Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,038

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.

Full Story

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190019 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no... more churches today wish to be able to preform same sex marriages than 5 years ago.
But it hasnít 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
The fastest growing religions in America are Mormonism and Islam. Seventh Day Adventist have the largest percentage growth.

None of those are favorable to ss marriage.

Once again, I have posted the facts and nothing but the facts. You are the one distorting truth with hate.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190020 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.
<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.
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not try being honest? Your objection to same sex marriage is based upon your religion.
'Just the facts' gets called on lying. What does she do? Tries to shift from facts to faith.

Hilariously idiotic.

Change your avatar honey, it's just wrong...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190021 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.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The start of any movement is, by definition, slow. Look at the history of any major change in policy. It doesn't start out with tens of millions of people spontaneously supporting an idea.
Even Christianity started out with a few followers.
You're a dying breed; at least for the foreseeable future.
"Slow"???

How about going BACKWARDS! Those open and affirming denominations are bleeding like a Boston terrorist meeting reality!

Smile.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190022 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all little boy, you cry and whine when others give you what you hand out.
makes you so upset.. it is sad, and funny, but sometimes I feel guilty over making fun of someone so pathetic, it is like making fun of mentally disabled people
I "cry and whine". I'm "pathetic". You feel guilty. "It's sad"! Too Funny!

Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190023 Apr 24, 2013
Big D is sad for me and feels guilty! Posting to me is like making fun of a mentally disabled person.

YUK!YUK!YUK! I love this silly jackass infested thread!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190024 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
"Slow"???
How about going BACKWARDS! Those open and affirming denominations are bleeding like a Boston terrorist meeting reality!
Smile.
Where do you get your numbers? Have a look at this article, which indicates that ALL churches are losing members; including evangelicals. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-fi...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190025 Apr 24, 2013
Just for you Big D. For when I make you very sad.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#190026 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The fastest growing religions in America are Mormonism and Islam. Seventh Day Adventist have the largest percentage growth.
None of those are favorable to ss marriage.
Once again, I have posted the facts and nothing but the facts. You are the one distorting truth with hate.
Smile.
Once again you have posted the facts?!? Hell, you've NEVER posted a fact that I can recall. Remember your "facts" about how gays are the result of "epi-genetic mistakes"? There's nothing factual about that.

I wouldn't believe you even if your tongue came notarized.
Mike the Pike

Glenn, CA

#190027 Apr 24, 2013
My church is growing just fine! We are doing marijuana as our main sacrament and marrying all mixtures of people and animals! Don't read the bible much because readin is not hi on my list!
armand

Asia/Pacific Region

#190028 Apr 24, 2013
Hi I'm 20 years old I'm cool masculin hmm searching for mature or dad hmmm can contact me 25cf6822 or 02197988154 come on meet me or if u can married me

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190029 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.
<quoted text>
"Slow"???
How about going BACKWARDS! Those open and affirming denominations are bleeding like a Boston terrorist meeting reality!
Smile.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get your numbers? Have a look at this article, which indicates that ALL churches are losing members; including evangelicals. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-fi...
I stated no numbers.

You need to read your article again.

Nothing you said changes the fact that calling ss couples married hurts churches that endorse it.

Smile.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#190030 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you have posted the facts?!? Hell, you've NEVER posted a fact that I can recall. Remember your "facts" about how gays are the result of "epi-genetic mistakes"? There's nothing factual about that.
I wouldn't believe you even if your tongue came notarized.
Or that your argument about slow change was hogwash.

smirk.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#190031 Apr 24, 2013
armand wrote:
Hi I'm 20 years old I'm cool masculin hmm searching for mature or dad hmmm can contact me 25cf6822 or 02197988154 come on meet me or if u can married me
You're on the wrong thread again Jizzy. And you're closer to 80 than you are to 20.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#190032 Apr 24, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is a dead argument, even the Supreme Court joked about it.
Should they deny anyone over 55 a marriage license, how about Vets that lost the use of the lower half of their bodies, should they be denied marriage licenses?
There is no law, anywhere, that will deny a couple a marriage license because they do not intend or cannot have children.
Procreation is a dead argument with respect to same sex marriage.
They hang onto that, because they donít have anything else to cling too, like rats running to the last dry spot on a sinking ship.
What then is the point? Why do men need to "marry" men, and women "marry" women?

If procreation is a "dead argument" there is no need to prohibit marriage between consenting blood relatives.
Allahu

Covina, CA

#190033 Apr 24, 2013
Mother of the two Boston bombers.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva:ďI Donít Care if My Youngest Son Is Killed.

I Donít Care If I Am Killed.

I Will Say Allahu Akbar!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190034 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.
While it can be argued that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, I think many simply miss the point that was made. Much of what was in the post to which you reply is factual. It has long been argued that the State was able to garner a compelling interest in the regulation of marriage due to it's ability to create a child. Agree or not those are the facts.

The State got into the marriage business under the guise of providing stability and legal protections to the potential children born from the union. This was also expanded into providing protections to the woman in such a union. Just as in each instance where the government has taken "freedom" from its citizens, it has come under the cloak of "protection."

Now, if we are to say that procreation is not a "requirement" of marriage, and it truly never has been it has simply been a potential, than one must revisit the entire idea of State interest in the matter at all.

So, the real question, as I have said before it: Should the government and the state get out of the marriage business?

To answer YES to that question is truly the only way that anyone is going to regain "RIGHTS" and "FREEDOMS."

To answer NO, and to continue on with this nonsense of granting equal "right's" to the homosexual community, is to once again relinquish freedom and right's under the false narrative that you are gaining either.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190035 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, then let's take back the Fourteenth Amendment and let people own one another. Let's allow slavery to flourish in the country again. Let's allow segregation of schools. Let's allow discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Such pesky government interference...
So you have lost the argument and now you are simply going to say stupid irrational sh$$?

Wipe your mouth, you are drooling.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, our country EVOLVES. It doesn't stay stagnant.
Sure does, see Article V US Constitution.

A judge doesn't "evolve" our country. The SCOTUS doesn't "evolve" out country. Only a 3/4th's ratification of the State Legislatures "evolve" this country.

You should read the Constitution, it really doesn't take that long.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Decisions are made and processes are created in a manner that you may not agree with. But you are powerless to do anything about them.
King George and the British Parliament used to say that too.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The LGBT Community is aware of the processes necessary to get the rights and protections of marriage that we feel, as citizens, we deserve.
We will work within those systems, whether you believe they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals.
Rightly or wrongly, these are the processes that we have access to at this point in the game.
What an interesting statement- "Whether they fall in line with the Constitution or not, in order to obtain our goals."

No truer words have ever been spoken, Constitution be damned, we will get what we want.

BTW, you included that silly line-"you believe". It has nothing to do with "MY" belief, my position on the Constitution is based on the OPINION of those who drafted and ratified it.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? The Madison Journal on the Constitutional Convention? The Anti-Federalist Papers? The transcripts of the ratification debates in the States?

If you answer NO, than I hardly find you even slightly qualified to comment on what is and is not Constitution.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
We like to refer to it as our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
If marriage is an "Unalienable Right" than is cannot be restricted- not by number, not by gender, not by race, not by ANYTHING!! Since we agree that it can be restricted as has been stated many times when mention of: incest, polygamy etc.; are mentioned it is merely a PRIVILEGE extended to the lucky few.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190036 Apr 24, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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.
<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.
Sterility isn't an issue for marriage, just like procreation isn't. That it matters for a marriage is your opinion. That notion a same sex couple who hold a marriage certificate is not married is your opinion. Apparently you cannot even keep up with yourself.

Your identity is known? Nope, no one here has a clue about who you are. You do repeat your BS claim that you're a lesbian trapped in a man's body while pretending you're also a chimera and a mutation. Which is it? Are you a man? Are you a chimera? Or are you a mutation? Until you can actually prove your "identity" I believe most of us here will just have to assume you're full of shit. The ol' Im a lesbian trapped in a man's body is a joke that was around before the internet existed. Get some new material.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190037 Apr 24, 2013
An observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Goverment could not and should not regulate the love between people - it is unconstitutional, it is private mater between individuals and nobody have right to dictate that relationship. I think we are on the same page here?
The marriage as goverment protected institution is not a registry of people in love, it is goverment enforced contract to protect procreation and set of tax breaks with same intention.
The reason why general public invest in procreation, because the future of the nation depends on it. The today children will pay tax tomorrow and cover the cost of these tax brakes
By the way, check out the report from SSA - we are at the real danger that in 50 years for every working person it would be 4 not working senior and two of them with Alzheimer's. Although US so far has a good chance to avoid it all Europe certainly goes to that future.
What in the name of Sam Hill does any of that have to do with same sex marriage? The number of gay individuals in a population appears to be somewhat constant. Probably something on the order of 2%. Permitting or not permitting marriage for same sex couples will have absolutely no bearing on life spans and debilitating diseases that accompany aging. The sum total of the "tax breaks" that occur due to same sex marriage will be far lower than that 2% of the population they comprise. Your argument is based upon pocket change, relatively speaking.

The benefits of marriage cover hundreds of items in addition to the tax breaks that protect procreation. Just how what percentage of tax breaks do you think actually do anything to protect procreation?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#190038 Apr 24, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
The start of any movement is, by definition, slow. Look at the history of any major change in policy. It doesn't start out with tens of millions of people spontaneously supporting an idea.
It took less than 3 years for Germany to go from a Free people to the Third Reich.

Sorry, I was just looking at history.

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
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 10 hr RiccardoFire 16,008
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sun No Time for Tea 5,084
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 27 Bucketeers 7,965
child molester at large in dhs Sep 25 Karen Wood 1
Review: Soho Sep 24 Mrs Matthew Olson 1
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) Sep 21 theos 2,275
Perrotte gains support for early release (Jun '07) Sep 20 ET SNELL 26

Palm Springs Jobs

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 ]