Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,186

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

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#186515 Apr 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought I was just pointing out how idiotic it is to equate an ever only duplicated sterile half to the gender diversity of marriage.
Most people don't know I'm a lesbian trapped in a straight man until I tell them.
Kind of messes up your gay twirl, doesn't it.
Smirk.
Most people know that is a tired old juvenile joke. Funny if you're a teenager, yawn provoking if you're mature.
Kind of messes up your validity, doesn't it?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#186516 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're discussing same sex marriage laws and Jar wrote: "Incest laws come from not wanting children with a third eye or some other defect. Gays and lesbians can't reproduce as a couple so nothing to worry about there." It seems to me, this argues procreation and marriage are related.
Now, we get another story where marriage has nothing to do with procretion.
I'd contend, the reason people support same sex marriage are emotional, not rational.
some do get emotional about it - on both sides of the debate.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186517 Apr 4, 2013
just the facts wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Lucy, go wait in the truck
Maybe your old lady shakes in fear when you order her around like that, but no one else will you dopey jackass!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186518 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
No, in no law in any state is ability or intent to have children any kind of requirement for a marriage license.
I donít know how many times you will need to have this pointed out to you, but I can continue as long as you can.
I don't think he ever said that procreation is a requirement for marriage, only that procreation is closely related to marriage. And of course it is.
Anonymous

Hadley, MA

#186519 Apr 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The vast majority of women who do try it don't.
Hence the difference in screams coming from gay bedrooms and hetero bedrooms...
Smile.
EWE, THAT's gross!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#186520 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Pelosi photo shoot.
http://www.freakingnews.com/Nancy-Pelosi-Pict...
Caution! This may be disturbing!
Yikes! Disturbing and amusing at the same time.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186521 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he ever said that procreation is a requirement for marriage, only that procreation is closely related to marriage. And of course it is.
He is by implication, why is it even being brought up here? If we all agree that ability or intent of procreation is not and has never been any kind of requirement for a couple to be married in the US whatsoever, then it has no place in a discussion about same sex marriage.... period.
Anonymous

Hadley, MA

#186522 Apr 4, 2013
It's very obvious that non of you people work! Stop ranting about non sensible irritance and go get a job you lo$ers!

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186523 Apr 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
VV
As I've pointed out not all who oppose SSM are straight, some are gay, and have publicly stated such.
That's why you will note that in the opening line of my comment I specifically said, "Every single solitary straight..."

The point of my comment is that when a straight person comes out strongly against same-sex marriage, they tend to (at the same time) condemn homosexuality.

It's through their condemnation of homosexuality that they explicitly announce their own orientation and its superiority.

My post was in response to someone who claimed that homosexual people do not need to "come out of the closet". This person also insinuated that straight people do not come out of the closet--do not announce their orientation. And I don't agree...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#186524 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're discussing same sex marriage laws and Jar wrote: "Incest laws come from not wanting children with a third eye or some other defect. Gays and lesbians can't reproduce as a couple so nothing to worry about there." It seems to me, this argues procreation and marriage are related.
Now, we get another story where marriage has nothing to do with procretion.
I'd contend, the reason people support same sex marriage are emotional, not rational.
Has anyone ever said that "marriage has nothing to do with procreation"?

NO!

That would be ridiculous.

All that we have tried to communicate is that procreation IS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage.

Surely you can see the difference between the two statements...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186525 Apr 4, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
He is by implication, why is it even being brought up here? If we all agree that ability or intent of procreation is not and has never been any kind of requirement for a couple to be married in the US whatsoever, then it has no place in a discussion about same sex marriage.... period.
That's because of the rabid rejection of any connection between marriage and procreation by SSM zealots. It's hard to let it go by when someone insists they are not at all related. Most of the government perks for marriage are based on raising children.

I say it is dumb and wrong to deny the connection. Much better to say, yes they are related but irrelevant. And that ssm couples often have children too.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186526 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because of the rabid rejection of any connection between marriage and procreation by SSM zealots. It's hard to let it go by when someone insists they are not at all related. Most of the government perks for marriage are based on raising children.
I say it is dumb and wrong to deny the connection. Much better to say, yes they are related but irrelevant. And that ssm couples often have children too.
t is like saying since most people that are married have brown eyes, brown eyed marriages are directly related to marriage and so we should look down on people that marry that have blue eyes

I donít think there should be any "perks" for having children myself but that is a different subject.

The only connection they need to get out of their heads is that the ability to have, or intent to have children has not now nor ever been a requirement for a couple to marry.

Same Sex marriage does not change that one tiny little bit

I think it is dumb for them to keep bringing up a tactic that has already failed as they have been unable to show that procreation has ever been a requirement for a marriage license.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186527 Apr 4, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone ever said that "marriage has nothing to do with procreation"?
NO!
That would be ridiculous.
All that we have tried to communicate is that procreation IS NOT A REQUIREMENT of marriage.
Surely you can see the difference between the two statements...
I donít think they can, because it is not in their personal interest to distinguish between them, by playing dumb, they get to keep a lame argument that has already failed in court.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#186528 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 discriminates against poly too. Exactly the same as it does against same sex. You know, EQUALLY.
Was polygamy legal before Prop 8? No

Was same sex marriage legal before Prop 8? Yes

You call that equally?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186529 Apr 4, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes! Disturbing and amusing at the same time.
Unfortunately the loonies here in San Francisco love her. My New York relatives give me hell. They swear I vote for her because some (very few) of my political views are in line with hers.

She's part of the 1%. But not. Because rich lefties get an exemption.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186530 Apr 4, 2013
Some more off topic Frankie nonsense-

I think we should rename SFO Emperor Norton International Airport.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#186531 Apr 4, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy legal before Prop 8? No
Was same sex marriage legal before Prop 8? Yes
You call that equally?
So if prop 8 stands and all other laws against polygamy fall, will polygamy be legal Miss Thing?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#186532 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So if prop 8 stands and all other laws against polygamy fall, will polygamy be legal Miss Thing?
If?

You are completely incorrigible.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186533 Apr 4, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Some more off topic Frankie nonsense-
I think we should rename SFO Emperor Norton International Airport.
Nooooo!

Xemu International :D
Big D

Modesto, CA

#186534 Apr 4, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Was polygamy legal before Prop 8? No
Was same sex marriage legal before Prop 8? Yes
You call that equally?
Frankie thinks that Prop 8 was a deceptive ploy not to ban Same Sex marriage, but to make Poly marriage even more illegal than it was before.

That banning same sex marriage was just a side effect of its actual intention.

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.

South Pasadena Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
FBI suspects serial bank robber Gregory Cross i... 2 hr Jason 1
Montebello councilwomana s husband sentenced to... (May '14) 3 hr Wonder Why 46
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Bruin For Life 28,451
Ukiah police and fire log: Wednesday, Dec. 24, ... 5 hr Here Is One 3
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 11 hr Sheboon 19,565
Faking it the green way: Artificial grass looks... (May '09) Dec 17 Fyi 18
Night Stalker case led to changes in courts and... (Jun '13) Nov 25 If You Want Blood 2

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at December 24 at 8:34PM PST

South Pasadena News Video

South Pasadena Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

South Pasadena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

South Pasadena News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in South Pasadena

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:00 pm PST