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 (Page 8,656)

Showing posts 173,101 - 173,120 of200,202
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198932
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're comparing the institution of marriage, the union of husband and wife, to those things?
No, I'm comparing marriage inequality to those things. And I'll go further and add heterosexism to that list.

The institution of open and legal slavery has all but disappeared from the planet. Compare that to how prevalent slavery has been throughout time and in different cultures. The earliest indication of slavery was in 1760 BC.

"David P. Forsythe wrote:'The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom'".

However, in 1981 the country Mauritania abolished legal slavery--the last country on the planet to do so.

An institution that existed legally for nearly 4,000 years; maybe longer, came to an end.

Societies simply stopped tolerating it.

Societies around the globe have stopped tolerating marriage inequality as well. They're stopping heterosexist ideology as well.

Openly LGBT individuals are seeking and getting equal rights. The days of discrimination and prejudice are fading away.

In a few generations folks will look back at these times and say, "Why did our ancestors make such a big deal about being gay? It's just another characteristic like being blond or being tall or being Caucasian or being left-handed, etc."
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198933
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? It doesn't bother me in the leaset. I have never said anything disparaging about poly. There is a difference between discussing and posting the same thing over and over in an attempt to stir up drama. Discuss. Do you have points to make? Please make them. I am listening.
You haven't been listening so far, what's changed?

All I've seen is a moronic troll trashing Ronald and his innocent dog's name and reputation.
laughing man

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198934
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

very enlightened vegetable wrote:
<quoted text>
Societies simply stopped tolerating it.
We are long overdue tolerating Der Sphincter!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198935
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm comparing marriage inequality to those things. And I'll go further and add heterosexism to that list.
The institution of open and legal slavery has all but disappeared from the planet. Compare that to how prevalent slavery has been throughout time and in different cultures. The earliest indication of slavery was in 1760 BC.
"David P. Forsythe wrote:'The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom'".
However, in 1981 the country Mauritania abolished legal slavery--the last country on the planet to do so.
An institution that existed legally for nearly 4,000 years; maybe longer, came to an end.
Societies simply stopped tolerating it.
Societies around the globe have stopped tolerating marriage inequality as well. They're stopping heterosexist ideology as well.
Openly LGBT individuals are seeking and getting equal rights. The days of discrimination and prejudice are fading away.
In a few generations folks will look back at these times and say, "Why did our ancestors make such a big deal about being gay? It's just another characteristic like being blond or being tall or being Caucasian or being left-handed, etc."
Except for poly and incest marriage, right?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198936
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: I haven't given an opinion, I'm only mocking. SCOTUS ruled that ss couples are equal to marriage. Reality is not listening. Ss couples are still ever only a mutually sterile, duplicate gendered half of marriage. Maybe SCOTUS needs a unanimous decision??? Think that will work??? Smirk.
<quoted text>
Hardly.
This isn't rocket science, are you really that stupid?
Sterility in opposite sex couples indicates a injury or birth defect.
Mutually sterility in ss couples is a design conflict. Simply impossible.
However, the bottom line is still this;
Reality is disobeying SCOTUS!!! What is Obama going to do now??? Someone needs to file suit.
VV, where are you?
Sterility is to marriage as a tennis racket is to a bicycle. Both are loosely related, but not dependent on the other.

A union between heterosexual couples--married or unmarried--MAY result in offspring. There isn't a guarantee that when an opposite-gender couple gets together they will create children. They may decide for whatever reason that they don't want children.

This isn't a design conflict. It's a matter making a conscious decision.

These couples married one another for reasons OTHER than procreation.

Most same-gender couples want to marry for reasons OTHER than procreation. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that a same-gender couple is incapable of adopting children, if that's something they wish to do.

You keep throwing an opposite-gender couple's ability to procreate into the argument.

But that's disingenuous. And you know it. You only keep using it because it's basically the only thing you've got.

You don't want to throw religion into this argument because you know you'll lose both the argument and the support of some of the others in this forum.

Same-gender couples fall in love, just like opposite-gender couples. They wish to tie their lives together, legally, emotionally, physically, etc.

And that's the crux of the Supreme Court's decision. There is no difference in the eyes of the law. You cannot treat one couple different than another couple simply because the gender composition isn't the same.

Stop using children to defend your obvious hatred and fear of homosexuality.

For whatever reason, you want homosexuality to disappear from the planet. And that's not going to happen.

It's time you stopped trying to live in a make-believe world where gays shouldn't exist. To continue to live in such a world is indicative of delusional thought processes.

Go get some help to deal with your obvious hatred and/or fear of homosexuality. You'll be a happier person and I know those of us who come to this room will be happier as well.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198937
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't been listening so far, what's changed?
All I've seen is a moronic troll trashing Ronald and his innocent dog's name and reputation.
Did you miss the post where I indicated that I was behaving like you, to demonstrate how idiotic some of your squawking was coming across? If you think I was behaving like a troll, look in the mirror. I was making a point. I'm sorry you were unable to see that.
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198938
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

By the way Frankie, I didn't see any additional points made about poly. I anxiously await any new discussion points you may have.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198939
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Sterility is to marriage as a tennis racket is to a bicycle. Both are loosely related, but not dependent on the other.
A union between heterosexual couples--married or unmarried--MAY result in offspring. There isn't a guarantee that when an opposite-gender couple gets together they will create children. They may decide for whatever reason that they don't want children.
This isn't a design conflict. It's a matter making a conscious decision.
These couples married one another for reasons OTHER than procreation.
Most same-gender couples want to marry for reasons OTHER than procreation. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that a same-gender couple is incapable of adopting children, if that's something they wish to do.
You keep throwing an opposite-gender couple's ability to procreate into the argument.
But that's disingenuous. And you know it. You only keep using it because it's basically the only thing you've got.
You don't want to throw religion into this argument because you know you'll lose both the argument and the support of some of the others in this forum.
Same-gender couples fall in love, just like opposite-gender couples. They wish to tie their lives together, legally, emotionally, physically, etc.
And that's the crux of the Supreme Court's decision. There is no difference in the eyes of the law. You cannot treat one couple different than another couple simply because the gender composition isn't the same.
Stop using children to defend your obvious hatred and fear of homosexuality.
For whatever reason, you want homosexuality to disappear from the planet. And that's not going to happen.
It's time you stopped trying to live in a make-believe world where gays shouldn't exist. To continue to live in such a world is indicative of delusional thought processes.
Go get some help to deal with your obvious hatred and/or fear of homosexuality. You'll be a happier person and I know those of us who come to this room will be happier as well.
Brushing aside the gay twirl pontification,

I'm not stopping anyone from loving another person, or establishing a contract or rights.

I'm simply and accurately saying the ss couples do not equate to marriage. Either in make-up or result.

Clearly, the ruling by SCOTUS has been unable to adjudicate those differences.

Even the gay hordes in adamant denial have been unable to rectify those distinctions.

Who do I believe, you, or my eyes???
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198940
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Brushing aside the gay twirl pontification,
I'm not stopping anyone from loving another person, or establishing a contract or rights.
I'm simply and accurately saying the ss couples do not equate to marriage. Either in make-up or result.
Clearly, the ruling by SCOTUS has been unable to adjudicate those differences.
Even the gay hordes in adamant denial have been unable to rectify those distinctions.
Who do I believe, you, or my eyes???
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198941
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Interesting, the SCOTUS just told the citizens that they have no right to seek a redress of grievances against their political overlords.

Good work guys..
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198942
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Even worse that a troll is a troll like you who impersonates other posters and their honeys.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198943
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Bowser wrote:
<quoted text>
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I, on the other hand, am keeping all the facts on the table.

In so doing, I am doing the loving and courageous act of confronting denial.

The truth of this is evident by your inability to directly address my points.

It is further evidenced by the fact that a near senile, old jack ass with simple common sense has a bunch of girls in a hissy fit.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198944
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Zoro wrote:
<quoted text>Then stop saying that we are stopping you. Dang son, you are not to bright.
Produce a post where I said you were stopping me young lad.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198945
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Bowser wrote:
By the way Frankie, I didn't see any additional points made about poly. I anxiously await any new discussion points you may have.
Wait in one hand sh!t in the other and see which fills up faster, troll. Let us know. Have fun. No I'm not mad, are you?
Bowser

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198958
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait in one hand sh!t in the other and see which fills up faster, troll. Let us know. Have fun. No I'm not mad, are you?
No, I'm not mad about anything. You seem to be. And still have not added any new "conversation" points. I though you were here to discuss something? It seems you are here for some other reason:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198963
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Brushing aside the gay twirl pontification,
I'm not stopping anyone from loving another person, or establishing a contract or rights.
I'm simply and accurately saying the ss couples do not equate to marriage. Either in make-up or result.
Clearly, the ruling by SCOTUS has been unable to adjudicate those differences.
Even the gay hordes in adamant denial have been unable to rectify those distinctions.
Who do I believe, you, or my eyes???
A little early to be hitting the bottle, don't you think? I mean, that's the ONLY explanation for your comment.

It's just more of your denial/delusions nonsense.

If you hadn't made such an ass of yourself over the years, I'd feel a little sympathy for you. But as it is, you're just a pathetic mess who can't deal the reality of the world you live in.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198966
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I, on the other hand, am keeping all the facts on the table.
In so doing, I am doing the loving and courageous act of confronting denial.
The truth of this is evident by your inability to directly address my points.
It is further evidenced by the fact that a near senile, old jack ass with simple common sense has a bunch of girls in a hissy fit.
Sad... Just so sad...

Dear God, please help the self-described "near senile, old jack ass" with his mental health issues. Thank you... The planet

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198969
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

21

21

19

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote: Perfect example of your responses. When denying the truth doesn't work, then the truth doesn't matter. Like the SCOTUS ruling, your opinion is having the same effect on reality. You have a partnership, you do not have a marriage. Even you admitted two key differences out of many. Oh, parents produce children. Ss couples mutually don't. Ever. And if children have a choice between the two, they choose parents. Smile.
<quoted text>
Where did I say they were a requirement? Why would they need to be required when they are a natural result of mating behavior and the marriage union?
Clearly the idiot is you.
Smirk.
"Mating behavior" or as the rest of us call it "sexual intercourse" does not always result in children. Marriage unions do not always result in children. So, it is not a "natural result" of sexual intercourse; and certainly not a "natural result" of the marriage union.

See how simple that was?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198972
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

20

20

12

Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental difference is love and respect vs hate and contempt
I agree that is the difference between the Christian and the atheist. Maybe that's why Pol Pot killed so many people. Time to take his poster down.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198973
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

20

20

19

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
A little early to be hitting the bottle, don't you think?
No.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 173,101 - 173,120 of200,202
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

17 Users are viewing the Santa Cruz Forum right now

Search the Santa Cruz Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 2 hr Helpful Hank 4,838
Remodeled McDonald's reopens on Santa Cruz West... 2 hr DBS 8
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 2 hr Bruno24 15,910
Prostitute Who Allegedly Finished Wine As Her C... 3 hr DBS 14
cfabsc 7 hr Donny B 545
Santa Cruz to weigh ballot measures on election... 14 hr Zylo 82
Its Lily time!!! 15 hr Jeffry helms 7
•••
•••
•••
Santa Cruz Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Santa Cruz Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Santa Cruz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Santa Cruz News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Santa Cruz
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••