Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 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: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#185987 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe me I have paid my fair share of taxes in my life, most of which goes to education of which I don't have children so as far as that goes I and every other gay person without children are the ones paying into society's costs without reaping the benefits. Maybe you should worry about the unwed mothers that keep popping out kids to get bigger food stamp checks and all of the other fee crap we give people. They are the ones depleting our resources yes the mothers and children.
Jared, Kimare, I've decided, is a lost cause.

He has horrible ideas and beliefs about gays. None of them are based on firm and established science.

He bases his belief that marriage should be reserved only for those couples who are going to have children.

Elderly, sterile, and couples who don't want children SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry under his notion of "ideal marriage".

He would severely restrict people's rights.

He believes that gays should be cured and eventually eliminated from the face of the planet.

He is an extremist and frightening.

I believe he's unreachable at this point.

The only reason to engage him is to point out flaws in his arguments so that others can see them as well.

But don't think that you will ever have an impact on his ridiculous and ignorant comments. I've dealt with this twisted person for over two years.

Talking to him is futile.
Dorn

Altadena, CA

#185988 Apr 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Cochrane died in 2005 of a brain tumor.
It fits that our man "Tommy Cochrane" AKA "Mr. Anderson" AKA "Hemp telelgraph" named himself after a man who succeeded in letting his client get away with a brutal double murder.
Tommy Cochrane is a great sideshow. Just like Johnny was!
Johnny Cochran was an excellent lawyer who kept an innocent man from being framed for murder.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185989 Apr 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Jared, Kimare, I've decided, is a lost cause.
He has horrible ideas and beliefs about gays. None of them are based on firm and established science.
He bases his belief that marriage should be reserved only for those couples who are going to have children.
Elderly, sterile, and couples who don't want children SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry under his notion of "ideal marriage".
He would severely restrict people's rights.
He believes that gays should be cured and eventually eliminated from the face of the planet.
He is an extremist and frightening.
I believe he's unreachable at this point.
The only reason to engage him is to point out flaws in his arguments so that others can see them as well.
But don't think that you will ever have an impact on his ridiculous and ignorant comments. I've dealt with this twisted person for over two years.
Talking to him is futile.
Yes

there is good news however, now that they have.... come out of the closet... so to speak, the foundation of their belief is plainly visible to all.

They are spreading the word, and we have heard the word.... and the word is HATE

and people are leaving their churches in droves
Anonymous

Pascoag, RI

#185990 Apr 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Loosen up toots. Have some fun. Jesus likes it when you're having fun and happy.
I am having fun:)
Anonymous

Pascoag, RI

#185991 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was married until I was honest with myself and now I'm happy with men.
Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
Anonymous

Pascoag, RI

#185992 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Historically things evolve. I know you religious freaks don't like the theory of evolution that is based on science not some fictional story. Really an ark that held 2 of every animal for how long? Mathematically impossible for a boat to have been that large. Women had no rights at one time nor did blacks. So historically evolving as a society looks pretty damn good for me I would say. It's bigots and people that speak hatred like you that need to let others live their lives how they want not how you want them to. I could care less what you do sexually and with who so why are you so concerned with what I do sexually and with who? Curiosity?
Please, teach us your ways oh great Jared! Your words of wisdom are those to live by!;)
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185993 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
Did your imaginary playmate tell you this? Or do you think you are psychic?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185995 Apr 1, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So in your theory couples that never bear children aren't really married? If its just for mating and reproduction?
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#185996 Apr 1, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your government needs to IMMEDIATELY stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not willing to sign a BINDING contract that their marriage WILL RESULT in children.
If these couples cannot or will not produce children, then the government should have the ability to annul such marriages--maybe even filing criminal charges against such couples break such laws.
Stop sterile and elderly couples from marrying. Stop couples who have no interest in children from marrying.
Any other marriage, as you say, is simply supporting friendships.
Waitaminit VV. SSM advocates often stress marriage is about love, yet do not argue the state annul marriages of couples who are no longer "in love", or require a "love test", prior to issuance of a marriage license. Why?

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#185997 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's because you met the wrong woman, she turned you! I blame her! And of course you can smoke a mean pole, you know what feels good;)
I didn't marry the wrong woman I hadn't yet met the right man. ;)

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#185998 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>Please, teach us your ways oh great Jared! Your words of wisdom are those to live by!;)
Thank you!!
Big D

Modesto, CA

#185999 Apr 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
Very lame try

If it applies to same sex couples it applies to older couples or vets with injuries or even those that choose not to have children.

This argument was already laughed out of the supreme court, do you think you will do better than the lawyers there did?
It is a dead argument, already put in its proper place ( the trash receptacle ) by the courts.

There is no requirement for a marriage license to have the intention or even ability to have children.

I don’t care about divorce or annulment, you can have your marriage dissolved for absolutely no reason at all if either party wants a divorce, we are talking about requirements for a marriage license only.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186000 Apr 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try. Individual couples who cannot or choose not, to bear children, don't invalidate the premise as a whole. Do you have an alternative theory as to why marriage developed, and there's not a cross cultural cross time sustained ssm structure with deep seated roots?
You know, just because something isn't openly discussed in history does not mean it didn't take place. There is an 11,600 year old drawing on a cave in Sicily that depicts homosexuality.

You won't likely find that in a traditional history book.

But given the age, I believe it qualifies as an example of how homosexual behavior has "deep seated roots" in the society of mankind.

Other depictions have been found that are 9,000 years old and over 4,000 years old.

Keep in mind that the Jewish race is believed to be about 3,800 years old.

So homosexuality was in place LONG before the name Yahweh was ever uttered from someone's lips.

Have I proven my point?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186001 Apr 1, 2013
Dorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnny Cochran was an excellent lawyer who kept an innocent man from being framed for murder.
Too funny!

He was an excellent lawyer. But OJ is GUILTY as charged. The glove fit.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186002 Apr 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Did your imaginary playmate tell you this? Or do you think you are psychic?
Here we go again. She didn't mention God in the post you responded to. YOU DID dummy. And then you whine about people posting religious stuff.

You're OFF TOPIC. Go start a GOD thread.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186003 Apr 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
Very lame try
If it applies to same sex couples it applies to older couples or vets with injuries or even those that choose not to have children.
This argument was already laughed out of the supreme court, do you think you will do better than the lawyers there did?
It is a dead argument, already put in its proper place ( the trash receptacle ) by the courts.
There is no requirement for a marriage license to have the intention or even ability to have children.
I don’t care about divorce or annulment, you can have your marriage dissolved for absolutely no reason at all if either party wants a divorce, we are talking about requirements for a marriage license only.
They didn't laugh the argument out of court. They politely laughed at the lame joke about older people procreating.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186004 Apr 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit VV. SSM advocates often stress marriage is about love, yet do not argue the state annul marriages of couples who are no longer "in love", or require a "love test", prior to issuance of a marriage license. Why?
Because the reason that two people get married is none of the state's buisness.

That's been our argument all along. You guys are the ones who keep saying that marriage is about child rearing. Yet the state does not mandate child rearing in order to obtain a license and get married.

It would be just as ridiculous for the state to insist that everyone who gets married must be in love.

As I've pointed out to Kimare, there are dozens of reasons that people get married. Some get married because of an unplanned pregnancy. Some get married in order to gain stability. Some get married for money. Some get married based on the looks of their spouse. Some get married in order to increase their station in life (i.e. a poor man marries into a wealthy family). Some get married out of love. Some get married for the purpose of creating a family.

Nobody knows the real reason every single person gets married.

And the state has never set limits as to "why" someone can get married. Well, the only limit I can think of is that the the state will not allow someone to marry who is already married to someone else. You must first go through a divorce. Then you can get married.

Bottom line, the state will never mandate that offspring must be planned prior to a marriage. And the state will never mandate that deep and unabiding love exist throughout a marriage.

As far as I know, the words "children" or "love" aren't mentioned on any marriage license.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186005 Apr 1, 2013
Country-Girl22 wrote:
<quoted text>I am having fun:)
Good! Big D's not. He's pissed off about other people's religion.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186006 Apr 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't laugh the argument out of court. They politely laughed at the lame joke about older people procreating.
LOL so you think this is your big ticket to defeat Same Sex marriage, I will let all the other people that cannot or intend not to have children know.

The argument stopped there, after those comments there was no further push as "procreation" as any argument against same sex marriage as the lawyers had no response, there was nothing they coul do to separate same sex couples and punish them, without including a lot of other folks they didn’t intend to punish.

it is still a dead argument, going nowhere except amongst the incredibly ignorant

If however you wish to further pursue this line of argument, please show me where.... anywhere in the US, that the ability or intent to have children is a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license.

I am not interested in divorce or annulment as that takes one party in the marriage to desire one, I am talking about a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#186007 Apr 1, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
Your side has Hemp Head....or whatever.....and my side has a Bluto. Neck and neck....
:-D
Hemp Telelgraph. Can't even spell his own name.

That dopey jackass Big D, always ranting about religion, is on my side too. Oy vey.

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.

Rowland Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
E. Randol Schoenberg Fails, Cries, Wets 3 hr Paul Linksantay 2
were his all the og sgv taggers at (Dec '07) 5 hr Sssssatan 1,038
East Side Dukes (Jan '10) 5 hr Sssssatan 125
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 6 hr Truth_Hurts01 32,610
News Orange teen inspired to help by her experiences 8 hr OCC 2
ssk gangsters (Jan '13) 12 hr Esbp 142
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 13 hr Davis 6,873

Rowland Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rowland Heights Mortgages