with her.
If the married couple have love and live together they don't need a goverment to secure that living.
That institution made to share responsibility for the result of sex relationship which could end up with birth of child.
In many cultures marriage without children is annulled or could be annulled by that reason. Christian based culture more generos and not making the birth a contegency on the protection guaranties to the women.
If people want to have a protection on contract they need to write one and enforce it under regular law regardless to the fact that they have sexull intercourse or not.
But the real motive is a goverment benefits to the marriage institute.
The vote result shows that general public has no interest in sponsoring tax breaks for inheritance of individual who could not produce children. That tax break was design to protect children and women who could earn money because she was carring children.
Why are friends passing property to each other must be treated differently if they are f... or not? We all love friends, parents, siblings , children without sexual relationship and we want them the same privileges in the tax as well unfortunately we can't afford it now.(or may be we should vote on it?)
You see the question do we want to give tax brakes to rich homosectual or not, is the question for the majority and have nothing to do with human rights.
Unfortunaly the have huge money and good lobby to fix result of people vote.
OMG dude r u f'ing kidding me? U have the spelling and grammar of an 8 yr old. Please tell me u r a foreigner, that is currently enrolled in an English as a second language class.
Fundamentalist

Honeydew, South Africa

#189923 Apr 23, 2013
New revelation!!!

I think the gay hype is the alien invasion the world is talking about.... The whole idea around homosexuality reality is alien even to their DNA....
The transformation the human being must go through to become gay is alien..... They take up all levels of society demanding rights that is ALIEN....
Ya I can see the invasion and yes the Aliens are here....

Well my Alien friends your fight for rights is warping society to an alienated mind-set as never before, it is foreign to the norm that society should be building values on. This alien invasion is positioned in all levels of society influenced from right on top of world influence. Well you can draw in the Bible as a consion, but the fight all across the planet for an alien reasoning is big. Yes, the aliens are calling victim as far as they go....Victims of what? Society not wanting this invasion, I know the weed with the good seed will mature until the weed can be removed, plucked out from the human heart.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#189924 Apr 23, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact of the matter is, the dying churches are the liberal 'open and affirming' denominations.
By 'political', you must mean selling their soul to support the desecration of marriage and family
Smile.
fact of the matter is, you're generalizing.

our " open and affirming" congregation is still growing, as are several others that I'm familiar with. our congregation is currently experiencing the highest membership since we were established in the 60's.
Butt, as usual, you know more than everyone else.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189925 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You silly twit, the law is a mockery when it denies reality.

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not my 'opinion' that ss couples will only ever be a duplicated sterile half of marriage.
void of a brain wrote:
<quoted text>
I do hope you're not trying to impose your reality on anyone. As it is you're dishonest about your identity, so the rest of your blathering is suspect.
<quoted text>
Oh really? Then why do you keep repeating this opinion?
Funny.

-I'm one of the rare ones on here where my identity IS known. But that hardly changes the fact that a law is corrupt when it denies reality.

-Here are the facts I state;

1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.

2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.

Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189926 Apr 24, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Newsflash!
We live in US of A, procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. Ergo the rest of your comment regarding financial benefits for women with children is a bit irrelevant in the matter of the question of validating same sex marriage in the US.
The real motive for most couples in the US, apparently, is a pronouncement of love which is recognised in marriage. The legal ramifications of the contract are icing on the cake.
So you'd be fine with calling love relationships marriage, and deleting the legal ramifications?

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189927 Apr 24, 2013
Realtalkdotcom wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG dude r u f'ing kidding me? U have the spelling and grammar of an 8 yr old. Please tell me u r a foreigner, that is currently enrolled in an English as a second language class.
Wow, that was the most logical argument I have ever read on here!

How old r u???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#189928 Apr 24, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
fact of the matter is, you're generalizing.
our " open and affirming" congregation is still growing, as are several others that I'm familiar with. our congregation is currently experiencing the highest membership since we were established in the 60's.
Butt, as usual, you know more than everyone else.
The supposed growth of your congregation is no indicator of denominational growth. Pick an open and affirming denomination, and let's look. Your choice.

I generalized nothing, you gay twirled.

Again.

Smile.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#189929 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact of the matter is, the dying churches are the liberal 'open and affirming' denominations.
By 'political', you must mean selling their soul to support the desecration of marriage and family
Smile.
Oh no... more churches today wish to be able to preform same sex marriages than 5 years ago.

But it hasn’t been fast enough

Your problem is that you are selling ignorance and hate, and that just does not sell as well as it used to

You have attempted in the last 50 years to shore up your numbers by aligning with a political party, but that has also backfired
Trust Jesus

Martin, TN

#189930 Apr 24, 2013
God overruled it a long time ago...Trust Jesus

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#189932 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>You silly twit, the law is a mockery when it denies reality.
KiMare wrote: YeT
<quoted text>
It is not my 'opinion' that ss couples will only ever be a duplicated sterile half of marriage.
<quoted text>
Funny.
-I'm one of the rare ones on here where my identity IS known. But that hardly changes the fact that a law is corrupt when it denies reality.
-Here are the facts I state;
1. Ss couple are duplicates of one gender.
2. Ss couples are mutually incapable of procreation.
Please tell me what part of that is my opinion?
Smile.
The part where you think we should be denied marriage is where your opinion comes in.

Fact: there is no reason to deny SS marriage the same legal status as one penis/ one vagina marriages.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#189933 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The supposed growth of your congregation is no indicator of denominational growth. Pick an open and affirming denomination, and let's look. Your choice.
I generalized nothing, you gay twirled.
Again.
Smile.
Again you generalize, because there are no main line denominations in the United States that are exploding with growth. The only congregations that are exploding with growth are the right wing wackadoodle mega churches and those are independent.

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.

Palm Springs Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 39 min Tank ever 7,926
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Aug 26 matches lighters 15,961
Review: Profix Jewerly And Watch Repair Aug 25 Jonnie S 1
Tony Casas, 77; Former Prisons Official Worked ... (Sep '07) Aug 25 sex 692
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Aug 24 Mono 4,996
City Manager Martin Magana hires Charles "Chuck... Aug 21 Commander Bunny 9
Touch Of Class Consignments, Cathedral City, ca. (Aug '13) Aug 19 Ned 123
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palm Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palm Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••