Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201864 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.

guest

Long Beach, CA

#204070 Jul 21, 2013
Rocky Hudsony wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't like that one, eh?
You have not posted anything likeable.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204071 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
That reminds me of the time I hired a Mexican to paint my back porch. I left him there and went and ran some errands. When I came back he was loading up his stuff in his truck in the front of the house and I asked him "Did you paint my porch already?" He said "It wasn't a porch, it was a Mercedes." Lo and behold he had painted my vintage Mercedes I keep in the backyard with house paint and a brush!
You already posted that lame joke.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204072 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.
The same applies to all of your posts.
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204073 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Reported! Angry homoerotic death threat!
Relax Jizzy. He implied his opinions were more valid than anyone else. I simply corrected him. Take a chill pill you moron.
"Do have a great day" You're such a fibber! You don't really want me to have a great day do you Jizzy you big dopey galoot?
YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times!
You need to calm down.
longoos

Monrovia, CA

#204078 Jul 21, 2013
The M's know squat.
Hank

Los Angeles, CA

#204079 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
For those who might have missed it. You'd say it was funny if I was gay.
What are you talking about? You are flaming gay. That ring of white dried crust around your mouth leaves no doubt!
guest

Long Beach, CA

#204082 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK don't. Fine. But if you want us to know what it means you will have to explain it. Not because we're dumb, but because you're dumb.
No.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#204083 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If I get any calmer I'll turn to rubber!
Sorry I called you a gimp the other day. It was out of line.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204085 Jul 21, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus Christ... Sometimes reading your posts is like herding cats.
Yes, there are absolute truths. If someone chops your head off, you die. That is an absolute truth.
Marriage, being a manmade construct, does not have absolute and universal parameters.
And, yes, I want to change the "historic" definition of marriage because the "historic" definition of marriage does not meet the needs of a segment of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of this country.
Don't throw "history" at me. If we based every single aspect of our lives on the way our ancestors interacted with their environment, then we'd still be hunter/gatherers; living in caves or some other such nonsense.
"Marriage" is no different than any other aspect of people's lives. It isn't static. It has changed multiple times over the eons and depending on which culture you live(d) in.
And talk about childish... You want your marriage to have a "distinct description".
Girl, if you walk into a room of people with your wife and they can't tell that you're married, to one another then you have more problems than just getting to own the "rights" to the word "marriage".
Having same-sex couples legally married in this country has done nothing to your marriage. You know it; I know it...
Ignoring all the gay twirl and ad homoan gay troll comments, you admit to the most radical dumbing down of the word marriage in all of human history.

Hence, the challenges about what relationships will then qualify for the dumbed down term. Your claim is,'it doesn't matter'.

Moreover, marriage will be no different than still calling sugar, sugar after numerous new ingredients are added. Again, your claim is,'it doesn't matter'.

Your claim of 'no effect', is the same one made about no-fault divorce and abortion. Idiotic at the time and devastating in the long run.

However, the reality is, the anus was not designed for intercourse, and a ss relationship will never be equal to marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204086 Jul 21, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Stop thinking, you're not verry good at it.
Marriage does not require the ability to reproduce.
Reproduction does not require a marriage.
When the laws change and require procreation, then come talk to us.
Again, I simply point out that the union of a diverse gendered couple creates and births entirely different outcomes than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple.
If homosexuals want to hijack the word that historically describes a heterosexual relationship, it does not change the distinctions, it simply creates a dishonest description of ss couples.
I don't think that is something to celebrate.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204087 Jul 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You still got nothing. Repetition = the argument of fools.
Guess what? You're still a c*nt, and I'm still legally married.
Smile.
I simply point out that the union of a diverse gendered couple creates and births entirely different outcomes than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered couple.
If homosexuals want to hijack the word that historically describes a heterosexual relationship, it does not change the distinctions, it simply creates a dishonest description of ss couples.
I don't think that is something to celebrate.

Oh, and guess what? You got nothing but a fake marriage.

Snicker.
Amy

Glendale, CA

#204091 Jul 21, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Can you please explain, just how the anus/intercourse sex problem affects Lesbains and the marriage between them as in two females.
Oh and BTY, if two Heterosexuals ( man and woman) are married, and enjoy anal sex, does that then some how lessen their marriage?
Let me guess, no, because its on for a man to have anal sex with a woman, right??????
It's obvious he doesn't like women, he only fantasizes about male sex.
Vealed

Monrovia, CA

#204095 Jul 21, 2013
Frankie wears a veil.

And eats Pork and veal.
Ghost of Trayvon Martin

Hazleton, PA

#204097 Jul 21, 2013
Anybody ever want a creampie from ghost juice. Trayvon be ready to play.
Ghost of Trayvon Martin

Hazleton, PA

#204101 Jul 21, 2013
I'll be anybody's friend that is not a creep, cracker nor wet back. That's how I roll now.
Vealed

Monrovia, CA

#204106 Jul 21, 2013
Stuff pork-chops coming up.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#204110 Jul 21, 2013
Poof wrote:
But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage..
http://thomists.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/gett...
Moreover, court decisions do indicate that the state’s interest in marriage is connected with procreation. Consider the following cases from the United States.
“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541
“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204112 Jul 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and guess what? You got nothing but a fake marriage.
Snicker.
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Would that be YOUR opinion, or is it some how backed up by facts????
SS couples will never ever be more than a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. A failure of mating behavior.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204113 Jul 21, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>But we both know and understand that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. its not a requirment in any state. So your point of being a steril marriage hold's no any water. We don't mandate procreation in a heterosexual marriage so how can you EVEN try to in same sex marriage. Now go away you really bore me.
As to "hijack the word", look it up fool, you will find that same sex marriage is found in the deffination.
We both know and understand no such thing.

Only a ss couple who need protection to have sex would tell a heterosexual couple who need protection not to procreate that it doesn't matter.

Ss couples just don't equate to marriage. You will never be more than 'marriage LIGHT'. REALLY light. So light, relationship would qualify!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#204114 Jul 21, 2013
Amy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious he doesn't like women, he only fantasizes about male sex.
You obviously don't know that I am a lesbian trapped in a straight man...

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.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
PROOF there are SMART Republicans 9 hr Middle of the road 20
He's baaccckkkk! 9 hr Middle of the road 33
Why are all the fires getting so big? 10 hr Middle of the road 61
CONSERVATIVE family values= GUTTER 11 hr Middle of the road 28
Here is what real scientist say about global wa... 11 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 31
TRUMP will SINK Republicans 11 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 44
News PG&E proposes removal of 33 trees in Chico 16 hr Here Is One 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richvale Mortgages