Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201892 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.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191238 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I said nothing about changing homosexuality. I simply exposed your lie, science can still find no valid reason for homosexuality, leaving it a defective sexual aberration.
2. You denied that homosexuality is a recognized defect in cultures across human history. I simply asked you to name one where that is not so.
In fact, here is an interesting expose
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-presi... -
of-apa-says-organization-contr olled-by-gay-rights-movement/
Smile.
Life site news!?
LOL.
Chimerism is a recognized defect, right?
:)

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191239 May 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Amen, sister friend. But what do you expect from someone who can't even determine that this topic is NOT about polygamy? He's clearly retarded.
Exactly!

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191240 May 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not about Frankie either sister friend. But what do you expect from an angry idiot?
Exactly what you post.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191241 May 7, 2013
Mathew629 wrote:
I think it's a sad day when a "Judge" can over take a majority vote, but still have swear before GOD to tell the truth. Are they not trying to be on both sides of the fence. Maybe there the ones in closet? Why does are money say in GOD we trust? Why is it every court room? HMMMMMM Where in the Bible does it say Adam and Steve? But it does say that Homosexual activity is an ABOMINATION. Just word up for you confused people out there that want have sex with your brother or sister...I know, how about we make it legal to have 20 wives, marry my mother and sleep with Dad...just as stupid
That's the judge's job.
Eve was made from Adam's rib. Eve would have had Adam's DNA. Eve would have been a man. Look's like god made Adam and Steve after all.
And Jesus had two dads.
And the Bible does say that clam chowder is an ABOMINATION.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191242 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, not all were deemed "marriage", however, "gay marriage" is a modern western invention.
So is the internet. Now that you know that, are you going to stop using it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Also same sex sexual behavior is not new. Why was there no sustained, with deep historical roots, cross cultural, cross time practice of same sex marriage, at least in Western Civilization?
What difference does it make?
We are talking about the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191243 May 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh like the voters of California? They voted in 2000, prop 22, to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Apparently their votes didn't count. So they voted again. Still their votes don't count. Where is the justice for them Big D? You speak of the values of the country, yet ignore the voters? So much for patriotic Americans exercising their right to vote. The People's Republic of California does not care.
Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?
No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.
And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#191244 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.
Hey monster, doesn't science consider chimerism a defect?
Should you have been aborted?
LOL!

Why would a "marriage" you got involved in be considered real?
:)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191245 May 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you say Delaware?
Sure!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191246 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
And again if the majority of brown eyed people voted to deny rights to blue eyed people that too would be tossed out for being unconstitutional, and if the vote happens again, you don’t have the votes to keep it in place anymore anyway
And then if the vote doesn't turn out the way we like, we'll vote again! Until it finally does and then no more.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191247 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what you post.
Why are you a bigot?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191248 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the judge's job.
Eve was made from Adam's rib. Eve would have had Adam's DNA. Eve would have been a man. Look's like god made Adam and Steve after all.
And Jesus had two dads.
And the Bible does say that clam chowder is an ABOMINATION.
Even if that were true, it would be a non issue.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191249 May 7, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Way too wordy! Chop out 80% and repost. You can do it. It's crying out for heavy editing, don't make me do it!
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191250 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
So is the internet. Now that you know that, are you going to stop using it?
<quoted text>
What difference does it make?
We are talking about the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
Aren't you one of those dopes who believes a poly marriage asks for too much protection? That there's only enough protection for two in a marriage? So therefore poly should not be allowed?

Oh! That's right, you're the one who says that "polygamy is not an equal rights issue, it just isn't".

Yes indeed. We are talking about the Constitutional right to equal protection. You would limit it.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191251 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we have three branches of government and checks and balances?
No Californian who dislikes the idea of gay marriage has to marry someone of the same sex, so no harm is coming to them.
And if those who voted for Prop H8 decide not to vote ever again, that's a good thing.
Right! We'll keep voting on it till it comes out right dammit!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191253 May 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey monster, doesn't science consider chimerism a defect?
Should you have been aborted?
LOL!
Why would a "marriage" you got involved in be considered real?
:)
Where's "Marram"?

Who insists Rose_NoHo's post are "intelligent and insightful".

I'd hate for him to miss this gem of intelligence and insight.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191254 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
Astrology is silly nonsense. I am a scientist.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191255 May 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a Virgo trait. I'm ruled by my planets.
You surely are wordy. You lose your audience that way, don't make us work so hard. But aside from that, I kinda like your passion. You are not so angry and nasty as so many of the people of tolerance and diversity.

I hope you get what you want. It makes me happy when people find each other and create a family, I'm silly like that. Good luck.

Marriage. There is no one right way!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#191256 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.
2. We've been down this road before. I've posted the earliest records of berdaches and read them. Aside from roles you listed that have no roots in history, the others are one time notes or rumors that history records. However, the most often role of Indian transvestites is as the term denotes, male prostitutes. They were most often passed around, abused and mocked. You only confirm what I noted. Societal rejection of homosexuality is cross cultural.
3. The assertion you made was that gay marriage was prevalent. You simply noted the presence of homosexuality. Again, the actual record of gay 'marriages' can be counted on one hand.
Smile.
We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".

If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?

As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."

You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.

Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".
Big D

Modesto, CA

#191257 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not real marriages.
Yes they are, they are legal marriages as legal as anyone else’s

Your opinion of their marriage is no more important than my low opinion of your marriage, the only opinion that has any weight, any weight at all, is the legal opinion, and they ARE married.... period
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#191258 May 7, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are, they are legal marriages as legal as anyone else’s
Your opinion of their marriage is no more important than my low opinion of your marriage, the only opinion that has any weight, any weight at all, is the legal opinion, and they ARE married.... period
"...my low opinion of your marriage."

Nice!

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
Drugs on rise in Palm Springs (Sep '07) Jan 16 Jstlookin 28
Complaint CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (Jan '08) Jan 10 Aunt Deb 52
News Teens protest legislation (Mar '06) Jan 9 forum DOA 236
I'm gay too Jan 8 SeanDom 3
News Here's The Big Problem With Electric Cars Elon ... Jan 3 SnottyGurl 3
News Tesla puts car charging station in Fort MacLeod Jan 3 SnottyGurl 1
News CRIMESTOPPERS: Coachella Valley's Most Wanted (Jul '08) Jan 3 Curios 7

Palm Springs Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Palm Springs Mortgages